Facingthe

Enemy
A History of Aarchist Organization
fom Proudhon to May 1968
By Alexandre Skirda
Translated by Paul Sharkey
AK
2002 in this format by A Press.
2002 Translation: Paul Sharkey.
All rights reserved
Facing the Enemy:
A History of Anarchist Organization fom Proudhon to May 1968
ISBN 1 902593 19 7
library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this title is available fom the lbray of Congress.
British lbrary Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A cataogue record for tis title is available fom the Britsh lbray.
Te English taslation of Autonomie individuelle et force collective
(Les anarchistes et L'organiation de Proudhon a nos jour) Paris, 1987 A Skirda.
Published by:
AKPress
PO. Box 12766
Edinburgh, Scotland
EH8 9YE
ww . akuk.com
In Conjunction Wit:
Kte Sharpley lbrary
BM Hurricane
Lndon, England
WC1 3X
ww .katesharpleylibrary.org
Translated by Paul Sharkey
APress
674-A 23rd Street
Oakland, CA
94612
ww .akpress. org
Kate Sharley lbrary
PMB#820
2425 Channing Way
Berkeley, CA
94704
Design and layout work donated by Freddie Baer
Te prduction of this book was made possible in part by a generus donation
fm the Anarchist Archive Project. For more information, please contact:
Anachist Archive Project
P. O. Box 381323
Cambridge, M
02238
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Te Bankruptcy of Socialism and te Stbacks of Anarchism ............ 1
II. From Stirner's Individual to Proudhon's Producers ............................. 5
III. Bakunin: Te Programs of Revolutonary Anarchism .......................... 9
I. Bakuninist Organizaton ...... ................................................................... 15
V Te Alliance, the I and te Clash wt Marx ............................. 23
VI. Te Federalist I: Apogee and Demise .............. ........ .................. 32
VII. Propaganda by Deed and "Anarchy on the Payroll" .......... ................. 42
VIII. Ant-Organizationists and Bombers . . . ............. ...... . ............................... 52
I. From te Free Contract to the "Anarchist Workers'
Party (CG1 " ............................................................................................ 60
X. Te Indivdu
a
lists, the Russian Revolution of 1905 and te
Congress of Amiens (1906) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
XI. Te Internatonal Anarchist Congress in Amsterdam (1907) . . . . . . . . . . . 80
XII. Lbertarians in the CGT and te Illegalists (Bonnot and
Company) in Acton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
XIII. Te Sacred Union and ''e W to End All Ws" ........................... 105
X. Te "Mirage of Sovietism" and Aarchism in Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
X. Te Organizatonal Platorm of the Dyelo Truda Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
XV. Te Contoversy about the Platorm .. . . . .. .. . . . . .... . . . . . . . ......... ... . . . ... . ... . 136
XVII. Te CNT-F A in Spain in 1936-1939 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
XII. Te OPB and the FCL (Libertarian Communist Federation) . . . . . . . . . . 163
X. Lght at te End of te Tunnel: May 1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
X. Matching Ends and Means ..... ..... ... . . ...... . ... .... .... ... . . . .............. . ... ... .... .. 183
Texts ad Documents ........................................................................................ 186
Introduction .................................................................................... 186
Document No. 1: The Problem of Organization and the Notion
of Synthesis .............. ...................... ......................... ......................... 188
Document No.2: The Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad
The Organizational Platform of the Generl Union of Anarchists
(Draf), june 20, 1926 ................................................................... 192
Document No.3: Supplement to the Organizational Platform
(Questions and Answers), November 2, 1926 ............................... 215
Document No.4: The Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad
Reply to Anarchism's Confusionists, Paris, August 1927 .............. 225
Document No.5: Piotr Arshinov - The Old and the New in
Anarchism (Reply to Comrade Malatesta) .................................... 238
Document No.6: The "Nabat" Organization in the Ukraine,
1919-1920 ...................................................................................... 245
Document No.7: Maria Isidine - Organization and Party ........ 248
Document No.8: Piotr Arshinov -Elements Old and New
in Anarchism (A Reply to Maria Isidine) ..................................... 257
Document No.9: Georges Fontenis on the OPE ............................ 261
Document No. 10: The GrouPe Kronstadt. Paris
Draf Libertarian Communist Organizational Principles ............ 268
Document No. 11: Revolutionary Anarchist Organization (OR) ... 272
Lst of Bibliographic Names ............................................................................. 281
''To lay te foundations for the libert of individuals by organizing
the initiative of te masses."
-P J. Proudhon, Confessions of a Revolutionary, 1849
"I have this staunch belief that the tme for teoretical discourse, in
print or trough te spoken word, has passed. Over the past nine
years, wtin the International more ideas than were needed to res
cue te word were devsed, if ideas were all that were needed to
save it, and 1 chalenge anyone to come up with a new one.
Te tme for ideas is past, it is now time for deeds and action.
What counts above all else today is te organizaton of the forces of
te proletariat. But such organization must be the doing of te prole
tariat itself."
-Mikhail Baunin, Letter to the Comrades of the Jura Federation,
1873
"at we have to get into our noggin is that we can expect no sup
port. Only our biceps can set us fee."
-Emile Pouget, Le Pere Peinard, October 1894
"Anarchism is not some beautil dream, some philosophical abstac
ton, but a social movement of te toiling masses. For that very rea
son, it has to garner its forces into one broad organization constanty
actng as realit and te strategy of the social class struggle require."
-Te Organizational Platorm of the Group
of Russian Anarchists Abroad, 1926
"It wl be readily appreciated that I canot remain indifferent to the
nonchalance and negligence currently obtining in our circles. On te
one hand, it prevents te creation of a coherent libertarian collective
that would enable aachists to te their proper place in te revolu
tion, and on te oter, it permits a maing-do wt fne phrases and
grand notions, while shying away when action is called for .... Respon
sibilit ad collectve discipline should not cause alarm: they are the
fellow tavelers of te practice of social anachism."
-Nestor Makhno, On Revolutionary Discipline, 1926
"A revolutonary organization is frst and foremost a means of ef
fectve action by the proletariat in its process of liberation, and
cannot ever represent an end in itself. It is a catalyst radicalizing
the struggles waged, a living laboratory of experiences and analy
ses, a forum for comparisons, information, liaison and coordina
tion. Its essential role is to echo, centralize and make exemplary
al te militant work achieved by its members."
-Te Groupe Kronstadt, Paris, 1971
I. THE BANKRUPTCY OF SOCIALISM AND
THE SETBACKS OF ANARCHISM
Te age of modern revolutions was ushered in by te French Revolution.
It cast a long shadow over the whole nineteent centry. Tus, oter Bastles
were stormed and, gradually, by dint of master-stokes and insurrections, cul
minating in the extraordinary effervescence of 1848 and the rising of the Paris
Commune in 1871, the revolutonary vision took shape. Since then, its support
ers have been ceaselessly preoccupied with te prospects of its reaation.
Now, lots of diffculties have come to light over te attempts and te experi
ments conducted on its behalf. Tese reside equaly in devising as precise a
defnition as possible of its objectives and in the ploting of a strategy to bring
tese about.
Tus, while tis century is draing to its conclusion and ought, according
to the predictions of some of these socialist "prophets," to have witnessed the
attainment of the "emancipaton of humankind," we are in a position to state,
without fear of contradiction, alas, that the promises tat this century inspired
at its beginning have not been honored. In partcular, it is becoming more and
more apparent that the extraordinary technological ad scientc development
that has marked our tmes has brought only biter disappointents or tagic
disillusionment to tose who staked their hopes for liberation upon such ad
vances. In the face of the obstnac of facts, History has marked tme and gone
into a spin only to skid in every directon. Wenever its mask has fallen away, it
has been noticeable tat the grand preludes to revolution have been followed
by pale, ordinary dawns.
In view of such dawns, f fom radiant and choral, are we to conclude tat
te very noton of socia revolution has become obsolete? Absolutely not. Speak
ing for ourselves, we are convnced that it remains, instead, te sole prospect
for a genuinely humane societ. And tis regardless of te nitickers, obscu
rantsts and brainwashers of every tpe: in spite of fashions and fads, the so
cialist disguises and Marxist-Lninist crimes; despite te renegades fom their
class, te indifferent and te apolitcal know-notings who imagine that tey
can escape unscathed by holding aloof fom social warfare.
But how are we to explain away the deviaton and repeated setbacks suf
fered by te revolutonary ideal, its fl into disgrace and the "globally nega
tive" verdict passed against it by a large segment of the earth's populaton? Te
I . T H E B A NKR UPT C Y O F S O C I A L I S M
correct answer to that would require a protracted and minute scrutiny of a
whole series of factors and disparate infuences. We hope ultimately to conduct
such an inquiry, but for now, we shall make do with offering a few, very con
densed comments.
First of all, there was a certain confsion surrounding the very notion of
revoluton. Socialist ideologues took it as synonymous sometimes with the "right
to work" (1848), sometimes wth the worker's right to the fll product of his
labor, then with mere rational organization of a society of producers, or even,
frst and foremost, prior conquest of the power of te state. Te object being to
set the tiller of society for a course suited to the interests of the "most numerous
and largest" class -the proletariat -but in fact entusting it to the care of tose
charged with representing its "historic calling." Tis trend fostered the emer
gence of a new "socialist" class: the Capitlists of Expertise or brain-workers.
Whenever one looks at the result of this deep-seated infatuation wit in
dustrial growh, one fnds that it has brought the workers on the ground only
crumbs, rendering their lot, certainly, more bearable than before, but every
whit as precarious, as we today can readily appreciate. Tis aspiration to mere
"administration of things" by good "governance of men" has been dependent
in the minds of socialists and their acolytes upon a "catastrophist" analysis of
the evolutionary trend of the capitalist system. Te latter being destined, by
their reckoning, for an early grave, as the victim of its countless contradictions,
all that was needed was patience and that became the cardinal virte of "scien
tc" socialism. It ought to be stated and stressed that this creed was shared, in
a different form, by anarchists and honest revolutionaries, as wel as by a goodly
number of proletarians. Hence, by contast, their impatience and teir some
what naive belief in a spontneous revoluton and immediate transtormation of
social relatonships. Tey were encouraged in this course by tose who de
clined to "legislate for the ftre." Tat was an astute and proftable ploy for
disguising the abition of a new nding class ad for dodging the issue of the
real balance of forces existing between the revolutionaries and their designated
or potential enemies. Tis sapping of vigilance led many proletarians to hurl
themselves, ofen recklessly, into insurrectonist ventures. And tis witout
their being suffciently conversant with or critical of the orientation of teir
efforts or the recuperation of the gains achieved through their stuggles by
the new enemies witin, who had been unduly underestmated up to tat point.
Tis could be seen at the time of the great workers' bloodletting in June 1848,
the Paris Commune, Russia and the Ukraine in 1917-1921 and latterly in Spain
in 1936-1939.
We should also note that a concentration upon economic conditions, these
being regarded ultmately as the keystone of any overhauling of societ, has
gone hand in glove with ascendancy of the gregarious element over the indi
vidual, thereby banishing a more comprehensive, subversive appreciation of
the relations of domination. Aarchism alone has been the exception to this,
since it has instead taen te circumstances of the individua as its revolutionary
2 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
project's point of departure and arrival. According to the anarchist viewpoint,
te individual is more than just a producer and a consumer: he is aso a human
being endowed wit a critcal awareness ad aspiring to socia hamony trough
the intrplay of individual autonomies.
Te lack of precision in the ideologies of te nineteenth century has been
mirrored in the "dance of labels": trn and turn about, each facton has stled
itself "Collectivist," "Revolutonary-Socialist," "Communist" and "Social Demo
craic" until the process of decanting has lef us wth te exponents of a suppos
edly "scientc" state socialism and the federalist autonomists, who went on to
become te anarchists or libertarian communists. Tus, the former were long
convinced tat capitalism's collapse was inevitable given the simple ripening of
objective conditions, and that this merely needed speeding up a litte by taing
contol of the state machinery. It is as plain as day tat the system has proved
itself livelier tan anticipated and that it has even managed to recuperate all
tis feigned contestaton in an intelligent manner. As for the conquest of state
power, it has merely led socialists of every hue to perpetual denials, by dint of
huge concessions, compromises and quite simply shamefl compacts with the
virtual enemy - the capitalist bourgeoisie -while purporting, say, to run
capitalism better than the capitalists! All to the detment of teir ultimate aims,
which are endlessly postoned to a more distant and indefnite fture date.
In the view of one segment of these state socialists, as the system has
refsed to perish, it has become a matter of urgent necessity that the subjec
tive conditions of the proletarian "Prometeus" be taken in hand and his en
deavors overseen. So it was that te Blanquist concept of the revolutionary
minorit, overhauled and done up in "sauce tartare" by Lnin, spawned an or
ganizaton of a new type: the Bolshevik party. Regarding itself as the sole re
pository of te historical interests of the industrial proletariat, and therefore
awarding itself te rght to act on its behalf and in its place, this part imposed
itself si odd years ago, exercising a preferental option over the whole word
revolutionary movement. Wit te disastous results of its hegemony we are
all familiar: everywhere that it succeeded, it has, far fom eradicating economic
and social inequality, merely added to and entrenched it. Weak and aging auto
crats have been supplanted by ruthless and all-powerful partycrats. In short,
the class stuggle which started life with an eye to liberaton, has, among the
state socialists, reformists and totalitarians alike, turned into a commonplace
"competition for offce." A pleasing but very telling formula.
As regards te second factor in our alternative -the subject of tis book
-which is to say the anarchists or libertarian comunists, they have always
called for the direct assumpton by te exploited of control of their fates, quite
independenty of any party or state ttelage. Aong wth te abolition of private
and state capitalism alike, as well as elimination of all forms of political domina
ton, so tat tese may be replaced by an economic and social arrangement
wherein te production of consumer goods and human relatonships would be
directy related to the real needs and wshes of men ad women, banded togeter
I .T H E B A NKRUPT C Y O F S O C I AL I S M 3
into feely federated autonomous communes. For a long tme tis ideal has
been dismissed as utopian, but it was implemented on a tial basis - and in
spite of extemely diffcult circumstances - during two revolutionary experi
ments, one in te eastern Uaine in 1917-1921, and the oter in libertarian
Spain in 1936-1939. Tis demonstated that te utopians were not te ones so
considered, but rater te ones who reckoned tat everyhing could go on as
before, with the system of exploitation undergoing a lite tnkering here and
tere: which boils dow in fct to keeping it alive and endlessly fending off its
inevitable collapse.
Yet, altough anarchism emerged as the radical factor of a genuinely revo
lutonary vision and tough its critical contentions have been borne out repeat
edly by historical tends and tus retain their incontestable actualit, the meth
ods advocated and the organizatonal practice espoused have sometmes led to
misunderstandings or even to impasses. Coherence and cohesion have fe
quenty been lackng. And that is te nub of the problem. Torn beteen stri
dent individual autonomy and a sometimes lumberng collective approach, lib
ertarians have regularly failed to leave a defnitve liberating imprint upon events
and upon te movement of history. Can this shortcoming be atributed to an
unfavorable setng, to inescapable objectve laws, to human natre, or is it to
be put down to a congenital handicap, some "sof underbelly" in the doctrine
and to a defcienc tat is susceptble to remedy? We might launch into a lengthy
dissertation upon each side of the argument, but anarchist ideas are rooted
chiefy in te wlto be and to do in each and every one of us. Tus, it seems to
us to be a matter of priority tat we should seek out te subjective explanations
for tis defect by means of an exploration of anarchist thinking, as demon
stated over the past century or more, marrying this closely to te sundry
social and practical organizational experiences which it may have spawned. It
wll be no part of our intention to offer a complete inventory of anarchist ideas,
but rather to focus upon some of te clearest expressions of these, most closely
associated with the revolutonary project. We shall of course be sfting these
in the social and historical contexts fom which they could not be isolated in
any case, and our emphasis shall be upon te stumbling blocks and obstacles
that they have encountered. In the light of that thoroughgoing investigation,
we wlthen attempt to update the facts of the matter.
4 FACING THE ENEMY
II. FROM STIRNER'S INDIVIDUAL TO
PROUDHON'S PRODUCERS
Anarchist ideas surfaced during te 1840s, by way of a backlash against te
socialist and communist professions of faith that had recently come into vogue.
Let us note te paradox: the latter were conceived in opposition to "bourgeois"
individualism, and tey sought the good of the "greatest number. " In turn, anar
chism made a stand against te societal pretension to overrule the individual and
called for him to be feed fom te constaints of te mass-state. In te estma
tions of Strner and Proudhon who best expressed that backlash at the tme, the
indivdual is a fesh and blood being, the basic unit of societ, a nonpareil, having
noting in common wth the abstract "complete" man of historic
a
l or rligious
evolution whom the advocates of communitarian or statst gregariousness, to wit,
te Saint-Simonians, Fourierists, Cabetians and oter ideologues of sociabilit
had sought to impose. Especially as, in the vision of the latter, certain individuals
had been destned to play a special, elite role, as "prophets" in short, and, as
such, had a defnite tendency to claim certain merit for themselves and a destiny
that, in te long run, turned tem into a caste or ruling class. Pending te advent
of the paradisiacal promised land of te communist societ, you understand.
Stirner adopted a quite different tack: as far as he was concerned, the indi
vdual was the "unique one, " the "egoist" operating in accordance wit self
interest, without thereby trespassing aganst the interests of others or ruling
out a form of feely embraced association, but refsing state supervision in
any guise. Such association was a contract entered into with other autonomous
individuals, on a basis of absolute reciprocity and for a specifed duraton, be
ing terefore subject to cancellation at any tme:
I I can make use [of some oter being] I come to an arrangement
with him and I join with him, so as to bolster my power by means of
such arrangement, and accomplish more, thanks to our conjoined
strength, I see absolutely nothing in that other than a multplicaton of
my capability and I let it endure only as long as it represents a multpli
cation of my capabilit But, tus understood, that is associaton. l
Strner's indivdual is no longer a "labor force" subject to the will of the
collectvit: he "makes use of associaton and abandons it witout a care for
dut or loyalty, once he reckons that there is no longer any advantage to be
I I . F R O M S T I R N E R' S I NDI V I DUAL 5
derived fom it." Tere is no implication there of sacrifce, for he gives his con
sent solely where he stands to beneft, out of selfinterest. As far as sacrifce is
concerned, he "sacrifices only that which is not within his power, which is to
say he sacrifces nothing at all."
We should point out that Stirner drew a distinction between revolution and
revolt. Whereas the former:
. . . comprises an overturning of conditions, of an existing state of afirs
(status quo) regarding the State or societ, it is in consequence a po
litical or social act. To be sure, the second has as its inescapable conse
quence a transformation of conditions, but it does not spring fom that.
Finding its origin in men's dissatisfacton with themselves, it is no stap
ping-on of shields, but rather a revolt of individuas, an uprising heed-
less of the institutions which might arise out of it. Te revolution has
as its object new institutions, but revolt induces us to no longer counte
nance being organized, but to look instead to self-organization and in
vest no glowing hopes in "institutions." It is a fght against te estab
lished order, then, since, in the event of success, this collapses un
aided, so it is merely the diffcult extraction of te self fom tat order.
Whereas, in te view of Stirner, the labor force of the individual ought to
fee itself fom the tutelage of society, Proudhon espoused the line that the
individual is, above all, the producer who is dispossessed of his product by the
bourgeoisie, the ruling class. Proudhon believes in the validit of the associa
tion and federation of men, who, afer having built up with one another their
producers' and consumers' groupings, in accordance with their needs and
wishes, represent a collective stength inimical to te state and the proprietors.
Once these latter have been stripped of thfir prvileges, their power ,l bc
exhausted ad the exploitation of man will give way to a society cleansed of all
government: Aarchy.
Aain, Proudhon's line was that each individual is "unique" in his way: he
is pussessed of a basic capability: his will -his fee choice -which creates
the aspiration to dignity and independence and represents the indipensable
condition for his feedom:
It should not be thought, as the contemporary communists or social
ists do, that man has v
a
lue only thanks to societ, that he is te prod
uct thereof, that it confers a fnction, a specialization upon him, that
he is indebted to it for everyting and that it owes him noting. Tat
arrangement leads on to the demise ofthe peronality, to Oriental or
Caesarst absolutism. It enslaves the indivdual, so that te mass may
be fee. Tat is tyranny, not association. No example exists of a com
munit which, haing been founded in enthusiasm, has not ended in
imbecility. 2
Tese extemely lucid words have since assumed a lot of import and they
breathe new life into the interest one might bring to a man who could still write
6 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
that "man does not wish to be organized, mechanized: his inclination is for
disorganization, for restoration of the element of chance."3
Tis approach is underpinned by his ethical intent: the "dignit" and integ
rity of each individual, in the name of a justice defned as "spontaneously gen
erated and reciprocally guaranteed respect for human dignit, regardless of
the person or the circumstance involved and of whatever the risk to which its
defense exposes US."4 Such an appreciation establishes between men a bond of
connection and solidart tat lays te foundation for real faternit among them,
assured by mutual consideration for teir autonomy as individuas.
In a broader context, it is no longer a mater of social harmony between all
existng classes, nor of association between capital and labor, but, instead, of
irreconcilable opposition between them, of the imperishable contest beteen
them. Here, Proudhon fmds himself in the company of Marx, upon whom he
undoubtedly exercised an infuence: the afrmation of an absolute stuggle
between classes, the importance of labor, the development of the forces of pro
duction and relatons of production, the role of science, the ideo-realist prn
ciple (which may be taken as equivalent to te materialist conception of his
tory in Marx). In addition, they subscribed in common to a deep-seated ate
ism (although in the one the part of providence was taken by the quest for
justice, and, in the other, by the direction of history). Despite these analyical
coincidences, they were nonetelss divided by a tremendous disagreement:
te fnality of the class struggle. Marx regarded tis as merely an historcal
permutation whereby the proletariat supplants a bourgeoisie that has begun to
falter or defaulted upon its progressive vocation: in spite of all of which, its
gains retain their validit. Proudhon's view was that it spelled a profound and
irremediable breach: the bourgeoisie's role has come to an end and it is at its
expense that the proletariat must advance, by moving outside of the
bourgeoisie's terrain and being carefl not to prop it up by gettng involved in
its shams of democracy. Here we have the incepton of the notion of abstention
fom politics and the idea of all-out struggle on te economic terrain: hence the
necessity of the working class being organized beyond the dominant infuence
and of its autonomous development receiving every encouragement. A precept
that led frst to anarchist theory and later to revolutionary syndicalism. Te
Proudhonian formula, "the workshop must supplant government," encapsu
lates this outlook. It is also to be noted tat whereas in the view of Marx the
proletariat was represented exclusively by the workers in large industry,
Proudhon extended the defnition to include te workers in small undertak
ings, the poor peasantry and virtually small crafsmen wit no employees.
Shortly before his death, Proudhon was to review his creed: "All my eco
nomic ideas, elaborated over a period of twent-fve years, can be summed up in
tese three words: agricultural-industral federation; all of my political views can
be stripped down to a similar formula: political federtion or decentrlization."5
In order to encompass that goal, he advocated "te initiative of te masses,
through a concert of citizenry, through the experence of the workers, through
I I . F R O M S T I RNE R'S I ND I V I D U A L 7
te onward march and diffusion of enlightenment, revolution through feedom."
By means of a sequence of revolutionary acts, one will arive at "the abolition of
al powers, spirital, temporal, legislatve, executve, judicial and proprietorial."6
Te collective strength that he calls for is like the double of the "multiplied
strengt" of Stirner's Egos, albeit conceived in more enduring terms and tempo
rally and spatially more systematic. Tis is why we fnd him deploring the failure
in 1848 of te Clubs (popular societes par excellence just like the sections of
1793, likewse pre-fguring te Russian sovets) to play a more signifcant role,
and that it occurred to no one to develop and strengthen tem.
Tereabouts or just aer, several 1848ers put their signatures to the birth
certicate of anarchy. We might mention the Manieste de l'anarchie (Mani
festo of Anarchy) of Aselme Bellegarrigue, the very frst anarchist periodical,
published in 1850, wherein the writer targets voluntary servitude, very much
in te tradition of Etenne de la Boetie: "Up to this very day, you thought that
tere were such things as tyrants! Well, you were mistaken; tere are only
slaves: where none obeys, none commands."7
As for Joseph Dejacque, he vehementy and poetically abused hierarchy and
its muse, authority: "You toothless hag, tight-fsted shrew, snake-wreathed
Medusa, Autorit! Get thee behind me, and make way for feedom! ... Make
way for the people in direct possession of teir sovereignt, for the organized
commune."8 As a emigrant to te United Sttes, Dejacque was to launch a French
language newspaper in New Orleans called L Libertaire, forerunner of the jour
na of the same name set up in 1895 by Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel.
Te better to appreciate the import and interest of these libertarian be
liefs, let us recall the circumstances of the time: France was suffering under
the reacton led by Louis Napoleon; slavery for blacks was still the rule in te
United States: te serfdom of thf Rl1<:"ian "white negroes" would persist unt
1861 in the empire of te tsar; industrial mechanization was proceeding by
leaps and bounds, as was the penal servitude in the factory; in te arts, the
blandest academicism ruled the roost and among the most "advanced' social
teachings, the church part and state socialism predominated. In short, the
outook was more than bleak.
Endnotes to Chapter Two.
1. Ma Strner, L'unique et sa propriete, Oeuvres Completes, Lusanne, Ed. LAe d' Homme,
1972, pp. 347 et seq.
2. P ]. Proudhon, De fa justice dans la revolution et I'Eglise (Paris, 1858) Tome 1, p. 117.
3. Ibid., Tome I, p. 228.
4. Ibid., Tome I, p. 225.
5. P ]. Proudhon, Du principe federati Pars, 1957, Riviere, p. 361.
6. P J. Proudhon Confessions d'un revolutionnaire pour servir a l'histoire de la revolution de
/evrier (paris, 1852) p. 35 and 37.
7. A Bellegarrigue, L'narchie, journal de l'ordre (paris, No.!, Apri1 1850) p. 6.
8.]. Dejacque, A bas les chef! (Paris: Champ Libre, 1971) (La question revolutionnaire) p. 47.
8 FACING THE ENEMY
III. BAKUNIN: THE PROGRAMS OF
REVOLUTIONARY ANARCHISM
It was at tis point that te man dubbed "te demon of revolt" burst upon
te revolutonary scene in Europe, a man who was profoundly to tax the minds
of his day: Mikhail Bakunin. A veteran of the barrcades in 1848, sentenced to
death, then reprieved thrice over, imprsoned for eight years, he managed in
1861 to escape fom his exile in Siberia. Far fom being broken by his lengy
period in detenton, he threw himself recklessly into the revolutonary fay.
Aer an unsuccessfl atempt at a landing in Poland with an eye to brnging
assistance to local insurgents, he visited London in 1864. Tere he met Max,
at the latter's request, and Marx suggested to him that he join the nascent
Internatonal. Te encounter was a fendly one: Max excused himself fom
the charge tat he had peddled slanders about his interlocutor. In addition, he
wrote to Engels a short while aer tat the Russian fgitive "pleased [him]
greaty, I found him improved on his former self ... in short, he is one of those
rare men whom I have met aer 16 years who has moved forward and not gone
backards."l Tere was no hint of the formidable quarrel tat would soon see
them pited one against te other.
Bakunin did not join te Internatonal right away, for he was preoccupied
wt te prospects of more immediate acton ad stll believed in the formula of
secret organization, which had been a widespread opton for decades. It goes
witout saing here that in tose days tere was no country in which it was
possible openly to profess revolutonary opinions. So he taveled to I which
he reckoned might be fertile ground for his schemes, and devoted all of his
energies to organizing national and internatonal networks. To this end, he
drew up several progras and charters for secret societes: i severa languages
and sometimes wit variations. All of tese writngs were of course in manu
script form and for a long time tey were to remain scattered among Bakunin's
correspondents and fiends. It is only recenty that most of tese have been
made accessible to the public. Tey cover the yeas between 1864 and 1872
and have tus far been little used by biographers of Bakunin. As a result, his
organizatonal actiites have remained litle know. For that reason we shall
be dwelling a litte upon them.
Te earliest program, dating fom 1864, te so-called Florence program, is
a program for the "International Revolutionary Brotherhood" or "Alliance."
I I I . B AKUN I N
9
According to his biographer, H. E. Kminsky, this text of Bakunin's is, for anar
chism, te "companion piece" to Marx's Te Communist Maniesto.2 Indeed,
t up and radicag Poudhon's anayses and positons, Bakunin laid dow
the basic principles of revolutionary anarchism. Tis tex has been underrated
for te good reason that it remained for a long time in manuscript, until Ma
Nettau reprinted it in copygraph form in his monumental study and some bi
ographers bega to take note of it. Given the import of tis foundation charter,
we reckon we might be well-advised to quote lengy extracts fom it.
Finding fault wt te religiosit of Mazzini and oter socia clericalists,
Bakunin asserts tat te frst dut of the revolutonary is to be ateistc and to
demand on beha of te world and of man "all tat religions have located in te
heavens and attbuted to teir deities." Followng which, moralit, stpped of
"all teology and aldivine metaphysics" has no source oter tan the "collec
tve conscience of men." Inimical to te "principle of autorit" and all its appli
catons and implicatons, "both in te realm of te intellect and moralit, and in
te realm of politcs, economics and societ," te revolutonary anarchist ac
knowledges tat justce is embodied in "realizaton of te fllest feedom and
most perfect equalit in law and in fact."
In one passage of remarkable tansparency, he defnes the anarchist con-
ception of social and political organization:
10
He [te revolutonary] should be federalist like us, bot wtin his coun
ty and witout. He should understand tat the advent of libert is in
compatble wt the existence of states. Consequenty, he should desire
te destucton of all states and at te same tme tat of al religious,
politcal and social istttons: such as forma churches, stdin armies,
centalized autortes, governments, unitary parliaments, state univer
sites ad baks, as well as arstocratc and bourgeois monopolies. So
tat upon the ruins of tem altere may be erected the fee societ of
men, which wll no longer be organied, as is presenty the case, fom
the top dow ad fom center to circumference, aong lines of enorced
unit and concentaton, but rater upon a basis of te fee indivdua,
fee associaton and te autonomous commune, fom te gound up and
fom circumerence to center, aon lines of fee federaton.
In teory as well as in practice, and in te fllness of its conse
quences, he must embrace tis principle: every indivdual, every as
sociaton, every commune, every province, every region and every
nation enjoys an absolute rht of self-determination, of association or
non-associaton, of allying itself wt whomsoever it may choose and
of breaking off its alliances witout a regard for so-caled historical
rghts, or the convenience of its neighbors; and let him be frm in his
convicton tat only when tey are formed by te omnipotence of teir
inherent attactions ad needs, natural and consecrated by feedom,
will new federations of communes, provinces, regions and natons
become tuly stong, fecund and indissoluble. 3
F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
Lt us look at anoter passage where te rights of nationhood are ana-
lyzed in te most up-to-the-minute fashion:
Tus [the would-be member of te Aliance) must reduce te socaled
natonalit principle, an ambiguous principle, replete wit hypocrisy
and snares, the principle of the historic, ambitous state, to te much
greater, simpler and sole legitmate principle of liberty: each individua
or collectve body, being fee or deserving feedom, and no one has
te right to impose his dress, his customs, his language, his opinions
and his laws upon him; each should be absolutely fee in his home.
It goes wout saying tat tis natonal feedom does not lead to a "parish
paiotsm": quite the opposite:
All such narrow, ridiculous, feedom-killing and consequenty crimi
na notons of greatness, ambition and national glory, good only for
te monarchy and the oligarchy, are today equally good for te big
bourgeoisie, because they serve teir purpose in deceiving te peoples
and exciting them one against te other, the beter to enslave tem.
And another crucial point:
As labor is te sole producer of societ's wealth, ayone who enjoys it
witout working is an exploiter of another man's labor, a tief, and as
labor is the fndamental basis of human dignity, the only means
whereby man tuly wins and creates his feedom, all politcal and so
cial rghts should henceforth belong to workers only.
Tere we fnd te guideline fom which revolutionary syndicalism was to
spring.
Similarly, with regard to the peasant problem:
Te land, natre's fee gif to every man, cannot be and must not be
the property of any man. But its fuits, as the products of labor, should
go only to those who tl it wit teir ow hands.
Lt us underine te break with Proudhon's pariarchal and fmilial out-
look: woman and child are deemed individuals equal to man in every particular:
Woman, different fom man, but not his inferior, intellgent, had-work
ing and fee as he is, must be declared his equal in all political and
social rights: in the fee societ, religious ad civl marriage should be
replaced by fee marriage and the upkeep, educaton and instucton
of all children should be borne equally by everybody, at societ's ex
pense, witout te later's having need, in protectng them against bot
stupidit and negligence, or the ill-wll of the parents, to tae them
away fom these, children belonging neither to societ, nor to teir
parents, but to their fture feedom.
I I I . B AKUN I N I I
On te subject of feedom, let us take note of this passage where Bakunin
offers tis very splendid defniton of it:
It is untue tat a man's feedom is curtailed by that of all other men.
Man is not tuly fee except when his feedom, feely ackowledged
and refected, as i by a looking-glass, by the fee conscience of al oter
men, discovers in teir feedom conrmation of its infnite extension.
Man is tuly fee only in te midst of oter equally fee men: and as he is
fee only insofa as he is human, the enslavement of just one man on
earth, being an offense against the very principle of humanit, is a nega
ton of the feedom of all.
Tus, te feedom of the individual is attainable only in a context
of equalit of all. Te attainment of feedom in equality in law and in
fact is justce.
Apropos of the realization of the social revolution, one might think that te
Paris Commune of 1871 had been inspired by the plan drawn up by Bakunin:
Even as it takes root everywhere, the revoluton wl of necessit as
sume a federalist character. Immediately following te overthrow of
the established government, communes will have to reorganize them
selves along revolutionary lines, equipping themselves with leaders,
an administation and courts tat are revolutionary, built upon univer
sa suf age and upon te rea accountabilit of all offcials to the people.
In order to defend te revolution, teir volunteers will at te same
time serve as a communal militia.
However, no commune was to be lef isolated, else it would persh and so it
stood in "need of spreading the revolution beyond. of ri,ing rebelon in all
neighboring communes and, as tese rise up, of federating with them for the
sake of their common defense." Te delegates or deputes sent out by each
commune to "an agreed meeting point" were to be "invested with imperative
madates, accountablt and liable to recaii.;; "Revolutionary propagandists" and
not "offcial revolutionary commissars with sashes of any sort" were to be dis
patched to the provinces and to al insurgent communes and associations.
Lt us underline tat nearly althese standpoints and all te principles set
out were not te personal inventons of Bakunin: for te most part, tey had
been subterranean devices since 1830. On te oter hand, the expression given
to them and the synthesizing of tem all were quite new and this was no coinci
dence: Bakunin had read widely among Saint-Simonian, Fourierist and
Proudhonian writings. Furthermore, he had been "enlightened" by his per
sonal experiences of 1848. So i was under the inspiration of theoretcal mat
ration and the fuits of social experimentaton tat he draed te program.
Bakunin drafed another version of this program for some Swedish fiends:
it was fom Sweden, in fact, tat he had mounted his expedition to bring rein
forcements to Poland, at the tme of the 1863 rising and he was concerned to
12 FACING THE ENEMY
retain logistical support for frther actons regarding Russia. A explanaton is
required of the secret form of organization advocated: given the circumstances
of the day, that was the only practical chance for tose who sought to change
the word. In addition, Bakunin had been infuenced by a brief and disappoint
ing firtaton wit Freemasonry, and above alby te conspiratoral usages of
the former Mazzinian Italians who had defected to him. Deep down, he be
lieved only in mass acton and retained his June 1848 views on that subject:
however, by his reckoning, it was vital that there should be some secret organi
zation in existence to serve as a sort of . . . general stf' in the revoluton. A
anonymous and secret general staff tat would take great care not to supplant
the people in its struggle for emancipation. In tis, it was very clea
r
ly differen
tated fom the Blanquist te of secret society, "which was governed quite
differenty and organized in a quite despotc fshion, worty of te imperious
mind of Louis [BlanquiJ. " Te intent of the Bakuninist project was ute
r
ly dif
ferent: it was not a matter of establishing the dictatorship of one ma or of a
group of conspirators, nor of one place or town over the rest: absolute, and so
to speak, dictatorial centalizaton was out of the question:
I wat te order and c
a
lm in afairs to be te result, not of a single wll,
but of the collective wish of lots of associates scattered trough each
country and every country. Tis is to be replaced wit the covert but
powerfl acton of all concerned te lead of a single center . . . . -But
for this decentralization to become possible a real organization is
needed, and tere is no organization witout a degree of regulaton -
which is, in te end, noting but te outcome of a compact or mutal
undert
a
king. 4
I n additon, te approach was also a stark contast: te ultimate aims of
Baunin's Brotherhood were openly declared, and the shroud of secrecy ex
tended only to the means. Whereas everything was a secret among the
Blanquists: ultimate aims, metods and interna structures alike, all were in
te ken of just one man -te revolutonary dictaor -an idea inherited di
recty fom the J acobins and fom Babeuf.
In a later program for te secret revolutonary organization, the "Interna
tional Broterhood" (1868) , Baunin rounded even more volenty on te J acobin
or Blanquist conception of revolution. It was a critique of which we can, wit
hindsight, note the still telling accurac:
We should not be surprised if te J acobins ad the Blanquists who
have become socialists more through necessit than trough convic
tion, and for whom socialism is a means and not the end of the Revolu
ton, since tey desire dictatorship, which is to say, centalizaton of
the state and since the state will lead them by inevitable, logica neces
sity to a reconstittion of propert, it is only natral, we say. that, not
wishing to make a radical revolution against things, they dream of
bloody revolution against men. But such a bloody revolution rooted in
III. BAKUNIN 1 3
constuction of a mightily centralized revolutionary state would have
as its inevtable outcome, as we will prove anon, the militry dictator
ship of a new master. So victory for the Jacobins or Blanquists would
be the death of the Revolution.
We are the natural enemies of these revolutionaries, tese f
ture dictators, regulators and tutors of the Revolution, who, even be
fore the present monarchist, aristocratic and bourgeois states have
been destroyed, are already dreaming of the creation of new, revolu
tionary sttes every bit as centralistic as and more despotic than the
states in existence today, and are so habituated to the order created
by some authority fom the top down, and have such a tremendous
horror of what stikes them as disorders and which are nothing more
tan fank, natural expression of popular life, that even before a good,
salutary disorder is produced by revoluton, they are already dream
ing of te termination and muzzling of it through the action of some
autorty tat will have noting revolutonay about it except te name,
but which will in effect be nothing more than a new reaction in that it
will be in fact a frther sentencing of the masses of the people gov
erned by decrees, to obedience, to immobility, to death, that is, to en
slavement and exploitation by a new, quasi-revolutionary aristocracy. s
Endnotes to Chapter Tree
1. Quoted by Jean longuet (Marx's grandson) in L politique internationale du Marxisme
(Paris 1918) p. 130.
2. H. E. Kaminsk, Bakounine, la vie d'un revolutionnaire (paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1938),
p.213.
3. Pogram reprinted by Daniel Guerin in his antholog Ni Dieu, Ni Maitre (Paris: Maspero,
Tome!), pp. 167-223.
4. M. Bakounine, De la juerre a la Commune (ars: Athropos, 1972). Leter of December 4,
1868 to A. Rchard, pp. 435436.
5. Guerin, ed. Ni Dieu, Ni Maitre p. 219.
14 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
IV. BAKUNINIST ORGANIZATION
Bakuninist organizaton was designed only to embrace around a hundred
international bretren, plus a variable number of natonal bretren in each of
te counties of Europe, at most two or three hundred for the largest one. Tese
were profled as "committed, energetic, intelligent individuals and above all
sincere fiends of the people, and not ambitious or vain types, persons capable
of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and popular in
stincts. "
Moved by an ethical zeal, these revolutionaries were to wield "not some
ostensible power, but a collective dictatorship of all Aliance members . . . a dic
tatorship with no sashes, no ttles, no formal rights and all the more powerfl
for having none of the appearances of power." 1
Atough Bakunin is carefl to stipulate tat "i you while away your time
playing at Commitees of Public Saet and at formal dictatorship, you will be
gobbled up by the reaction tat you yourselves will have created," te use of
te term "dictatorship," even when drained of all meaning by the context in
which it was used, lends itself to all sorts of ambiguities. Let us take a look at
Arthur Lehning's view of tese "invisible pilots in the eye of the revolutionary
storm":
Bakunin was concerned with inspiring with his ideas a tiny band of
men of real, effectve impact, but also wit communicating to them his
lust for action. Tey in trn had to operate in the quarters and at the
level where they engaged in teir activities, that is, in the context of
the organizaton and principles of the Internatonal. Te innermost
circle consulted with one another and with Bakunin. In this way, he
was in touch with militants fom a variety of countries and maintained
personal relations with them either through correspondence or
through occasional encounters. He was thus able to coordinate propa
ganda and, i need be, action. In the labor movement and especially in
the revolutionary movement, there was noting out of the ordinary
about tis mode of operating. 2
J ames Guillaume, a close associate of Bakunin, bears witess to the natre
of this organizaton, which had nothing in common with te old secret societ
ies where one was obliged "to obey orders coming fom above. " Tis one was
IV. BAKUNINIST ORGANIZATION 1 5
simply the "fee coming together of men who joined forces for collective ac
tion, without formalities, without solemnit, without mysterious rites, simply
because they tusted one another and agreement struck them as preferable to
acting in isolation." 3
In the Bakuninist organization, the bond between one member and an
other was tust. If it were to be infltrated by one spitefl member, the whole
edice would thereby be contaminated. Bakunin discovered this to his cost,
following his dealings with Sergei Netchaiev. Russian, son of a serf, a student
persecuted by te tsarist government, N etchaiev nurtred a deadly hatred for
the whole established order and balked at no method, conscionable or other
wise, provided it could be of service to his ultmate objective: the destuction
and eradication of tsarsm. He began by immersing himself in te student op
position campaigns and then, once having secured control over these, diverted
them into a huge conspiracy against the regime. He even scheduled a date for
the decisive uprising - 1870 - quite a plausible date, for that was the year
when te peasants, recenty feed fom serfdom, still faced a heavy burden in
the requirement upon them to buy back their own land fom their erstwhile
masters. Casting around for support and backing for his plans, Netchaiev ar
rived in Switzerand, met Bakunin there and, painting him a glowing picture of
an apocalyptic uprising in the land of his birth, bamboozled him and abused
his tust: he got his hands on a substantial sum (the Bakhmetiev fnd) and
enmeshed te old rebel in his questionable intrigues.
On his return to Russia, the long-awaited great day failed to dawn, and,
caught in a trap of his own makng, N etchaiev murdered a student whose only
offense had been to question his authorit and the substance of his schemes. A
police investgaton di d not takf long to shed light upon te sordid murder,
thanks to the ready assistance of Netchaiev's own accomplices and, more
tellingly, members of his organization.
Te episode blew up into a temendous scandal that tainted the entre
Russian revolutionary milieu. Bakunin, especially, was accused of having in
cited N etchaiev, and he was credited with the paternity of Te Catechism of the
Revolutionary, a sort of Macchiavellian conspirator's handbook discovered on
one of N etchaiev's accomplices. However, the tone and te content of this text
have nothing in common with Bakunin's radicalism, especially in the notion of
people's squalid manipulation of one anoter. Te influence of te Russian
Blanquist, Tachev, and of the memoirs of the Babouvist Buonarotti upon te
document has since been properly authenticated, especially in recent years,
trough the researches of Michael Confno, Arthur Lehning, Pirumova and
the latest soviet biographer of Bakunin, Grafsk. Noneteless, sever
a
l Western
historans, to tis very day, persist in depictng Bakunin as te sire of Netchaev's
"Jacobin jesuitry."
In any event, Netchaiev managed to fee to Switerland and offered a ver
sion of the case tat presented himself in a more favorable light, accusing the
murdered student of havng sought to denounce him to the authorities. Despite
1 6 F A C I NG T H E E NE M Y
that, Bakunin now saw through him and distanced himself fom him in a cru
cial letter likewise uncovered just a few years ago by Michael Conno. Its con
cealment can be explained in terms of Bakunin's preoccupaton wit its not
being made public propert, lest it damage the scheming Netchaiev -who
was in dire staits at the time, being threatened with extaditon -out of what
might be described as blind ant-tsarist solidart.
In that leter of severance, Bakunin announces to Netchaiev that:
the system of mystcation which has increasingly become your main
and sole approach, your method and quintessental weapon, is disas
tous for the cause itself . . . But we have to organize this communit of
revolutionaries and moralize it. Whereas you, thanks to your system,
are corrupting it and nurtring witin it taitors to yourselves and
exploiters of the people . . . following the jesuitcal system, you system
atically kill every personal human sentiment, any personal feel for jus
tice in them -as if sentiment and the sense of justice could be any
thing other than personal -you nurture falsehood, mistust, grass
ing and betay
a
l in them.
Not that Bakunin tended to idealize "vrtuous" revolutionaries: he had no
illusions about tem: tey did not act out of pure "conscience, nor considered
reasons," but because of their own situation in te society. I one were to place
them in a:
situation where they might exploit and oppress te people: one could
wth certainty afrm that, yes, they wlexploit and oppress it without
a second tought. As a result, there are among tem very few innately
virtuous. Capitalizing upon the disastrous sitaton that makes them
virtuous in spite of themselves, we should then arouse, educate and
bolster that virtue in them, making it impassioned ad conscious by
dint of constant propaganda and by force of orgaization. Now, what
you are doing is the precise opposite.
On this occasion, he redefned the aim and te missions of revolutonary
organization: "to assist the people's self-determination on a basis of
a
bsolute
equalit, and fll and multifarious human feedom, wthout te slightest inter
ference fom any authorit, even should it be provision
a
l or tansitonal, which
is to say, without the mediaton of any state. " Yet again he recalled that we "are
the sworn enemies of all formal power, even if it is a[n ulta-revolutonary]
power: foes of any publicly acknowledged dictatorship, we are soci
a
l-revolu
tonary anarchists. " 4 In order t dispel any ambiguit, he vehementy reaffrmed
that reciprocal tust between revolutonaries could only be established trough:
absolute sincerit on the part of all members. Aljesuitry is banished
fom teir dealings, as are craven mistust, perfdious monitoring, and
spying and informing on one another: there must be an absence and
strict prohibition of all criticism behind one's back. I a member has
I V. B A K U N I N I S T O R G A N I Z AT I O N 1 7
something to say against any other member, he should say it at the
general meeting and in that member's presence. Joint and faternal
monitoring of each by all: a monitoring that is by no means irksome,
pett-minded, nor above all rancorous, must replace your system of
jesuitical inquisition, and become a moral education, a mainstay of the
moral stength of each member and the groundwork for tat mutual
faternal confdence upon which the entire inner and outer strengt
of te Society depends. 5
However, he did grant Netchaiev that his jesuitical approach -lying, tick
ery, mystifcation and, as the need arose, volence -could be deployed against
the enemy. Tis gives rise to another ambiguity, for the notion of "enemies"
can fluctuate somewhat -as we have seen many a time since then - and,
especially as a result of opposition, lots of erstwhile fiends have been seen to
turn into implacable enemies in the here and now, so it seems we should have
our reservations about this, (assuredly circumstantial) concession tat Bakunin
made to Netchaiev.
In fact, aer having probed the outer limits of his organizational principles,
Bakunin appeals in the last resort to his absolute yardstick: ethical passion (a
wink of the eye for Fourier) . As the guiding light of the revolutionary's con
science and his actons, it is nonetheless dependent upon the sobering infu
ence of the "faternal monitoring of each by all," in such a way that "oneness of
thought and action" may be achieved. However, those internal relations are not
the stuff of imagination: far fom it, tey are governed by very specifc statutes
and regulations, in which Bakunin had invested his most scrupulous efforts.
For instance, let us look at the secret regulation of the "Aliance of Social
ist Democracy," dating fom 1868. Te crucial structure is represented by te
"Standing Central Committee," of which the General Assembly is the highest
expression. Members are inducted only i unanimously endorsed. A central
bureau a few members strong represents the Alliance's executive organ -
outside of t. e Gencral Assemblies of the Cenlral Committee at any rate -it
has especial charge of keeping in contact with te nation
a
l committees and
bureaus, i need be sending them extraordinary delegates for te purposes of
propaganda or acton, as requested by the central branch. A complementary
structre, the Vigilance Committee, sees to it that no one exceeds his man
date. One of the tasks entrusted to it was to draw as many labor organizations
as possible into the International Workingmen's Association, so that the
Aliance's work "may be confned to the political and revolutionary develop
ment of said Association."
Te regulatons of the "International Brotherhood," another of Bakunin's
organizatons, adopted essentially the same model of internal operaton, ex
cept that the general assemblies became congresses required to atract a ma
jorty of the membership and disbarred fom reaching decisions except by
simple majorit vote in the case of day-to-day business, or a two-thirds majorit
1 8 F A C I NG T H E ENE M Y
in matters of importance. Te Cental Commitee and National Committees
remained: te latter could be broken down into an Executve Bureau and a
Vigilance Committee. A unanimous vote was required for the admission of new
brethren. Te National Committee was deemed based on three brethren fom
among te membership. Expulsions were decided by a simple majorit, but
were required in every instance to be ratifed by te ensuing Congress.
In a later program for that same Internatonal Brotherhood, Bakunin notes
that preparing for the revolution is not the sole mission of this organization.
Even when the revoluton gets underway, it will have to remain in existence so
that i t may substitute its stictly concerted and covert collective action for "any
government or formal dictatorship, the later being inevitably impelled to stamp
out te revolutionary movement in the masses and to result in the reconstruc
tion of the political, directorial, tutelary and thus necessarily bureaucratc, mili
tary, oppressor and exploiter state -which is to say of a new bourgeois rule. "
Yet another remarkable intuition about an appreciation of the necessity for an
enduring revolutionary organizaton, dedicated to crtical monitoring actvit.
A litle frther into the same program, B
a
kunin spells out the supreme law
on which his approach to organization is founded:
always and everywhere to substtte collective thinking and collective
acton for alindividual ventures [for, in his eyes] in the social revolu
tion, there will be room only for collective thinking, resolution and
acton. 6
On the basis of all tis data, we now have a fairly clear appreciation of what
Bakunin' s organizations or Brotherhoods might have been: in fact, they
amounted, given the circumstances of the times, to specifcally anarchist orga
nizatons and, indeed, in te estimation of some, furnish the prototype for liber
taian communist organization such as we today might conceive of it.
It is plain that as far as B
a
kunin was concerned this specifc organizaton
was to confne itself to its prescribed role as an "unseen" general staf. It never
occurred to him that it should replace the effectve action of the genuine revo
lutonary forces, namely, at that time, te workers and te most precarious
segment of the proletariat, in the West, te lumpen-proletariat: in Russia, the
peasants and vagabond outsiders, fee Cossacks and declasse individuals of
every description, up to and including outlaws (not to be confsed with the
underworld in te Western sense of the term) .
Apropos of te workers, he reiterated the Proudhonian line: they had to
organize themselves "beyond the parameters of bourgeois radicalism. " He fr
ther statated
[Te] basis for that organizaton is to hand: it is the workshops and
te federaton of workshops: the creation of stke fnds, tools in te
fght against the bourgeoisie, and federation of these not merely at
I V. B A K U N I N I S T O R G A N I Z AT I O N 1 9
national level, but also internatonally: and the creaton of Chambers
of Labor, as in Belgium. 7
As for the Russian peasantry, he urges that they avail of the vestiges of the
rural commune in order to proceed directly to the fee societ. He also regis
ters te potential located in a segment of the young bourgeoisie and aristoc
racy, which may effectively commit itself to the revolution by "going to the
people," that is, serving it trough socially purosefl occupations such as teach
ers, doctors, agronomists, etc. Advice tat was widely taken up in Russia aound
te time.
In Russia ad in the West alike, all these writings by Bakunin wielded over
whelming infuence in the 1870s. Wich gives the lie to te view, (widespread
among his political detractors or certain so-called "bourgeois" historians, ea
ger to kowtow and hire their pens to the powerfl of their day), according to
which Bakunin was supposedly incapable of seting out his innermost toughts
on the aims ad the means of social revolution in a coherent fashion. Lest we
get marooned on the generalities, let us offer a sample of that school of "histo
rians" which fourished during the years fom 1950 to 1960, in te fgure of
Henri Arvon, "university lecturer, doctor of letters." Tis gentleman has made
a specialty of assailing anarchism "fom witin," that is, making it the object of
seemingly objectve researches that are in point of fact very negative in out
look. Let us look at his little book Michel Bakounine ou La vie contre la science
[Mikhail Bakunin or Lie verus Science] . . . (quite a progra there! ). Lt us lif
fom it a few telling passages:
In the picturesque gallery of nineteenth century revolutionaries,
Mikhail Bakunin, the "Storm petrel," appears to embody subversive
actvity 't al of its wmantildlly iuloxicating ad historically mett
cacious sel in the last century . . . . In 1870, he was the soul behind a
rising in Lyons, thereby tasting for a few hours the intoxicating de
lights of quasi-dictatoral power . . . i mmediate a. ld, it must be said,
ofen disastous consequences of that revolutionary activity . . . . " [Ad
here comes the punch-line 1 "Seemingly beref of al connection wit a
line of thought that would allow it to survive, B
a
kunin's teaching has
an anachronistic, somewhat eccentic, and in certain respects reac
tionary ring to it in this day and age. 8
Avon of course credits him wit the autorship of Netchaiev'sRevolution
ary Catechism ad grants that he wanted to live up to its supposed device: "Full
speed ahead into the mire." But let us look at a few more florid opinions:
Rddled as it is wth mist
a
kes, Bakunin's thought . . . chaotic mind, prey
to sometmes inadmissible passions[ ?] . . . the lode-stone utopia of
Bakunin's teaching is anarchy.
From a reading of tis philo-Stalinist diatrbe, one ca understand how
such writers could have poisoned minds for decades aganst the natre and
20 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
meaning of anarchist doctrine. Let us discard that "output" ad note, paradoxi
cally, tat Bakunin has undergone a sort of rehabilitaton at te hands of soviet
historians in recent years. Te latest study, by V G. Grafsk, which appeared in
1985 plainly contadicts Arvon: Grafsk stresses the positve contbution of
Bakunin to te struggle against tsarism and te underlying values of bour
geois society. His comment is supported by a dense expositon of his ideas and
stances, ofen wit te aid of generous quotations, and a few telling pages fom
Te Knouto-Germanic Empire and Statism and Anarchy are given as appendi
ces. Quite obviously, his differences with scientc socialism, which is to say,
with Marx and Engels, are not glossed over but ae in fact dealt with rather
well. Te innovaton, Bakunin's ant-autoritia socialism, is exained at some
length. Tere is no snappy assessment but rater, as we said, an intentonally
objective scientifc evaluation. All te same, we should keep our feet on the
ground, for this is te homage of an enemy, and, as behooves him in this in
stance, there is an unfavorable or patchy exposition of Bakunin's ideas, fltered
through te Marxst-Leninist "lens":
"Mikhail Aleksandrovich Baunin, Russian revolutonary is one of the
most prominent representatives of revolutonary populism and anar
chism. His genuine and impassioned hated of all oppression and his
readiness to give his all for the success of the social revolution drew
many revolutonaries and persons of democratic leanings to his side.
At the same time, his muddled and wholly illusory view of te con
crete paths leading towards social emancipation helped turn him into
an adversary of the ideas of scientic socialism.
His name is linked with te birt and diffsion of the ideas of
what is termed collectivst anarchism . . . . Te stongest facets of his
teachings were the denunciations of exploitation and of all the pos
sible forms of oppression in contemporary societies, of religious ob
scuratism, the slavshness of liberal science as well as the advocacy
of revolutonary metods of stuggle versus bourgeois reformists. 9
Grasky fn
a
lly justes his choice of subject by invoking Bakunin' s actual-
it, due to anachism's resurgence in the West, which would, he suggests, ac
count for the crisis by which the later has been beset for some years now. In
any event, let us note the respect and urge to explain that are nowhere to be
found in Arvon's work, much less that of his colleague, Jacques Duclos, a GPU
loving messenger boy, who had strained his constipated bowels to bring us his
Ombres et lumiere -Bakounine et Marx (Shadows and Liht -Bakunin and
Marx) , beter forgotten.
Endnotes to Chapter Four
1. Bakunin, A la guerre de la Commune op. cit., pp. 471-472.
2. Archives Bakounine published by Artur Lehning, Leiden, 1961-1982, seven tomes pub
lished in eight volumes. Tat edition has been taken up by Editons Champ Lbre under the
I V. B A K U N I N I S T O R G A N I Z AT I O N 2 1
name Oeuvres completes de Bakounine eight volumes so far. Tat being the most up-to-date
text, it is the one we quote here. In the present instance the reference is to Volume 7, page
XX.
3. James Guillaume, L'internationale: Documents et souvenir Tome I, (Paris, 1905) , p. 130.
4. Michael Confno, Violence dans la violence: Le dbat Bakounine-Netchaiev, (paris: Maspero,
1973) , pp. 106-149.
5. Ibid.
6. Bakunin, Oeuvres Completes, Volume Si, p. 1 84-197 and 368-370.
7. Bakunin, De la guerre I la Commune, op. cit. , p. 465.
8. Henri Arvon, Bakounine (1966) , pp. 9-14. Among his other publications, we might point
to Arvon' s execrable book on anarchism in the "Que sais-je?" series. Ltely Arvon has turned
out to books on the Aerican (libertarian) Anarcho-capitalists. Tat "motherlode" must
look a better bet to him than his Bakuninophobia!
9. V C. Grafsk, Bakunin (in Russian) (Moscow, 1985) , pp. 5-7 and 104-105.
22 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
v. THE ALLIANCE, THE IWMA AND THE
CLASH WITH MARX
Wile it may not be acceptable to Bakunin-hating historians as an extenu
ating circumstance, let us reiterate that most of the cited writings of Bakunin
remained unknow until publication of te erudite works of Michael Confno
and Arthur Lehning. Not that that prevented them fom wielding undoubted
inuence over te people who were cognizant of them. Te fnest proof of tis
was te Aliance, which came to boast sevent International Bretren (out of a
targeted one hundred) and in its Geneva branch in 1868 it included 145 mem
bers. It was its members also that founded te impressive Spanish section and
te active Italian secton, bot of them afliated to the I.
In fact, following te refsal of the London-based General Council of the
Internaonal Workingmen's Association to accede to the frst application fom
te Aliance for admission en bloc, the latter decided to wind up its secret inter
national organizaton and retained only its public secton in Geneva. We know
tat Marx cited te contnued existence of te secretAiace as his chief ground
for excluding Bakunin and James Guillaume. Wat was the real reason behind
it? Whereas ongoing contacts between Alliance members persisted, largely on
account of the personal relatonships tat had been stuck up, and whereas te
Spanish branch, the Alianza, held on to its clandestine stucture (that being
deemed well-suited to local conditons of struggle) , it seems certain, according
to Arthur Lehning, that the Alliance was no longer operating as a secret organi
zation and, tat, as a result, Marx's accusation was quite without foundaton.
Furthermore, it was not borne out by the report fom the commission of in
quiry established at te congress in Te Hague, and Marx was forced to resort
to making a personal allegation against Bakunin before he could be sure of the
support of the members of tat commission. Apropos of that, we should under
line someting tat was going to have signicant orgaizatonal repercussions:
that celebrated fve-strong commission of inquiry included an agent of the
French police, Van Heddeghem (alias Walter) who, i fact, made himself scarce
when the time came for presentaton of te commission's report and a vote on
it, eiter so as to leave that base task to "greater naks tan him, " or lest he
attact attenton to a minor fgure like himself, for he was later to express re
gret tat Benoit Malon had not been included in the "tumbrel" of those ex
cluded. 1 We might add that among the "prosecution" witnesses called against
V. T H E A L L I A N C E , T H E I WM A & T H E C L AS H WI T H M A R X 2 3
Bakunin and the Alliance there was yet another French provocateur, one
Dentaygues (alias Swarm) , likewise a member of the Marxist clique. We shall
see anon the perverse and damaging effects of this police infltration of the
Marx camp.
It seems plain then that Bakunin's Alliance had indeed been wound up in
its secret format. Tat said, the likelihood is that Marx was sincere in believing
that it was still extant. He himself had been a member of several secret societ
ies and, according to Artur Lhning, Bakunin was similarly convinced in 1872
that Marx was still in clandestine concert with the six former members of the
Communist League -the German secret societ that had existed during the
years 1847-1850 -who sat alongside him on the General Council in London at
that time. 2 Moreover, Bakunin must assuredly have still had in mind the odd
conversaton tat he had had with Marx in 1848:
I met [Marx] in Berin. Mutua fiends forced us to embrace each oter.
[ Bakunin had been accused by the Rine Gazette then run by Marx of
being a "Russian agent," so he bore him a grudge - author's note. ]
And then, i n the middle of a conversation half in jest and half i n ear
nest, Marx told me: "Are you aware that I am presently the head of a
secret communist societ so tightly disciplined that had I said to one
of its members: 'Go kill Bakunin, ' he would have killed you" to which
I replied that if [his] secret society did [not] have anything beter to
do than kill people who displeased him, it could not be anything other
than a society of lackeys or laughable braggarts.3
As we have seen, te Alliance was regarded by Bakunin as a specialist
revolutonary organization, so we can now examine the terms in which he
thought of his relationship with the n, tle mass labor organizaton WhlCh
by tat point had nearly two million members, 1,200,000 of these in Europe) : 4
Te Alliance is the necessary complement to the International. . . . But
the Internatonal and te Aliance, while pursuing the same ultimate
goal, simultneously pursue diferent aims. One has as its mission the
gathering of the laborng masses, te millions of toilers, tanscending
differences of naton and county, into one immense, compact body:
te other one, the Alliance, has as its mission te endowment of those
masses wt a genuinely revolutonary directon. Te progrms of them
bot, while not at all in confict, are different even as the degree of
their respective developments are different. Tat of the International,
were it but taken seriously, enshrines in germ, but only in germ, the
entre program of the Aliance. Te Alliance's program is a frther
expounding upon te International's. 5
Tus the International was intended only to marshal the laboring masses
fom te various tades bodies and fom every county, on a broad politcal
footing that was indeterminate, for had its "founders given to that great
Association a . . . socialist, philosophical, defnite ad positive political doctine,
24 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
they would have been in error." 6 In Bakunin's view then, it was a tade union
internationa ante literam, having as its sole mission te defense of te work
ing class's interests on its chosen terrain -the economic -and, tereaer, to
nurse its class consciousness forwards in a revolutionary direction. Tat was
no obstacle to the former members of the Alliance beavering away within it
towards a radicalizaton of te movement as a whole: quite te opposite. But
tat was to reckon without Marx ad the growing infuence he welded over
te General Council in London. It was thus inevitable tat they would clash.
We shall not be going into here all of the atagonisms and disagreements
tat set te two men one against the other, for tat would take us too far fom
our subject, so we shall tackle only their differences i matters stategc and
organizational.
Remember that in Marx's view the masterminding of te workers' move-
ment could emanate only fom te communists, tey being:
the most determined segment of te workers' pates, te facton tat
always gives a lead and above all which "fom te point of view of
teory" has tis advantage over te rest of the proletarian mass, tat
i understands the conditions, progress and genera outcomes of the
workers' movement. [Furthermore, he aued, a] important part of
te bourgeoisie is coming over to the proletriat, and in partcular
those among te bourgeois ideologues who have attained a theoreti
cal grasp of te overall movement of history. 7
It was plain then that, being unable to secrete its own leaders, the prole
tariat had to look to tese "bourgeois ideologues" for guidance. On this point,
Marx was merely abiding by the J acobin and socialist tradition of te frst h
a
l
of te nineteenth century: so he could not help but espouse a centralistc orga
nizatona model ad exress utter incomprehension when Baunin taed about
"fee organizaton of te laboring masses fom the botom up," and described
tat blunty as "foolishness. " 8 His actt witin the ranks of te Communist
League in 1848 demonstrated that choice: when some members got into dif
culties wit te German police, he inveigled some of his supporters into giving
him carte blanche in deciding the orgaization's fate:
. . . Te current circumstances imperiously require an energetic leader
fom the [communists' ] societ, for which a discretonay autort is,
for te moment, an essental. [Te Cental Commtee of te Societ of
Communists] determines:
Article 1: Te Central Committee is tansferred to Paris.
Article 2: Societ member Karl Max is hereby vested by te Brussels
Cental Committee wit discretonary autority to assume temporary
cental contol of al of the societ's afairs, being aswerable to te
Cental Commitee that awaits establishment ad to te fortcoming
congress.
v. T H E A L L I A N C E , T H E I WM A & T H E C L A S H WI T H M A R X 2 5
Article 3: Te Committee charges Marx to establish in Paris, just as
soon as circumstances will permit and fom among the most suitable
of te societ's members, a new Central Committee of his choosing,
and to dra on to it even those members of the society who may not be
domiciled in Paris.
Article 4: Te Brussels Centa Commitee is hereby disbaded.
Tus determined in Brussels, March 3, 1848.
Te Central Commitee [signatures of Engels, C Fiscer,
Cigot, H Heinger, K Marx] 9
A little while aer that, Marx, along with Engels, announced that the orga
nization had been wound up: tey had not even consulted te rest of the mem
bership! In tat frst day into organization one can just make out, beneath te
surface, the approach tat he was about to adopt inside the I His tack
stayed the same, in keeping with what we might please to term his "narcissistic
centralism! " Tus he had the General Council afford him carte blanche in the
drafing of addresses and circulars on its behalf: new members were brought
on to the General Council using a co-optation arrangement, leaving him a fee
hand, and any time that he needed to be sure of a majority, as a the congress in
Te Hague, he issued his supporters with blank credentials. I you want some
thing done right, do it yourself, so the saying goes, and here we see the perfect
illustration of tat. Aoter instance of impropriet: at the time of the Lndon
Conference in 1871, the delegates fom the I sections had only ten votes,
whereas the members of the General Council had thirteen! Similarly, Max,
along wit his alter-ego, Engels, claimed to represent several counties: Rus
sia, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Denmark, and tis without either one of them
being required to make their reports to the Jeneral secretary of the TA's
Lndon Council! However, in using this heavy-handed bureaucratic approach,
Marx and Engels had no thought of representing a "party" in te organiza
tonal sense, but intended primarily to keep te fate of the workers' movement
under dose supervision so as to monitor its overall progress, Nor was it out of
mere vanity, egocenticity or even some cult of personality - not tat tey
were lacking in arogance -tat they acted tis way: it was quite simply tat
tey were convinced that they held a patent on the scientifc tuth of the fture
of societ!
Tis ideological certitde is clearly mirrored in Marx's letter of March 28,
1870 to te Brunswick Committee -te Central Committee of te German
Social Democratc Workers' Part. He afrms there te necessity of the I
General Council's remaining in London, on account of his "being at present in
te happy positon ofhaving direct control ofthi great lever ofthe proletaran
revolution, " as he considered England. As a result, he was against the seting
up of a Regional Council for England, for that would be "madness, we might
even say a crime, to let it [that great lever] fl into merely English hands?"
How come? Because the "English have all the wherewithal needed for te social
2 6 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
revoluton. Wat they lack, is the generalizing mind and revolutionary passion.
Only the Genera Council can supply tat, and thereby accelerate the tuly
revolutonary movement in this country and, consequently, everywhere."
1
0 It is
understandable tat te English were, i te long run, to weay of beig handled
like a "lever" and tat the leader of the tades unions, John Hales, should have
taed about "broken irons" when describing his breaking loose of Marx's over
beaing tanny and with the I General Council obedient to it.
1 1
I was all very natural too, that at the congress in Te Hague, Marx and
Engels were to get up to their old ticks of 1848 again by suggesting to the
proletariat tat it set itself up as a politic
a
l pat and assume "te conquest of
politica power" as its "primary dut, " and tus convert te I General
Council into a sort of "center for natonal politca partes -or 'governing body.'"
(Marx)
It's hardly surprising ten tat Marx should have seen Baunin as a threat
to the well-nigh discretionary power he wielded on the General Council, and
should have credited Baunin with dark designs, including a scheme to re
move that Council to Geneva, which would mean, he argued, tat "the Interna
tional would fall under Bakunin's dictatorship. " His desire to dispose of tis
dangerous rival led him to hold him in the most utter contempt, as a person as
well as theoretically:
[Bakunin's program at the I congress in Lusanne] is empt
chatter, a rosary of hollow ideas tat ty to be sensatonal, in short, a
bland concoction devised for the sole purpose of producing a certain
effect at a given moment. . . . What a grotesque program is this hotch
potch of tired cliches . . . . As for Bakunin himself, one of te most igno
rant of beings in the matter of soci
a
l teory, he suddenly looks like
the founder of a sect. But the theoretical program of this Aliance is an
unadorned farce.
Nor should it come as any surrise to fnd Max now bent solely upon, to
borrow his own words, "excommunicatng" the Russian revolutonary. In addi
tion, as far as he was concerned there could be no queston of conforming to
some "ongoing audit," however "fatern
a
l," on te part of te rank and fle of
te I much less be called to account by it.
We should also note that, unlike Bakunin, Marx was no man of action:
Marx operated at te level of analyses, polic statements, decrees, circulars
and oter "communications. " For instance, altough he sauted the Paris Com
mune with a great fe, he proved utterly incapable of organizing a demon
staton by te I in Lndon in support of te Communards.
It was indeed as a desk-bound individual that he dreamt up the Messianic
role of te workng class, lionized as history' s demiurge. On tis point, his
critcism of Bakunin's pronouncement that "workers who have become repre
sentatives of the people have ceased to be workers" is very telling: Marx's
retort was that that was an impossibilit "any more tan today's manufacturer
ceases to be a capit
a
list because he becomes a town councilor!"
V. THE AL LIANCE, THE IWMA & THE CLASH WITH MARX 2 7
More familiar with real men and real society, Bakunin had no illusions
about worker representation, for he had noted that te mass had a tendency to
choose representatives whom it failed, either through indiffrence or out of
apathy, to keep under "continuous monitoring. " Which inevitably lead on to a
source of depravit for all who fnd themselves invested with any social author
it, by virtue of the fact tat:
by dint of self-sacrifce and devotion, they have slipped into the sweet
habit of command, and, through a sort of natral and almost inevitable
halucination in all people who cling too long to power, they have ended
up imagining themselves indispensable. In this fashion, fom te very
ranks of those so fankly popular sections of the construction workers,
a sort of governmental aristocracy has imperceptibly arisen.
12
According to Bakunin, such inertia on the part of the working class could
also be credited in his day, although we might as readily apply this to our own
times, to the uterly self-serving and:
corruptive [propaganda) of priests, governments and all bourgeois
political paties, not excepting even the reddest of these [who) have
spread a host of false ideas among the toiling masses, and those
blinkered masses are unfortunately all too ofen enthusiasts of lies
that have no purpose other than to reduce them, voluntarily and stu
pidly, to service of the interests of the privileged classes, to the detri
ment of their own interests.
1 4
Which is a long, long way fom the Marx's idealization of the worker as
te "new Prometheus! " Not that such idealization is gratuitous, for it goes hand
in hand wit (in his vcw) dccisive reinfUllelllelll in the shape of "detectors"
fom te bourgeoisie, tose "ideologues" who would supposedly help te worker
to rise above his ignorance and steer him along the path of his historical voca
tion, even should they have to stand in for him in order to assist him dov the
"right" road. It was on the basis of that analysis that Marx justed his own role
inside the I. Here too Bakunin subjected him to a robust criticism:
28
From the moment that the International Association would split into
two groups - the one comprising te vast majority and made up of
members te sum of whose onus would be blind faith in the theoretica
and practical wisdom of their leaders: and the other made up only of a
few dozen individuals - leaders - that institution, which ought to
emacipate Mankind, would trn into a sort of oligarchic state, the worst
of all states: and what is more, that clear-sighted, expert and adroit mi
norit that would shoulder, along wit all responsibilities, all te rights
of a government that would be all the more absolute for its despotism
being diligenty concealed under the show of an obsequious respect for
the wl and for the resolutions of the sovereign people, a resolution
which tat government always injects into te so-caled will of te people
FACING THE E NE MY
-that minority, as we say, obedient to te needs and conditions of its
privileged position and prey to te fate of all governments, would soon
grow more and more despotic, malefcent and reactonary.15
Baunin's conclusion fom that was that the I could never become a
tool for emancipation unless it ''will be emancipated itself frst of all," by being no
longer split into a "majorit of blind tools and a minorit of learned mechaics. "
Tat intuitive understanding was borne out at another level, a half century later,
with the appearace of Marxist-Lninist "learned mechanics" who soon turned
into the "engine-drivers of history," with tens of millions of workers for fel.
Tus, organizatona ideas and te implementton of tem inside te I
intersected wth fndamental and diametically opposed teoretcal tenets, and
could not help but lead to a clean break. I came at te I congress in 1872.
In the enforced absence of Bakunin (enfrced by his being unable to cross Ger
many or France because of te threat tat he would be arrested and imprisoned
- as Marx knew very well) his adversaries had a feld day wth a majorit of
mandates procured in advance. In order to secure te exclusion of his rval,
Marx nevertheless made the mistake of bringing the level of the debate dow
to personalites, charging Bakunin wth faud in connecton wit a obscure
episode concerning an advance payment to Bakunin for a tanslaton of Marx's
own Das Kapital that had not been refnded to a Russian publisher. Tat crude
gambit provoked a general reproof in te IW, even among te "Marxists" of
that or a later vintage. Lt us, for example, look at how tis episode was judged
a few decades later by one of Marx's adepts (and by no means the least signi
cant one) Otto Ruhle, the German ultra-lef communist:
Marx had triumphed over his despised adversary, but, not content
with severing all bonds of party faternity between himself ad his
rival, he had indulged his hatred frther by attacking his honor.
Bakunin, at least i the Congress was to be believed, had omited to
pay Marx back a 300 ruble advance for a translaton of Das Kapital:
and Marx, the Max who was immersed in a thousand shady deals
and who had lived his whole life long on oter people's money, made
tis out to be hanging offense.
It was legitimate for him to batte for an objective policy to which
he looked, to the exclusion of any other, for the liberation of te prole
tariat. He was witin his rights to summon the Internatonal togeter to
ty to get rid of Bakunin, for Baunin was doing alin his power to thwart
him and his policy. But for him to seek to tumph objectively trough
recourse to methods as shaefl as blackening his adversary was a dis
honorable course that did not besmirch Baunin but did besmirch its
autor. We see here the fatal aspect to his character: nothing ever took
priority for Marx over his self-regard: not political matters, not the work
ers' movement, nor the interests of the revoluton. Tat a gathering of
international revolutionaries ready at the drop of a hat to blow private
V. T H E A L L I ANC E , T H E I WM A & T H E C L AS H WI T H M A R X 2 9
propert ad bourgeois morality sky high should have driven out, out
lawed and expelled, on the denunciation of its leader, the most gifted,
most heroic and most fascinating of its number because of some alleged
infaction of the bourgeois laws of propert, was one of the bloodiest
jests in history. W
Te severit of Oto Ruhle's unappealable verdict nonetheless strikes us
as incomplete, for it relates only to the methods employed and not to the politi
cal intent to which these were of course secondary. Now, that political intent
was not really broached at Te Hague: the debate was side-tracked by this
settling of personal scores. However, had it been broached openly, the out
come might have been very different: maybe even more favorable to Marx, as
te clarifcaton of te respectve positons of anarchist collectivists and reformist
state socialists was to demonstrate a few years later.
Te course chosen by Marx was different though: pig-headedly, he capi
talized upon his circumstantial majorit to bolster considerably the omnipotent
role of te General Council and to push through acceptance of the need to
convert the sections of the I into political parties, assigning them the
mission of "conquering state political power. " Ten, seeing himself overridden
by persons even more into centralist politicking than himself -his ersthile
allies, the Blanquists -he outmaneuvered them by formally transferring the
residence of the I General Council to ... New York, that is, as far as pos
sible fom the European theater of operations. Furthermore, he entrusted it to
the care of German emigres, selected fom among his most faithfl support
ers.
Tat desperate ploy did not save him fom complete defeat: most of the
sections of the I disowned the decisions made in Te Hague and kept up
their contacts with the outcast Bakunin and James Guillaume. Te Jura Fed
eraton stepped into te shoes of the General Council and pressed on wit I
activit. In spite of a sham congress in Geneva in 1873, at which Marxists had
to "pull ma1dates out of the ground" (Becker) lest they fno themseives sur
rounded only by German-speaking Swiss, Marx's factional breakaway petered
out and disappeared into the maw of history.
In realit, Marx re-enacted the Communist League stnt when contol had
slipped away fom him. We should point out that all these events are common
knowledge, duly recorded in te congress minutes or works devoted to the
I not that that has prevented the misrepresentationists or other licensed
manipulators, who have striven so hard for the past century to cover up that
pitable outcome that we today have to reiterate tese stubborn facts: te I
did not fade away in 1872 -it was to founder only much later on reefs that we
shall be examining anon - and it was the Marxist faction that was whitted
down to its simplest expression, to wit, Germans only. So much so tat several
of Marx's staunchest and most loyal supporters, who had been just tat for
twent years, like Eccarius and Jung, ended up criticizing his chicanery, de
nouncing his "dictatorship" and abandoning ship.
3 0 FACING THE ENEMY
Endnotes to Chapter Five
1. Te Firt International's Hague Congress (minutes) (Moscow, 1972) , p. 1 19.
2. Bakunin, Oeuvres completes, Vol. II, p. 462.
3. Ibid. , p. 127.
4. 1. Tchernov, Le parti republicain au coup d'etat et sous Ie Second Empir, (paris, 1906) , p. 482.
5. Bakunin, L liberte, texts presented by F Munoz, (Paris: Pauvert, 1965) , pp. 195-196
(Letter to Morago dated May 21, 1872, in Nettlau Archives) .
6. Ibid.
7. Krl Marx, Manifeste communists Oeuvres I, (L Pleiade) , pp. 174 and 171.
8. Marx, "Notes sur l'Etatisme et l'Anarchie de Bakounine" in Marx-Engels-Lenin, Sur
l'anarchisme et l'anarcho-syndicalisme (Moscow, 1973) , p. 169.
9. Quoted by Hem Day, L'internationale de 1864 (Paris-Brussels: Lbres propos, 1965) , p. 30.
10. Karl Marx, Jenny Marx, and F Engels Lettres a Kugelmann, ) Paris: Editions sociales
1970) , pp. 146163, for all the quotations fom Marx.
11. Leter fom]. Hales to the Belgian Internationalists, Bulletin de la Federationjursienne,
No. 20-21, (November 10, 1872) .
12. Marx-Engels-Lenin, Sur l'anarchisme, op. cit. , p. 166.
13. Bakunin Oeuvres, Tome I, published by James Guillaume, (Editions Stock, 1913) , p. 19.
14. Mikail Bakunin, Le politique de I'Internationale, (Paris: Vie Ouviere editons, no date) .
15. Bakunin, L'organization de l'internationale (Geneva, 1914), pp. 14-15.
16. Otto Ruhle, Karl Marx, (Paris: Grasset, 1937) , pp. 320-321.
V. THE AL LIANCE, THE IWMA & THE CLASH WITH MARX 3 1
VI . T H E F E D E RAL I S T I WMA:
AP OG E E AN D D E M I S E
Meetng in congress i Saint-lmier shortly aer the congress in Te Hague,
te federalists opened by rescinding decisions taken at the later, particularly
those relatng to the expulsion of Bakunin and James Guillaume, before going
on to dismiss te New York General Council and adopt a clear and forcefl
stance on the central issue of politcal action by the proletariat:
3 2
Resolution 3
Te Nature of the Political Action of the Proletariat
Considering
Tat seekng to foist upon te proletat a policy line or uniform po
litical progam as the only route capable of leading it on to its social
emancipaton is an undertaking as absurd as it is reactionary.
Tat no one has the rght to deny the federations and autonomous
sections their incontrovertble right to determine for themselves and
to abide by the policy line that they deem best, and that any such
attempt would inevitably lead to the most disgusting dogmatism.
Tat te proletarat's aspiratons cannot have as their object anything
other than the establishment of an absolutely fee organization and
economic federation founded upon the labor and equality of all and
absolutely independent of al political government, and that that or
ganizaton and tat federation cannot be oter than te product of
te proletaat's own spontaneous action, [te acton] of its tades
bodies and autonomous communes.
Being persuaded that any political organizaton cannot be anything
but the organization of domination for the beneft of the classes and
to the detment of the masses, and tat te proletariat, if it were to
seek to take contol of politcal power, would itsel turn into a domi
nant, exploitng class.
Te congress assembled in Saint-Imier declares:
FACI NG THE ENEMY
1. Tat the destruction of all political power is te premier dut of
te proletariat.
2. Tat any organizing of a so-called provision
al and revolutonary
political power in order to encompass tat destuction cannot but be
yet another tick and would pose as great a danger for the proletariat
as all the governments in existence today.
3. Tat, rejecting alcompromise in order to hasten te implementa
ton of the social revoluton, the proletians of every county ought
to establish, outside of all bourgeois politcs, the solidarity of revolu
tionary acton.!
Following which, the delegates fom te Spanish, Italian, Jura, French and
Aerica federations entered into a pact of fiendship, solidarit ad mutual
defense against the tendency of te "autoritarian pat, which is te part of
German communism, to substitte its rule and te power of its leaders for fee
development and for tat spontaneous, fee organizaton of the proletat."
Tey were joined a litle later by the English, Belgians, Portuguese and Danes
... on te strength of the emotion aroused by Marx's outburst against Baunin
and James Guillaume, we might say; for some of tem, like the Belgians, the
Dutch and te English were opposed more to Marx's metods than to his ideas
and did not take long to rejoin te fock.
Te steadfstess behind the adopton of positions by the Saint-Imier con
gress contasted wt the weakening of organizatonal tes discernible tere: by
way of a backlash against the authoritarian centalism of the ersthile London
General Council, tose attending te congress called for absolute autonomy for
te Is federations and sections. In addition, tey rebuted "any legislative
or regulatory power vested in congresses," wheter these were regional or gen
eral, and at which, in any case, te majorit "must not force its resolutons upon
the minort." Tey cited the example of te "Spanish organization as the fnest
to date;" stike acton was indicated as te best weapon in te economic stuggle,
a
lbeit employed "witout illusions." A commission, as it happens, a secton of
the Italian federation, was charged wit presenting a draf for a world-wide or
ganizaton of resistance ad an overal statstcal scheme. Tat commission sub
sequenty became te correspondence and statistca bureau.
Seeking to preclude any repetition of bureaucratc practices, these federal
ists, themselves the victims of what we might term the "Marx syndrome," went
to the opposite extreme and denied the need for any serious organizational
tes. Inevitably, their cohesion was to be eroded, teir goodwill used up, their
isolaton fom one another exacerbated and their centga inclinations were
to ring the death knell of every consistent atempt at unifcaton.
Why did tings turn out as they did? To be sure, the authortarianism of
Marx and the late General Council in London pointed to the route to be avoided.
Assembled in congress in Sonvilliers the delegates fom te Jura Federation
drew the conclusion that:
V I . T H E F E D E R A L I S T I WM A : APO G E E & D E M I S E 3 3
the societ of the fture should not be anything other than te univer
salization of that organization with which te Internatonal wl have
endowed itself. So we should take care to match organization as closely
as possible to our ideal. How could we expect an egalitarian, fee soci
et to emerge fom an authoritarian organization? Impossible. Te In
ternational, as the ftre society in embryo, is required to be in the
here and now a fitfl reflecton of our principles of feedom and fed
eration, and to expunge fom its ranks any principle leaning towards
authority or dictatorship.2
Among the signatories to this we fnd the nae of one Jules Guesde, who
was actively involved in the draing of the text; however, he was to make his
name later as a "pure and hard-line" Marxist. Tat things were being taken too
far was plain: any extended connecton or dynamic initiative was constued as an
autoritarian act. As evdence of that, let us take te line argued by Paul Brousse,
another one destined to back-slide later -at the Geneva congress of the I
in 1873. Faced wth a suggestion that an I cental commission be set up, he
retorted wthout battng an eyelid that any:
central commission, even one without powers, beref of rights, having
naught but duties, stikes me as not wthout dangers. It will have its
creatures, its offcial propaganda, its offcial statstics, its pretensions.
It will avail of all possible means to establish its authority, to become a
government. In which it will succeed. Soon, under another guise, the
General Council that has just been laid low will in fact be restored . . .
You seek to topple the autoritarian edifce, anarchy is your progra
and you appear to shrink fom te consequences of your undertakng.
Have no hesitaton. You have delivered une blow of the ae and a por
tion of te edifce has fallen away. Deliver a second, a third, and te
edifce will come tumbling down. 3
1' point of fact what came tmbling down was the 1 WM, succumbing un
der such anti-organization "ae blows, " delivered, believe it or not, by te ftre
leader of the Possibilist Socialist Part and indeed Chairman of Paris Cit Coun
cil! Be that as it may, this was the general tend among te Jurassians: every
organizing endeavor or proposal was instanty categorized as an authortaran
snare. Such assumptions could not help but lead to te same old negatvit and,
to mae maters worse, inevitably dishearten al well-meaning folk who cared
about consistent social action. Te "Marx syndrome" seted in for a long reign.
True, te Jura's hostlit towards al organizaton or coordinaton aso rested
on another weight consideraton: te dangers implicit in police infltaton.
Remember that two agents provocateurs had played a crucial role in Max's
chicanery against Bakunin. Deceived by teir compliance, Max had not hesi
tated to entust to them te task of re-organizing the French secton, aong
wit a certain Laroque. Te latter was even commissioned to pick up money in
Bordeaux on the personal authority of Engels "witout awaiting the yea or nay
34 FACING THE ENEMY
of te Genera Council." Te "bag-man" dropped out of sight a litle while later,
with his pockets fll! Van Heddeghem, alias Wter, was put in charge of orga
nizing the Paris branch, and aforded discretonary authort, for he was "en
tted to suspend the organization or any member fom his district, untl such
time as te General Council's decision was made known." He was quicky "ar
rested" and adopted one of the most pitiable atttudes: pleading extenuating
circumstances, tat he had been duped by te Internationalists who had abused
his yout and lack of experience, but, havng now seen them at work and know
ing what tey were made of, his only concern would be to expose them for
what tey were. Engels himsel was forced to concede that he had been a "nark
and maybe even a Bonapartst agent." A for Marx's oter emissay, Dentaygues,
alias Swarm, he turned out to be even more damaging. To quote Jules Guesde
who denounced him vehementy in a famous article, 'Te Marxist Pro-con
suls," carred in the Jura Federation's Bulletin:
Te Swarm who, aer hang assisted at the Hague congress in te
expulsion of Baunin and James Guillaume fom our Associaton, then
proceeded, off his own bat, to exend that expulsion to include com
rade Paul Brousse [fom Montellier] has just revealed himself in his
tue light before the court in Toulouse.
On the pretext of recruiting workers fom our Midi to te Inter
natonal, and thanks to fll powers fom Marx, he acted as a beater of
socialist game, driving it into te nets of Tiers's police. He it was who
denounced te tirt-si victms fom Toulouse, te four fom Beziers,
etc., and it is his evdence that convcts tem now. His real name is
Dentaygues. "u are the lynch-pin of te prosecution" te president
of te court was able to tell him to his face, wthout drawng te slight
est objection fom him. 4
Guesde used tis blatant provocation as the basis for damning once and
for all te "authoritarian system of organizaton of which Marx and the General
Council are te mainstays," and he laid te blame on te "initiatory role that
te Hague congress attibuted to a cental orgaizaton":
Leave the working class in every country to oranize itel anarchically,
as best suits its interests and the Dentraues will not be possible any
longer.
1. Because te workers of each locait know one another and will
never be exposed to dependence upon a man who might betray them,
sell tem out.
2. Because, even granted that te tust they may have placed in one of
their own may have been misplaced, the taitor, being confned to his
own branch alone, will never be able to betay more tan one branch
to the bourgeoisie's police.
V I . T H E F EDE R A L I S T I WM A : APO G E E & DE M I S E 3 5
Te autonomy of its sections and federations is not just the spirit of
te International, it is also its securit.
Lookng back, it is amusing to fnd the fture guardian of Marxist orto
doxy at the forefont of te fght against Marx and the General Council. Be tat
as it may, his denunciation of the tin perils of centralism and police infltration
has become a touchstone for the organizatonal views of the autonomous fed
eralists. Tat said, what a fasco for Marx and Engels! Carefully covered up, of
course, by all their hagiographers and exegetes.
Implicity, there was anoter factor at work: the prospect tat intellectals
might seize the reins of the workers' movement. Enjoying the essential skills
and, above all, te requisite time to disport themselves inside te organization,
they could not help but overwhelm the manual workers. Even at the IWs
Geneva congress, in 1866, the delegates fom Paris and several others fom
Switerland had asked tat manual worker stats be a condition upon admis
sion into the Association, for fear that "ambitous scheming tpes might worm
their way into te Association, in order to achieve mastery over it in the short
or long term and to trn it to te service of teir personal interests, thereby
distacting it fom its goal. " On the frst occasion, that motion was rejected.
Te Parisians retrned to it whenever the discussions turned to the stattes.
Aain to no avail. But the Parisian delegation was not to be put off: Friborg
announced tat "some fne day it may come to pass that the workers' congress
wl be made up for the most part of economists, journalists, lawyers, bosses,
etc., a laughable sitaton tat would wpe out the Association. "5
Tat was a hypothesis that was not at all unfounded, i one looks at the
leadership bodies of the so-called workers' organizations over the past near
century. Tolain. a delegate fom Pars, even went frthcr:
Simple membership of the Association is one thing and living up to
te role of delegate to the congress is a matter of much greater deli
cacy. Te later requires greater garantees vs a vis the cause to be
served. We hate no one: but, under present conditions, we have to see
adversares i all members of te privileged classes, wheter tat privi
lege is conferred by capital or by qualifcatons. Te working class has
long been accused of trusting to others for its salvation, of relying
upon te state, etc. Toda it aims to side-step such reproaches: it seeks
its own salvation, asking nobody's protection. Tus its delegates must
belong neiter to te liberal professions nor to te caste of capitalists.6
In tis way, the gauntet was plainly being fung down and te likelihood is
that Marx and Engels, eminent representatives of the two categories cited,
were being targeted openly by te Parisians. Te majority at te congress,
made up of English, German and Swiss delegates, rejected that proposal once
and for al. Five years later, aer haing attended the conference arranged in
London in 1871, Paul Robin, exlliance member, also spotted the threat and
al eged tat te "workers wl dispatch, into te Councils tat enoy or are moving
3 6 FACI NG THE ENEMY
towards enjoying authorty, men of complete or comparative leisure, rentier or
privleged professionas, lawyers, journalists, teachers, doctors, liberated work
ingmen owning their own tools ad having assistants. " Applying that rule to
himself, doctor as he was, Robin resigned fom all responsible positons:
Exercising one of those privleged professions, I wlno longer consent
to be appointed to any workers' council, administative or supervsory.
And I shal have to render to the cause of social revoluton, to which I
remain committed, whatever special servces it may require of tose i
my profession.
I shal have achieved my aim should the stp I am taking wit
regad to myself become general practice: should te workers fom
now on have only one echelon, administatve councils under the con
stant supervision of te General Assembly or its special, temporay
representatves. Councils composed of real workers suffering te or
dinary conditons of contemporary industralism, paid at the usual rate
for the time that they will donate to the common afair, and assisted as
the need may be by clerks, likewise paid, for whom tey will be an
swerable. 7
Tis was an extemely honest atttude that does its author credit but it was
very poorly received by those to whom the admonishment was addressed, te
General Council and Marx, who wasted no time in instantly expeling tis "fy
in te ointent. " Robin was to persist with his militnt activt alongside te
Jurassians; he was subsequently to devote hi s tme to hi s specialty -educa
ton -with entusiasm and commitent. He was to be one of the neo-Malthu
sian apostes of eugenics, ten, at the age of 74, choose to bid this life good
bye. In any event, he cut a fne fgure in that age of renegadism and dereliction.
As for Bakunin, he took an acte part in the Jura Federation's congresses
in Sonvilliers and Saint Imier, and ten in 1872 he revived the Internatonal
Alliance of Socia Revolutionares and thereaer devoted his tme to founding
its Slav sections. Tus he drew up te programs for the Russian, Serb and
Polish brethren, largely adopting, but in a more polished form, his earlier pro
gras. He aso wrote lengty artcles and letters to denounce te Maxist putsch
inside te I I tese we fnd remarkable prophecies about stte sociaism' s
fture and the fture of what he described as the "Kouto-Germanic" empire.
Unfortunately te majority of these writngs were to remain unpublished until
recent years and thus did not have the desired infuence upon the course of
events. Plagued by health problems, the old lion took the view that his interna
tionalist mission was over and he bade his comrades faewell in a very fne
letter of October 12, 1873, which in fact came to be regarded as his testament.
In it he tanked his comrades, especially the Jurassians, for having "retaned
teir esteem, their fiendship and teir trust" in him, despite the "chicanery of
our common foes and the infamous calumnies peddled against [him] ; " he
thanked them for not havng yielded to intimidaton in the shape of te label
V I . T H E F EDE R A L I S T I WM A : APO G E E & DE M I S E 3 7
"Bakuninists" that had been cast up to them: such constancy had enabled them
"to score a complete victory" over the "dictatorial designs of Monsieur Marx."
Te victory of feedom and of the International over authoritarian intrigue
"now complete," he reckoned that feedom of action "according to personal
convenience had been restored to every indidual": so he thought that he was
witin his rights to resign fom the Jura Federation and te International. Es
pecially in light of his health, his part fom now on could not go beyond theo
retcal propaganda -which did not appear to him to be the number one prior
it in the short term, for he closed his letter wit the assertion that:
the time for ideas is past, and deeds and actions have come into their
own. Te prority today above everything else is the organization of the
forces of te proletariat. But that organization should be the handiwork
of te proletarat itself. Were I a young man, I would betake myself into
the workers' circles and, sharing my brethren's life of toil, I would also
share with tem in this great labor of necessary organization. But nei
ther my yeas nor my health permit me to do SO.H
Tereafer he spent his time on personal maters, while draing (in Rus
sian) one of his major witings, Statism and Anarchy, a text that stands alone but
was intended as the frst part of a study intended to stretch to several volumes
but which, alas, was never completed. Similarly, he wanted to buckle down to
writng his memoirs but, seekng to solve his fnancial staits once and for all
and assure his family's fture, (his Polish wife and the tree children she had
had by te Italian Internationalist Cambuzzi for, in fact, his "marriage" was a
marriage of convenience, and his we enjoyed complete sexual feedom) he
threw himself into a madcap ventre, the L Baronata agricultural commune.
He trned out to be a mediocre fanner dUU au atocious manager, which led to
his fittering away a substantal sum of money borrowed by his colleague Carlo
Cafero. Tis had a dramatic result: he fell out with his best fiends and col
leagues in the Jura: this falling-out did not bpcome generally !0\ to outsid
ers but it had a very damaging impact inside the Jura Federation. In despera
ton, Baunin tred to trow his life away in an insurrection in Italy and almost
succeeded in that, before coming to a dismal death amid rancor and illness. Up
to te last, he retined his rebellious spirit in spite of everything and to a young
Russian woman who nursed him he offered the counsel that "autorit depraves,
submission to authorit debases. "9
Te I that had survived held four congresses: Geneva (1873) , Brus
sels (1874) , Berne (1876) and Verviers (1877) . Tis was its heyda a perod
generally glossed over by historians of the workers' movement, yet a perod
that was crucial, for it was then that the real demarcation beteen reformist
advocates of state socialism and the conquest of state power and revolutionar
ies, determinedly committed to the economic stuggle, took place. So much so
tat it became impossible for them to coexist. Te schism was consummated
at te world socialist congress held in Ghent in 1877. Te Germans, Dutch,
3 8 FACI NG T HE ENEMY
Belgians and English -or at any rate the federations representing them in the
I -at the instgation of the Belgian Cesar De Paepe, came out clearly for
participaton in bourgeois institutions. Te autonomists r
a
llied around the Jura
Federation did not quite advocate politcal abstention as lots of their adversar
ies sought maliciously to suggest, but, faithfl to the Proudhonian idea, they
condemned the embracing of participation in bourgeois parliamentarism as an
objective to the detriment of the workers' economic struggle.
Caught between true believers and like-minded tes on the one hand, and
prey to international persecution on the other, the autonomists were to lose in
terest in te holding of international congresses. Tese were replaced by te
congresses of the Jura Federation which also atracted other foreign autono
mists. Tus there was no longer the old Internationa but instead a movement
ralied around a specifc organization, albeit more informal than te Aliance and,
over the years, increasingly remote fom the laboring masses. Furthermore, an
additiona subdivision took place in the ranks into those who preached propa
ganda by insurrectonism and those less enthused by that.
As earl as 1876, Malatesta, speaking on behalf of the Italian Federation,
had issued a declaration in favor of propaganda by deed. Te "act of insurrec
tion, designed to assert socialist principles by deeds" was regarded as the most
effective mode of propaganda and te only one which "without deceiving and
corrupting the masses, ca reach the deepest layers of societ and draw the
vital forces of mankind into the stuggle sustained by the Internatonal."l0 A
imprompt uprsing in Benevento in Italy that year turned into a fasco but
failed to dishearten its instigators: quite the opposite indeed, but the strategy
espoused by tem was nevertheless repugnant to many others. Tis later fact,
plus te backlash fom employers and the state whitted the membership of
the Jura Federaton down to a few dozen members -in contrast to the hun
dreds of its early days - and led to te collapse of te organization's clock
makng production cooperative. So much so that its chief exponent, James
Guillaume, was obliged to move away to Paris in 1878, his departure signaling
the end of the Buletin de fa Federation. A new mouthpiece emerged in the
shape of L Revoite, published out of Geneva: Peter Kopotkin was its mainstay.
Geographical isolation played a part in te demise of the Jura Federation:
for a tme, refgee French Communards and several Russian and Italian Inter
nationalists provided some sort of international liaison, albeit faught with per
sonal squabbles. Indeed, Jules Guesde, who went back to France in 1876, stuck
out on his own, diluting his views as the need arose and launching his own
newspaper L'Egafite. Paul Brousse who stood by his extremist opinions clan
destnely produced another French paper L'Avant-Garde. Benoit Malon and
Gustave Lfancais, for their part, began to distance temselves fom the anti
autoritarans.
Te amnesty granted to the Communards in July 1880 accelerated the de
marcation process and signaled the end of an epoch. Guesde and Brousse,
erstwhile fiends, the Castor and Pollux of the federalist I, joined forces
V I . T H E F E D E R A L I S T I WM A : APO G E E & D E M I S E 3 9
to launch the Parti Ouvrier Franfais (French Workers' Part) on the basis of a
minimum progam tat Guesde had obtained fom his one-time Mte noire, Marx,
in Lndon. Not that teir alliance lasted long, for it came to a somewhat comi
ca end; at the workers' congresses in Paris and Saint-Etienne in May and Sep
tember 1882, te Broussists secured a majority and expelled the Guesdists!
Not that that was the end of it: each of them set up his own part and sailed
back and fort over a period of twent years of "armed neutralit" before they
found themselves in the same camp once more, along with Jean Allemane and
the Blanquist Edouard Vaillant, with the founding in 1905 of the SFIO (French
Secton of the Workers' International) Socialist Part. Having become by then
what once tey had despised -electoralists -they set about conquering pub
lic offce, with a degree of success: Brousse was to become chairman of the
Paris cit council and the Guesde minister of war in 1914-1916!
How are we to account for the tajectory followed by those who once would
have railed against the conquest of state power and the stifing centralism of
the Marxst General Council of the I, only to end up themselves as the
surest guardians of the capitalist order, while displaying the label "socialists?"
Tere are te objective factors: capitalist production expanded considerably
and reserved te leading role for the workers who became essential to its sur
vival. Smartng fom the bloody reverses they had suffered in 1848 and 1871.
those workers leant more and more in favor of less violent remedies and let
themselves be seduced into participation in bourgeois institutions, in hopes of
improvng teir circumstances by that route. Socialists thus found temselves
cast as the representatives of such aspirations. As for the subjective element in
the defection of ulta-revolutionaries, that may be construed as young bour
geois revertng to tpe afer their impulsive extravagances: but an "honorable"
reversion, for all that. Esvecially as, being denied access to the tiller of societ
by the plutocrats, the intelligentsia discovered in socialism an ideal means by
which to advertise its "special talents and capabilities. " As a result, while sup
porting te workers' causp, it earned itsel a sort of "legitilnacy" in justiying Its
"wse choice, " provided that it jettison the anarchist enthusiasms of its younger
days, and hold itself ready to share in the "responsibilities" of state power along
side the once despised bourgeoisie.
Te die-hard rebels believed that the collapse of the system was just around
te corner and they believed tey might even accelerate tat collapse wth a
few spectacular insurrectons or attentats, like the Russian populists who had
believed that they might topple te autocracy by assassinating Alexander II. It
was fll steam ahead; at his trial in Lyon in 1883, Kropotkin reckoned tat bour
geois societ had at most another decade of life lef in it!
To sum up: te workers' movement, at its inception united and homoge
neous, progressively differentated itsel into several competng tendencies, each
one stivng on its ow account to play upon te elements of evolution or revolu
tion, economic and socia. As the Great Score-Setling failed to arrive, they
scutled around looking for ways of hastening its arrival by laying the stress
tereaer on subjectve conditons. In tis way te tendencies turned into specifc
40 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
orgaizations, the better to get across teir ideological messages and extend
teir infuence over the workers. Tis wit the notable exception of te ones
who would henceforth go under te name of anarchists who, believing te so
cial revoluton to be imminent, denied the necessit of organizaton at all, be
cause, on the one hand, they were keen t start in te here and now abiding by
te principles that would govern the societ of their dreams, and, on te oter,
with the example of Marx in mind, tey were wary of any half-stuctured orga
nizaton.
Endnotes for Chapter Si
1. L Premiere Internationale anthology of documents published under the supervsion of
Jacques Freymond, (Geneva: Droz, 1971) , Tome E, p. 7 ff. for the quotations that follow.
2. Ibid. , Tome III, p. 104.
3. Ibid. , Tome I p. 53.
4. Aexandre Zevaes, De L'introduction du marxisme en Frnce (Paris: Rviere, 1947) ,
pp. 593 for all the quotations below.
5. J. Freymond, op. cit, Tome I, pp. 41 and 68.
6. Ibid. , p. 80.
7. Bakunin, Oeuvres completes, Volume Two, p. 391.
8. Bakunin, Oeuvres compUtes, Volume Si, pp. 233-235.
9. Athur Lehning, M. Bakounine et les autres, (pars: 10/18 Books, 1970) , p. 372.
10. J. Freymond, L Premiere Internationale, op. cit. , Tome I, p. 514.
VI. THE F E D ERA LIST IWMA : A POGEE & D EMISE 4 1
VI I . P ROPAGAN DA BY D E E D AN D
" ANARC HY ON T H E P AYROL L"
In te eyes of anti-authoritarians, incompatibility with the reformist state
socialists had become so blatanty obvious tat their every thought was de
voted to fnding ways of demarcatng their differences if only in terms of labels.
At the time of te 1879 and 1880 congresses of te Jura Federation in Chaux
de-Fonds i Switzerland, at the suggeston of Carlo Caero and Peter Kropotin,
anarchist communism was espoused as their ultimate goal and collectivism
described as a tansitional form of societ. Te corollary of these objectives
was "te aboliton of all forms of government and the fee federaton of pro
ducer and consumer groups. "
At a secret get-togeter in Vevey in Swtzerand in 1880, tirty-two anar
chist "poIitcal leaders" who included Kropotn, EIisee Reclus, Pierre Martin
and fve oter Frenchmen, set out the tactcal metods to be used to bring
about anarchist communism. Tey agreed to recommend propaganda by deed
and adopted a program drawn up by the Swiss, Herzig, and the German, Otter:
1. Uter oesruction of exsting institutons by force.
Z. Every possible effort must be made to spread the revolutionary
idea and the spirit of revolt through deeds.
3. Desert the legal terrain in order to focus acton upon the terrain of
illegalit, which is te only road leading on to revolution.
4. Technica and chemical sciences having already rendered services
to the revolutionary cause, we should urge upon our organizations
and the indivduals belonging to tese groups that they place great
store by the stdy and applications of tese sciences as a means of
attack and defense.
5. Te autonomy of groups and individuas is acceptable, but in order
to retain unit of action, each group is entited to enter into direct cor
respondence with the oters, and in order to facilitate such relations,
a cental international information offce is to be set up. 1
For the time being, that program was kept secret and Jean Maiton, who
reprints it in fl in his monumenta and unsurpassed thesis on this period,
42 FACI NG THE E NE MY
discovered it in te police archives, which would suggest tat tere was a po
lice presence at that formal get-together, tough there is no way of knowing
whether that does credit or discredit to what emerged fom it. Neverteless,
the organizational eccenticity espoused wlbe noted: autonomy was "accept
able, " there was a "right to correspond" and an "information" offce. Maybe the
one accounts for the oter. Otherwse, what we have projected in this formula
is the pictre of the societ of the fture, albeit in very hazy colors.
On te other hand, police involvement is crucia to the launching of the
frst French anarchist journal to have seen te light of day since te Commune,
La Revolution sociale. Te Paris prefect of police, Louis Andrieux, had made
his name a decade before, by taking on Bakunin and te Lyon Communards.
In his Memoir he explains and accounts for his initative. He opens wit a
starting argument that to this very day raises a lot of questons: ''e know that
the peretators of political crimes, when they remain unknown, are always
agents provocateurs, and that it is always te police who are at the back of it. "!
Disturbed by talk of propaganda by deed and by te plot to have the Palais
Bourbon (Chaber of Deputes) blown up, and brefed on te anarchists' prob
lems in bringing out a newspaper, he seized tis opening to infltrate those
circles and "place Anarchy on the payroll. " As this case is a model of the genre,
let us quote te juicy story of this provocation at some length:
Te comrades needed a backer: but fendish Capital was in no hurry
to respond to teir appeal. I shook that fendish Capital by the shoul
ders and managed to convince it tat it was in its interest to encourage
the publicaton of an anarchist newspaper. One does not stamp out
teachings by preventing them fom springing forth, and te teachings
gained nothing fom being made known. Giving the anarchists their
newspaper was like installing a telephone link between the ploters'
back-room and the offce of the prefect of police. One does not keep
secrets fom one's fnancial backer, and, day by day, I would be kept
abreast of te most mysterious schemes. Te Paais Bourbon would
be spared: the representatives of the people could get on wit teir
deliberatons in peace.
Do not tink, aso, tat I crudely offered the encouragements of a
police prefect. I sent along a well-dressed bourgeois to seek out one of
the most actve, most intelligent of tem. My agent explained to him
that, having made his fortune in the drug business, he wanted to de
vote a portion of his income to assisting anarchist propaganda. Tis
bourgeois entering the lion's den aroused no suspicion among te com
rades. Trough him, I placed a security wt the state fnds and so te
newspaper La Revolution sociale made its entace.
It was a weekly publicaon, my generosit not stretching to the
expense of a daily newspaper. Mlle. Louise Michel was the star attac
tion of my editorial panel. Needless to say, "the great citzen-ess" was
oblivious of the part in which I had cast her, and it is not witout a
V I I . PR OPA G A N D A B Y D E E D 43
measure of confsion that I own up to the tap I had set for the inno
cence of some comrades of both sexes.
Every day, around an editorial table, the most respected repre
sentatives of te part of action would assemble: together, tey would
sca teir internatona correspondence: they would consider the steps
to be taken to do away with "man' s exploitaion of his fellow-man": the
recipes tat science was placing in te revoluton's servce were passed
along. I was aways represented at tese councils, and if te need arose,
I would put in my two pennies' wort, more than once acting as a
lightning conductor.2
Instuctive indeed! Not that "one of the most actve and intelligent of them"
was Emile Gauter, a leading light of the Paris movement at the time, a doctor of
law and superb orator, but somewhat more gullible than te cobbler Jean Grave
who had a better "nose" in this connection. Whenever Andrieu's agent, te
Belgian SpiIleux alias Serraux, turned up to put this "stroke" to Grave he at frst
hesitated, ten made to agree under certain conditions, that is, that the paper
was brought out but Serraux was soon sent packing. Te "wheeler-dealer, " in
this instance, Andrieux, smelled a rat ad concentated instead on Gauter. 3 Te
later noneteless was alerted by the sight of the names and addresses of French
anarchist groups and teir members in the columns of the paper. By then the
game was obvous and that led to the demise of La Revolution sociale, aer 56
issues and almost a year on te scene. Te role of "lighting conductor" men
toned by Adrieux is aso wort looking into: in this instance it took the form of
a sham anarchist outage. Aer havng considered the Banque de France, te
Elysee Palace, te prefectre of police, and te Interior Ministy -all of which
targets were easily ruled out by Serraux, Andrieux's man -the state of Tiers
recenty unveiled in Saint-Gerldiu was chosen "as a practIce run. " Let us have a
look at the exact circumstances, as related wit easy humor by Andrieux:
44
Te comrades set off for Saint-Germain, carrying te infernal machine:
tis was a sadine can packed wit flminate and careflly wrapped in
a handkerchief. I was aghast to learn of tis plot: I knew what time
tey would be settng off for Saint-Germain: I knew what tme the in
tended crime was scheduled for. Wat was I to do? Te act had to go
through i a crackdown was to be made possible. I had no hesitation in
sacricing te liberator of te nation in order to save the Palais Bour
bon. When night fell, the comrades slipped into the darkness trough
the ageless tees: tey followed te rue de la Republique as far as the
rue de Poissy, where te statue loomed larger and heavier tan life in
a lite square. Te pale moonlight brightened the face of the bronze
old man who looked down upon te plotters with a sardonic gaze.
One of tem lifed te sardine can on to the plinth of the statue,
between the legs of te armchair where a seated Mr. Tiers was un
folding someting tat must have been a geographer's map along his
lef thigh.
FACING THE E NE MY
A long fse tailed fom the pedestal. One of te comrades set it
alight, while his colleagues scattered revolutonary proclamatons on
te ground: then, as te fame began slowly to edge along the fse, the
comrades took to teir heels, racing down te hill: and as tey raced
on across te fat ground tey clambered over te railway barriers.
Upon their arival back in Paris they impatiently awaited te news
fom Saint-Germain. Tey had not stayed t watch te spectacular
destruction tey had wrought: they had no idea of the extent of te
damage.
How disappointed they were when tey leaned tey had, at best,
rudely awakened a few peaceable inhabitants of te quiet town of Saint
Germain. Te state was untouched: the flminate had failed to da
age te bronze: a broad black stain was the only tace lef by te out
rage. I knew te names of the plotters: I had made te tip wit tem,
by proxy at least: I had seen everyhing, heard everyting.
According to Jean Grave, it was "two or three Southerners, recenty ar
rived fom Marseilles, men whose verba revolutionism . . . signied teir readi
ness to trn their hand to anying" who made te tip to plat that fmous
"sadine can," which caused only an "explosion oflaughter. " Tis tme, we might
add, for the procedure was repead over and over again and ofen had unfort
nate consequences. Te lesson was not learned properly and there were al
ways naive souls or imbeciles ready to be sucked into police provocations. Now,
these narks have ofen had teir defenders, as Grave stresses:
Unmasking tese narks would be so easy i al comrades were pre
pared to use a litle common sense in their reasoning. But for many of
them plain common sense goes out the window where propaganda
maters are concerned. Tey drag in a host of elements unconnected
with te issue, merely complicatng and muddying it. . . . i you dare to
attack 'teir' chap, it must be out of jealousy or because he does not
see eye to eye with you. 4
Grave here is upbraiding tose "Christan-minded" anarchists who refse
to "think ill of anybody. " For al that, Grave has a tendency to play down te
influence of narks upon te evolution of te movement, which appears a bit
paradoxical of te man who had been so disparaged in anarchist circles for
jicomanie (aving cops on te brain) . And yet, there were notable police plants
at the tme: in 1882, at te tme of the riots in Montceau-Ies-Mines, the agent
provocateur Brenin was unmasked: in Lyon, center of te libertarian move
ment at the tme, an agent of te prefectre, one Valadier, managed to infltate
the editorial panel of te anarchist newspapers, which were in any event subject
to permanent censorship harassment, since a single newspaper was obliged,
for instance, to change its name seven tmes in under two years!
Police plants have never been exclusive to aarchists, as some once at
tempted to have us believe -far fom it! Al revolutonary organizatons of any
V I I . PR OPA G A NDA B Y DE ED 45
importance have always been inltated by provocateurs and traitors. Starting
with Grisel who "blew" Babeuf's Conspiracy of the Equals in 1796: then even
the great Blanqui, the "Old Lag" who spent 33 years of his life behind bars, was
compromised by the Taschereau document, uncovered in police archives in
1848, in which he denounced Barbes and his colleagues fom the abortve ris
ing in 1839 (unless this was only a ploy on his part designed to get rid of his
rivals) . During te 1848 revolution, the incoming prefect of police, Caussidiere,
was stupefed to discover that his own deputy, Delahodde, appointed secretary
of the prefectre, as well as the captain of his guards, Chenu, were agents of te
police of Louis Philippe planted inside the revolutionary secret societies years
before; Delahodde had even served time in prison, the beter to play the stoolie
among fellow inmates who could scarcely distust such a "pure" revolutionary."
Inside the Russian revolutonary movement, renegadism, teachery or provo
cation amounted to what might be described as an often honorable tradition. We
might start by mentioning Utin, the man who slandered Bakunin and was an
unconditional supporter of Max: quickly disappointed by the lack of prospects
in Europe, he sought a pardon of the Tsar and went back to Russia. Leon
Tikhomirov, one of the most prominent populists, did likewise in the 1880s. Yevo
Azev, the head of the Social Revolutionaries' terrorist fghting organization, was
a direct agent working for the Okhrana, the tsarist secret police. Te Bolshevik
paper Pravda was founded in 1912 by another agent provocateur, Zhitomirsk.
Furthermore, Malinovsk, leader of the Bolshevik faction in the Russian Cham
ber of Deputies or Duma, although "beloved" by Lenin, was anoter Okrana
agent and was shot as such in 1918. Tus all these agents were often well placed
and as a result had a crucia infuence upon teir organization or the course of
event. M orfovpr, there is no reason to bc stttd by Uli, fur ali is fair in wa:
the bourgeois stte protected itself however it could. Moscow's "workers'" state
has since done a lot better, which is to say a lot worse, conjuring ready-made
phony anti-Bolshevik organizations into existence, manipulating them as has
suited its needs and also penetratng most of te Russian emigre associations.
We should note that Adrieux was quick to reveal his manipulation, just
four years afer the event, probably to pre-empt his being held accountable for
evental "mishaps," for his L Revolution sociale had done noting but talk
about bombs, arson and explosions. So he had to cover himself against those
who succeeded him in the prefecture of police. Te oddest reaction to his dis
closures came fom Jules Guesde: Guesde later accused him of having "sired"
anarchism in France. Tus, Guesde, who had once denounced Marxist cen
taism inside the workers' movement as a conduit for polce iton, swtched
his rile to his other shoulder!
In 1880, not all te bridges between socialists had yet been burned. At the
L Havre congress, te few anarchists present even managed to have a motion
passed, advocating "libertarian communism as te ultimate objective. " It was
only at the Paris congress on May 22, 1881 that the split really came. It cae
over an organizational issue, which may seem odd for anarchists: they decided
4 6 FACING THE ENEMY
to address the congress only on behalf of their groups rater than in any per
sonal capacit. Wen the socialists turned down this proposal, tey held a con
gress of their own fom May 25 to 29, 1881, the date ofthe offcial foundaton of
the French anarchist movement.
Te Lndon internatonal congress, in July that year, set the sea upon te
split. Tirt-one delegates, all of them described by a number rater by their
names, represented 56 federations and 46 non-federated sections or groups.
Among tese delegates were Louise Michel, Peter Kopotkin, Emile Pouget
and the celebrated Serraux, Andrieux's "nark. " Two crucial motions were
passed. One, carried by a "slim minorit," concerned te establishment of an
internationa information offce (!) based in London and comprising tree titu
lar members and tree deputes. Its existence was to remain notonal. Te oter
and unquestonably more important motion, had to do wit propaganda by deed.
It repeated the Vevey motion virtally word for word:
Congress expresses the wish tat afliated orgaizations should bear
the following suggestons in mind: as a matter of strict necessity, every
possible effort must be made in te form of acts to spread te revolu
tonary idea and the spirit of revolt to that great facton of te laboring
populaton tat does not as yet participate in te movement and de
ludes itself about the moralit and effcacit of lawl methods. In de
partng fom the lawl parameters within which we have generally
remained thus far, in order to remove our acton to the terrain of ille
galit which is the only path leading to revolution, we must have re
course to methods consonant wit that objective . . . . It is absolutely nec
essary that we focus our efforts in tat area, bearng in mind tat the
simplest of actons aganst existng insttutions says more to te masses
tan thousands of printed and foods of spoken words, and tat propa
ganda by deed in te countryside is even more important than in the
towns. Congress recommends to all organizatons and persons afli
ated to te Internatonal Workingmen's Associaton that tey place great
store by the study of te technical and chemical sciences as a means of
defense and attack.6
Tis last recommendation is mind-boggling: the use of explosives to tace
out a pa for social revolution! Seductive though the strategic notion of propa
ganda by deed may have seemed (and te same could be said of the economic,
social, indivdual or other approaches that would translate libertaian aspira
tons into day to day practicalites -and a fair number of comrades were en
gaged in these areas) , the reduction of it to the simple expression of "chemical
and technical means" seems, with the beneft of hindsight, quite ludicrous, not
to say aberrant.
Aoter inconsistency arose here: the congress claimed no right other tan
its right to offer a broad outline of what stuck it as te best form for revolution
ary socialst organizing, leaving "te secret organizatons and oters which might
VII. PROPAGANDA BY DEED 47
strike them as advancing the success of the social revolution" as a mater for te
initiative of the groups themselves. Al in all, this fted in wit the tend aready
apparent in the last few congresses of te Jura Federaton. If the slightest doubt
persisted about its refsal to adopt a defnite stance, the London congress stipu
lated that it "is readily appreciated that te delegates fom organizations wich
have sent representatves to London were not empowered to pass binding reso
lutons. It will be up to their groups and federations to make the fnal decision as
to whether they accept them. " How? By corresponding! For each afliated group
"will have the rght to correspond directly wth all the other groups and federa
tions which might give it their addresses. " A lamer recommendaton would be
inconceivable and the suggestion remained a "dead leter. " We can appreciate
how the recollection of Marx's centralistic General Council may have over-shad
owed the delegates' deliberations, but this evasion of organizational responsi
bilities was simply suicidal and its boomerang effect was about to produce an
eclipsing of libertarian ideas as the ideas of the majority revolutonary current,
so much so that tey would subsequently have to resort to oter organizatonal
and social methodologies in order to fnd expression.
It is noteworthy that Kopotin did what he could to oppose these resolu
tions. He was somewhat inclined to advocate a return to te Bakuninist form of
organization, at once secret and public, which is to say, a resurrection of the
Aliance: on two occasions he also spoke up against the recommended stdy of
"chemical sciences' as the favored method of propaganda by deed. In addition,
he tried to focus attention upon the much more signifcant problem of "clan
destine presses" in those counties where newspapers could not be published
feely, and it was with great diffculty that he managed to get the congress to
adopt a stance on revolutionary morality.
It is telling tu Hote thai his greatest opposition on those two points came
fom Andrieux's agent, Spilleu/Serraux, supported by oter Pasian delegates
fom the 1 1th, 16th and 21st arrondissements of the cit, including the famous
"sardine can" bombprs of that state of Tiers. Naturally, Serrau moved that
the term "moralit" be sticken fom the motion and steadfasty refsed to see
the establishment of any statstical or infrmaton bureau, or any bureau oter
wise described, on te alleged grounds that that would mean the reconstitu
tion, under one denominaton or another, of an "autority. " In the end, he moved
tat the congress be wound up without recommending a clandestne press and,
to cover his tracks, he arued that it was "a dut upon us all to show solidart
with every revolutionary act." Whereupon one of his most obsequious follow
ers, the delegate fom Lvallois-Perret, added to the confsion by saying tat it
is "hard to determine where te revolutionary act begins and where the bour
geois act begins. " Tis was a splendid confsionist success, carred off witout
serious opposition fom others at te congress like Louise Michel, Charles
Maato, Emile Pouget, Grave, Malatesta, Merlino and other tied and tested
revolutionaries.7
Lt us note te presence at tis congress in London of a representtive fom
te Icaian commune in Iowa, in te United States, which had moved away fom
48 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
the original patiarcha and religious socialism of Cabet towards a libertarian
communism. (Furtermore, in 1881 a newspaper called Le Communiste lertaire
was published by Pierre Leroux's broter, Jules Lerou.)
From ten on, except in Spain which followed its own Bakuninist, colec
tivist pat, targeting te producers of feld and factory, it was France tat be
came te center of gravt of the international anarchist movement, tereby
regaining the status she enjoyed in the nineteenth century as te "Homeland
of Revolutionaries and Revolutons." Te evolution of anachist thinking in te
Hexagon (France) was to march in step wit internatonal tends up unt 1914.
For that reason, we shall now focus our attention upon the French anarchism
of tat period.
Instances of "propaganda by deed" came fast and thick, anarchist ideas
ganed ground and in order to combat them the authorites seized upon te
pretext of te Lndon congress and indicted around si anarchists fom Lyon
and elsewhere in 1883, on charges of attempted reconstucton of te I,
which was stll under ban in France. Te accused in trn availed of the ta to
indict the bourgeois order and give fll vent to teir propaganda. Kropotin,
Emile Gautier, Bordat and Pierre Martin used the witness box as a rostum for
hours on end, not tat tis prevented them fom receivng several years in
prison as teir sentences in spite of it all. Emile Gautier, one of the most bril
liant anarchist propagandists of his day, was entited to special teatment: he
was feed before completion of his sentence, upon undertaing to break wit
Anachy. Tat was a promise that he kept, for he was thereaer to devote his
energies to scientic publicatons fa removed fom chemistry and matters
social. Only once did he reteat fom his undertaking, much later on, when he
wrote a preface to the memoirs of Coron, the one-time head of the Surete, who,
it transpired, had been a childhood fiend! Gautier took tis paradox to ex
tremes by "complimentng" the man who had had the celebrated anarchist
burglars, Duval ad Pini, arrested, upon his having retained "te seditious soul
of his younger day" beneat the "ticolor sash of te head of te Smete, " a
compliment coming fom a "staunch old fiend who went to te bad"!8
Te movement slowed down: its newspapers came out in fts ad stats:
congresses were rejected as "lefovers fom parliaentarism, " because they
laid down a "single policy line tespassing against the feedom of te federa
tions. " In spite of which, an attempted "International Aarchist Congress" was
held in 1889 over a period of one week. As it had no pre-arranged agenda, it
proceeded "amid the worst features of anarchy in the vlga sense of te term"
(to borrow Jean Maiton's descripton) . Tere was not a single resoluton passed,
no vote was taken, and it was, in fact, a "Donnybrook Fair. " Which is scarcely
surprising, for te prevalent notion in France at the time was as latitudinarian
as could be:
Unhindered entry and rights of discussion for every comrade, for, as
soon as some individuals show up speaking on behalf of other
V I I . P R O P A G A N D A B Y D E E D 49
indivduals, tey wil be tempted to believe tat they are expressing a
collectve opinion and, when tey leave, will go away persuaded that
teir view, teir words carry more weight than if tey were acting
solely upon teir own beha in short, tey will be tempted to lay down
te law . . . . 9
Tat sort of sophisty was te general rule, not merely for individuals re
mote fom all social existence, but also for propagandists of some renown like
Jean Grave, the editor-in-chief of L Revoite, who championed feedom of as
sent ad feedom of initiatve:
Individuas belonging simultaneously to several groups based on dif
ferent acts of propaganda . . . once teir a has been achieved, and
te propaganda act been accomplished, te goup dissolves, reform
ig on a new basis, tose persons not acceptng tis new outook break
ing off and oters being recruited ad propaganda thus being carried
out by groups continualy undergoing tansformatons along these
lines, accustoming indivduals to bestr themselves, to act, witout
being bogged down in routne and immobilit, tereby preparing the
groupings of the societ to come, by forcing indivduas to act for tem
selves, to seek out one anoter on the basis of teir inclinations, their
afnites.
10
Once he realized that he was livng in tmes where te "shores of Anarchy"
were not witin sight, Grave was to overhaul tat idyllic concepton of propa
ganda actvt. By tat tme, tough, te damage had been done: atomization
and te entronement of individua autonomy as an absolute principle were to
dilute and decompose te French anarchist movement. Jean Maiton estmates
the number of militants in the entre county at somewhere beteen 600 and
800 during the 1880s, and reckons tat by 1894 tere were 1,000 active mili
tants, 4,500 sypatizers and around 100,000 people receptve to anarchist ideas.
Very few indeed, considerng te goals in mind and te above althe advent of
te much awaited societ of te ftre.
Tis headlong fht fom reait led to a plain dissociation fom social
stuggles. Te opton for propaganda by deed, to te exclusion of every oter
tactc or statagem, inevitably led to a divorce fom te workers' everyday pre
occupatons. In order to gloss over tat defcienc, anarchy took on te form of
a religion, peddled by prophets and dreamers possessed. All tat this mystcal
surge needed was its marts: and tey would not be long in coming forward.
In fact, te more te breakdown of societ became desirable, the more unbea
able became te ordinary, everyday ghastiness to some who then turned to
acts tat "mae more propaganda in a few days tan tousands of pamphlets"
(o quote Kopotin fom Te Spirt ofRebelion) witout thereby unleashing
te yearned for spontaneous uprising of te masses.
In fact, such practce signaed a complete breach with te taditons of
associaton, union and solidat built up in early decades of te workers' move-
5 0 F ACI NG THE ENEMY
ment and of te federaist I i partcula. Quite te contay: it made head
way as a abrupt backash against such socia vaues, as we can see fom te
ant-organizationa tend that was to gain te upper hand i anachist circles
and speed the skid towads "bomb-ism. "
Endnotes for Chapter Seven
1. Quoted by Jean Maiton, Hitoire du mouvement anarchit en France (18801914), (paris,
1951) , pp. 73-74.
2. Louis Andrieu, Souvenir d'un prefet de police, (aris: LAarchie subventonnee, 1885) ,
Tome I, p. 337ff. We should sa tat Luis Andrieu was te adulterine fater of the Sist
poet Louis Aragon, author of te notorious "We need a CPU" and of absurd paeans to Staln
"te fater and sun of te peoples." As for his fater, he was only a virtous republcan
polceman; much given to womag and irregular habits, he made staunch enemies and
te day came when, having gone to see te minister ad told him: "I bring you glad td
ings!," the response came: "I tank you for tendering your resignaton!" (L Crapouilot July
1837) . Tis was one ausing detail that, as a good "humorist," he chose to pass over in
silence in his memoirs.
3. Jean Grave, Quarante ans de prpagand anarchits, (pais: Fammaion, 1973) , pp. 401-405.
4. Ibid.
5. Jean Caltier-Boissiere, "Les mysteres de la police secrete" in L Crapouillot Oul 1936) ,
pp. 114-117.
6. Report of te congess carried in L Revolte No. 13, (August 20, 1881) . Quoted also by].
Carin. L'narchie et les anarchistes (paris, 1885) , pp. 4650.
7. Ibid.
8. Goron (former head of te Surer) , Memoires, Tome I, De l'invaion a l'anarchie, fre
word by Emile Gauter, (pars: Fammarion, no date) , p. X.
9. Quoted by J. Maiton, op. cit., p. 106.
10. L Revolte No. 3, (1890) .
V I I . PR OPA G A N DA B Y D E E D 5 1
VIII. ANTI-ORGANIZATIONISTS AND BOMBERS
Autor of a recent thesis on anarchist individualism, Gaetano Manfedonia,
ofers a very fne defnition of the chief characteristic of this era:
Individual initiative, fee agreement, fee communism, propaganda by
deed, spontaneity of revolutionary acton, such were the keynote ideas
of aarchism's ideological profle in te 1880s, and they all harked back
to the autonomous individual as the agent of social transformation. I
Aainst that sort of backdrop, what might the relations between these "au-
tonomous individuals" be like? Al but nonexistent, for there was no federation,
no stable liaison, only groups getting together fom tme to time. In what sense?
Emile Gautier explicitly spelled this out at his trial in Lyon:
We have to be clear about what a group is. In Paris at any rate te
anarchist groups are simple rendezous where fiends come together
each week to discuss with one another matters of interest to them.
Most of the time, indeed, tere is hardly a new face to be seen there,
beyond te small core of fuur ur fve fithfl atendees.
In short, these were sort of encounter groups or anarchist "coffee morn
ings" - minus te drinks apparently. Lest he had not been properly under
stood, Gautier returned to the topic at his ta:
A attempt has been made to use as an argument against such and
such an anarchist group that tere were stamps, that secretaries were
appointed, that private meetings were held fom tme to time . . . . I def
te prosecution to produce anying of that sort against the Paris an
archist groups -the only ones with which I am familiar, the only ones
of which I can speak wit knowledge -I def te prosecution to prove
tat tese anarchist groups were anyting oter tan rendezous, mere
temporary get-togeters, the personnel of which varied every time
ad to which any newcomer was admitted: therefore he was fee to
walk away aso without frther ado, without payment of any subscrip
tion, witout his even being asked his name or his opinions.2
As a result, te anarchist group was wide open, implying no dut or obliga
ton upon participants, nor did it require tem to reveal names or occupations,
5 2 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
nor to commit themselves to any actit of any sort. Te indidual remained
flly fee and autonomous within the group, and the group in turn enjoyed te
same feedom and autonomy in the context of the federation, i there was one:
tere was no connecton and no coordination involved. Better still, as Gaetano
Maedonia has remarked, "in te name of the principles of individual au
tonomy and feedom of initiative, every stable organizaional tie was repudi
ated as being 'authoritarian' and tus anti-anarchist." Hadly surrsing, there
fore, i te mentally unbalanced or above al agents provocateurs turned up
inside these groups, said whatever entered their heads and indulged in the
most infammatory and provocate speechiing. Even Jean Grave ended up
exasperated tat there were "crackpots" and confdence tricksters locked in
interminable competition for the "right to diddle" te comrades. In fact, te
illegalist opton, a logical choice for revolutionaries confonted with a system
which they called into question, was open to a variety of interpretations, even
to the extent of intoducing "indidual recovery" (reprise individuelle or pet
crime) as a stepping stone to emacipation, by means of murder i need be.
Rvachol started off that way: he murdered an old recluse in order to get his
hands on his "nest egg" (an action that may have been inspired by or at least
placed on a par wit the character Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's novel Cme
and Punishment) . Oters indulged in a less criminal form of illegalist practice,
and thus the common-law marriage (union libre) , and the moonlight fit and
other sharp practices came into vogue. All such practices were lumped under a
general heading of everyday propaganda by deed, to be sure, but for many that
idea was still best encapsulated by te "savage eloquence of dnamite. " For
years this did not get beyond verbal violence, but in the w
a
ke of police harass
ment, a ccle of murderous outages was launched one frst of May. In the
space of two years, it was to cancel every inch of ground gained by libertarans
and reduce anarchism to te caricatre of te "mad bomber." Te ground had
been well prepared over a tme by a number of loud-mouthed individuaists on
a retainer fom te prefectre of police: those Martnets, te Georges Renards
and te mysterious copywter for L'Internationale, a rabble-rousing advocate
of propaganda by deed, published out of London
I is becoming essential that we make everything that science has
placed at our disposal sing out loud and clear . . . . Tus to the thef,
murder and arson that have natraly become our legitimate [ ?] met
ods for communicating our ultmatum to all te leaders of the present
societ, we will not hesitate to add chemisty, whose powerfl voice is
becoming absolutely necessary to our m
a
king ourselves heard above
te hubbub of societ, and to shaking the enemy's fortne into our
arms, without squanderng our side's blood . . . . Let us turn our atten
ton to chemisty and set to the manufactre of bombs, dynamite and
oter explosive materas, a lot more capable tan rifes and barricades
of encompassing the destuction of the current state of afairs.3
V I I I . A N T I - O R G A N I Z AT I O N I S T S & B O M B E R S 5 3
Tat same journal even issued an Anarchist Guide which offered descrip
tions of methods for making such "anti-bourgeois products. " It recommended
the destruction by fre of all "paperwork" as a means of doing away with gov
ernment! Te unnamed author thus advised arson against ministry offces, t
offces, notaries' offces, all with the aid of inflammable "business circulars"!
Te provenance of this clumsy provocation was all too transparently obvious.
Some people did not take the bait and that brought te worst abuse down on
them: they were "pet anarchist popes, " "mind-blinkerers, " "gangs of doctors,
lawyers and other bourgeois turn-keys, " or "charlatas, vipers and the like. "
Jean Grave and L Revolte were especially targeted. A number of ordinary swin
dlers and house-breakers, allegedly operating in pursuit of a militant goal, but
in fact for their own pett gain, found here a moral and revolutionary pretext
for teir skullduggery.
As for explosives, no longer was it a question of Adrieux's Marseilles
made "sardine can, " but rather of serious, lethal devices -the instructions for
use of which had been widely distributed by "well-meaning folk" -and there
were hotheads or manipulated "innocents" to use them.
However, the model for this strateg, the Russian populist terrorists, ought
to have served as a painflly instructive object lesson. To revew the record:
aer a number of bloody attempts, they managed to assassinate Tsar Alexander
II. True, he was no paragon of democracy and had only hinted at reforms; that
said, however, he had abolished serfdom in Russia in 1861, maybe or even
assuredly under pressure fom events and the repercussions of defeat in te
Crimean War against the Anglo-French in 1854-1855. Yet his assassination led
his successor Alexander III to condemn his policy in its entiret and waste no
tme in enforcing a black reaction. Tis was also a blow to the subterranean
campaign hfing conducted among the peasant masses by thousands of name
less revolutonaries who had taken up Bakunin' s advice to go to the people and
place temselves at teir service. Seeking to accelerate history by a few heroic
acts, the Russia terrorists had believed they could skip the requisite awaken
ing of peasant masses still numb fom to and a hal centuries of serfdom.
Here again we fnd the harm in the Blanquist conspiratorial approach: a tny
band of the "elect" substituting itself and making the choices for everybody.
In additon, tis disma policy was married to a stnning naivet: Zelyabov,
the terrorist leader, a prisoner at te time of the assassination of Alexander II,
loudly claimed responsibility for the action when no one suspected him. Te
police prompty took an interest in his entourage, laid teir ambush and tus
rounded up te surviing perpetrators of the assassination! Tere was even a
provocative corollary here too: one of the most prominent terrorists, Degaiev,
betayed his colleagues, tereby delivering the coup de grace to te organiaton.
Not tat this stopped those who escaped fom sticking to te same tactics: in
1887, an attempt on the l of Aexander III failed, and several of te conspira
tors were hanged, among them the elder broter of the man who was later to
make his name as Vladimir Lenin. Severa populists slipped through te net
54 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
and fed abroad, frst to Zurich and thence to Paris. It was at this point that a
certain Abraham Hekkelman made a name for himself under the alias of
Lndesen with his revolutionary bombast. A few years before, he had come
under suspicion fom Vladimir Burtsev (the Sherlock Holmes of the Russian
revolutonary movement) of being an agent provocateur. To no a, so high
did his reputation stad among his "Christan" comrades, as Jean Grave would
have described them. Tis Hekkelman-Lndesman character acquired so great
a moral autorit witin te Paris group of the populists that on May 28, 1890
and wit "fendish care" he distbuted several bombs among his main com
rades. Te following day, as i by coincidence, te Pars police mounted a search
of te home of one of them and arrested 27 of them. Quite unperturbed,
Hekkelman styed calmly at home: before he could be persuaded to get offside,
"it took urgent pressures fom two naive militants, B. and S. , bot of them very
well regarded in the [Russian] colony [in Paris] : tey burst into Lndesen' s
home one evening and briefed him about the arrests of their comrades and the
suspicions hanging over him. "4 Ad so he dropped out of sight for a few years,
long enough to build himself a new identit: he renounced Judaism, converted
to the Ortodox faith and took a young Belgian bourgeois bride, Even so, he
continued to render considerable servces to the tsarst police, to te extent of
being ennobled and, under te nae of General Hartng, being appointed the
head of the police's foreign servce. It was not untl 1909 that he was fnally
exposed by Burtsev. Another tsarist secret agent turned up in the affair of the
lege anarchist group; it tanspired tat he was its explosives man and its leader!
Te hand of the Okhrana chief, Ratchkovsk, was plain in tis: some years
later, he would be credited wit the fabricaton of the Protocols ofthe Elder of
Zion. One might think that such events, public kowledge in their day, would
have opened the comrades' eyes to the perls of "bomb-ism. " Not a bit of it: they
made do wit, at best, recognizing the limitaton upon that method of struggle:
tus, in 1891, Kopotkin noted tat
tat was where anarchists went wrong in 1881. When the Russian revo
lutionaries had killed the tsar . . . . European anarchists imagined that
henceforth a handfl of zealous revolutonaries, armed with a few
bombs, would be enough to make the social revolution . . . . An edifce
built upon centuries of history cannot be destoyed by a few kilos of
explosives . . . . (L Revolte No. 32, March 18-24, 1891)
Yet there was no self-critcism in this for he notes that te error was not
without its useflness, in that it enabled anarchists to "maintain teir ideal in
all its purity"! As far as the era of outages tat was to ensue was concerned,
prominent anarchists refained fom offering any justcation of them and, to
borrow the words of Jean Maiton, "condemned [tem] between the lines"!
May 1, 1891 was the start of it all. A police inspector of Lvalois-Flerret
displayed undue enthusiasm in metng out beatings to several anarchists guilt
V I I I . A N T I - O R G A N I Z AT I O N I S T S & B O M B E R S 5 5
of having unfrled a red fag! A short while aer the anarchists had been given
harsh sentences -a tavest of justce that outraged their Paris comrades -
te homes of the judge and te prosecutor who had handled the case were the
targets for bomb atacks. Tanks to information laid by a female nark planted
in his entourage, Ravachol, the perpetrator of the explosions, was quickly iden
ted. 5 A spicy detail: the constabulary almost picked Ravachol up at his home
in Saint-Denis, for he had just moved on, with the assistance of a brigadier of
te gendarmerie whom he had offered some cigars! We might add tat the
handcart containing Ravachol's effects and pushed by the sympathetc offcer
included, in pride of place, a box of dynamite. 6 Ravachol was nonetheless ar
rested a short while later, because of his preaching, having attempted to con
vert to his way of thinking te waiter at the Very restaurant who did not take
kindly to the matter and noted his face, reporting him at the earliest opportu
nity. Some comrades took revenge by blowing up the Very restaurant, followed
by the Bons-Enfnts police station and other places, this tme wit the loss of
several lives. Te era of "bomb-mania" was at its height. It created such panic
that, odd to relate, the profession of magistrate became a risk one and magis
trates came to be regarded as undesirables by their landlords, as the one-time
head of the Surete, Coron, relates:
Many [ magistrates] were given notice, and whenever they showed up
at other premises seeking to rent, they were shown the door, at times
even rudely. Tere was one concierge who said one day, wth great
dignity: "Monsieur Dresch, the police inspector who arrested Rvachol,
was lef for several weeks wit nowhere to stay but te house of a fiend! "
Odd that the actions of anarchists should have had that effect, unless M.
Goron was exaggerating greatly whfn he cl aimed that an anarchist "openly
admittng his opinions, was, by contast, received with open arms. "7
Motated by te same sacrifcial heroics as the Russian terrorists, some
anarchists tus began to carry out to the letter te "explosive" precepts of pro
paganda by deed, which had been preached on that scale for years to no avail.
Countess acts of te sort, happily less lethal, the handiwork of more or less
sincere imittors or even of maverick fgures, aped Ravachol's example. Lter,
tings took a trn for the worse with the bloody attentats of Emile Henry,
Uauthier (who stabbed a Serbian diplomat while he dined because he reckoned
he looked and dressed like a bourgeois!), Auguste Vaillant and Caserio. Now,
tis phenomenon was not beyond everyone's contol, and the state authorities
were not long in making it redound to their advantage. Te memoirs of former
police inspector Ernest Ryaud are extremely infrmative in tis regard.s
According to Raaud, one Puibaraud, inspector-general of te Interior
Ministy civil servce in 1893, played a key role in most of the political skull
duggery and provocatons of that time. Not that this Puibaraud looked the pat:
wth "his great black moustache, his mop of white hair and his round, church
warden's face, you would have sworn, upon seeing him, that he was a debonair
bourgeois, a harmless pen-pusher, " but "behind his podgy appearance [he hid]
5 6 FACING THE ENEMY
an acute farsightedness ad a steadfast determinaton. He was an old hand,
and had been around a bit, " having made a "virte of cunning. " He managed to
fnd himself an employer to match his understated taent, in te person of te
minister and high-fying politician Charles Dupuy.
Te year 1893 had seen the parliamentay regime sh
a
ken by te Panama
scanda as its corrupton and compromise stood eosed. Dupuy, a "fm-handed
autoritarian," was called in to salvage its reputation. He tied a diversionary
move, as is ofen the case in such circumstances, by ordering the closure of te
Bourse du Travail on May 1, 1893. But tat did not realy turn out to his advan
tage; so he next installed the famous prefect of police, Lpine, ad made his
frst use of Puibaraud in te "Norton papers" set-up, by means of which he
disposed to to redoubtable adversaries, Millevoye and Deroulede.
What particularl worried Dupuy, agan according to Raynaud, was the
libertarian propaganda tat was spreading openly and keeping minds in a state
of latent rebellion. He told Puibaraud one day of te sociaists and coup d'etat
makers, "Lave them to me! I know where to lay hands on them, but I confess
tat I am fghtened of this vrus of anarchy that has invaded te body of soci
ety, wreaking great havoc there. It is tat vrus above all else tat we have to
eradicate. As I see it, the real danger lies there. " In fact, te frst anarchist
atentats had been so well received, according to Ryaud, by te populace
who acclaimed te propagandists by deed as "liberators," for those attacks had
been prmarily directed against "tyrants, sovereigns, heads of stte, the well-to
do, magistates and policemen." Furtermore, anarchy was very much in vogue
among te literat and artsts, i not in fashionable circles.
Pibaraud replied to Dupuy that he would undertke to exercise that dan
ger, provided that he could have new legislation outlawng the anarchists and
criminalizing teir beliefs. Promoted director-general of detectves at te Pre
fecture, Puibaraud then set to work. Tus, when, on November 9, 1893, Vaillant
tossed his bomb into the "crepe-eaters of the Aquarum" (as te Chamber of
Deputies had been nicknamed by Le Fre Peinarc, causing only a few slight
injuries, Dupuy, who was chairing te Assembly displayed exaordinay sang
foid and even ventured the historic comment: 'Te proceedings contnue! "
According to Rynaud, Dupuy, who had learned of te intentons of Vaillant
(who had been driven to despair by society' s iniquity) through one of
Puibaraud's informants had, far fom proceeding against him, ordered his min
ions to remedy his lack of wherewital. So, a "house-breaker" comrade, conve
nienty released fom prison, supplied Vallant wt te money and materals
for his nail-bomb, manufactured in the Pefectre's municipa laboratory, so
tat tey could rest assured as to its harmlessness. Te entire political class,
implicated up to its neck in the Panama scanda, was home and dry by te nex
day: the attentat had served as its lighting conductor and public atenton had
been diverted in the direction of the scapegoated "dangerous anarchists. "
Especially as Puibaraud laid on a whole furry of phoney atentats i n every
quarter of Pars, bringing about a u-turn in te public's opinion of aarchists.
V I I I . A N T I - O R G A N I Z AT I O N I S T S & B O M B E R S 5 7
Hot on the heels of tat, the "crepe-eaters" now had only to vote trough
te lois sceierates of 1894 and tat was tat. Lbertarian ideas were at last deemed
tought crimes and the way was clea for massive repression: two thousand
searches carred out across the country, dozens sentenced for the crme of
Anarchy: fnally, thirt celebrated anarchists were placed on trial. Aainst all
te odds, that trial ended with the prosecution in disarray and the accused
were set fee. We might note one ridiculous incident during the proceedings.
Te prosecuton counsel, Bulot, sworn enemy of anarchists, opened his mail
while one hearing was in session, probably intending to peruse with relish the
many letters denouncing anarchists that he received on a daily basis, when
suddenly he leapt to his feet and asked for a recess: "I request a one-minute
suspension of the proceedings. 1 have just unwrapped a package tat 1 received
trough the post, and it contains fecal mater. I request leave to go and wash
my hands. " Which enabled one of the accused, Feneon, to provoke general
hilarit when he commented: "Not since Pontius Pilate have hads been washed
with such solemnit. " Tat day te "party of mockery" made recruits, espe
cially as te paic-sticken bureaucrats had taken teir nit-picking to te lengs
of placing a formal ban, wth an eye to New Year's Day 1894, upon "the exercise
of any industry involvng frnaces or requiring the assistance of fammable
instruments. " II Te scare had burned itself out: it was the end of an era. Hav
ing obtained what it was afer, the bourgeois state had no frther need of te
"bomb madness" and such activities were to vanish fom the records in the
decades that followed.
A for Puibaaud, his provocate methods seriously upset his ow colleagues
fom the Prefectre, and he was removed fom offce. Shunned by his decidedly
ungratefl silent partners, he ended his life in oblivion, forgotten by everybody.
We should say that the calling of the provocateur on the payroll was not always
so peaceable. One Gustave Buisson, known as "Ie Petit Patissier" (te Lttle
Pastycook, havng wormed his way into te L Have anarchist group, de
nounced severa of its members who were arrested and convicted. Moving to
Paris and believing his cover to be intact, he tied to carry on as a nark. Two
Parisian comrades, cafe waiters at tat (a profession that had a rather unsavoury
reputaton in tese maters) , lured him, on the pretex of some operation, to the
banks of te Saint Denis canal, where they caled him to account and executed
him.
11
Tey were discovered and deported to pena servtude. Neverteless, what
tey had done gave te Ltle Pastycook's imitators food for thought and damp
ened their ardor.
Te vast majorit of anarchists, including Kropotkin, Reclus, Grave, Maato
ad Malatesta ended up dissociatng temselves completely fom the outages.
Tey were a bit late, for, unbeknownst to temselves, tey had let teir enemy's
back-room boys prescribe their movement's policy line. So, for tem, it was
unquestonably a heav defeat. Tey were to stive to learn fom it, because, in
te fna analsis, it was fom tat point on that te movement got off the ground.
Henceforth, tere would be a clear dividing line between te social, libertaran
5 8 FACING THE ENEMY
communist current and te indivdualist anarchist tend, which was yet to be
te object of much controversy.
Endnotes to Chapter Eight
1. Gaetano Manfedonia, L'individualisme anarchits en France (18801914), duplicated
doctoral thesis submited to the Paris Insttute for Political Studies, 1984, 559pp. Te quota
tion is taken fom p. 54.
2. L proces des anarchistes devant la police correctionnelle et la cour dapper de Lyon, (Lyon,
1883) , pp. 10 and 152.
3. Quoted by Felix Dubois, L perl anarchists, (Paris, 1894) , pp. 165174.
4. Jean Longuet and Georges Silber, Les dessous de la police ruse: Terrortes et policier,
foreword by V. Burtsev, (paris: Lbraire Feli Juven, 1909) , p. 223. Tis whole period of
subterfge and police dirty work have been analysed in detail by Henri Rollin's remarkable
book L'apocalypse de notre temps, (paris: Gallimard, 1939) (extremely rare, having been
destroyed as soon as the Germans entered Paris) .
5. Jean Maitran, Introducton to Ravachol et les anarchites, (paris, 1964) , p. 40.
6. M. Coron, Memoires, op. cit., Tome I, p. 194.
7. Ibid., p. 204.
8. Ernest Raynaud, Souvenir de police: L vie intime des commis arats Payot, (Paris, 1926) ,
pp. 33-46.
9. Jacques Prolo, L anarchistes, (Riviere, 1912) , p. 62.
10. Henri Varennes, De Ravachol a Caserio, (Garnier, no date) , p. 101.
11. Goron, Memoires, op. cit., Tome I pp. 210220.
IX . FROM THE FREE CONTRACT 5 9
I X. F ROM TH E F RE E CONTRACT TO THE
"ANARCH I ST WORKE RS' PARTY ( CGT) "
Mer a year and a half of a repression that led several anarchists -Pouget,
Malato, and Luise Michel - to seek safet in exile in London, an amnesty
afforded the French movement the opportunity to spring back into life. Mili
tant activity was at all times expressed primarily through periodicals: Le
Libertaire founded by Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel, reappeared in 1895;
L Revolte was replaced by Les Temps nouveau with the irreplaceable and im
perturbable Jean Grave at te helm; fnally, under the alert authorship of Emile
Pouget, Le ?re Peinard embarked upon a new series.
In order to show off the coherence of anarchist ideas, prominent militants
temselves brought out a whole series of publications, primarily under the
imprint of the Bibliotheque sociologigue of the Stock publishinghouse. Tese
were ofen artcles that were frst blown up into pamphlets and ten revised
and expanded into book size. Peter Kropotkin, still in London because he was
forbidden to enter France, also took part in this publishing venture. Taken to
geter, tese publications represent a solid teoretcal grounding, ad they
anchored libertrian ideas frmly in many a head. However, we have to note the
vagueness of the practical metods advocated: in a way, once the goals had
been determined, it was up to each individual to shif for himself in te reach
ing of them. Freedom of initiative and the fee contract between individu
a
ls
were te panacea in matters of organizaton. Malato hinted very timidly at a
"libertarian federation of workers and peasants . . , an idea unfortnately ham
pered in its executon by a variety of factors, but which remains completely
vaid. " Wat about those factors? Malato fails to make any frther reference to
them and makes do with te claim that:
60
wit its tousand centers of actvity, groups, committees, federations,
al autonomous but in constant liaison one with another and not afaid,
should the circumstances so demand, to subordinate their personal
preferences to te necessity for concerted action, anarchism is stron
ger and above all less vulnerable than authoritarian socialism wit its
hierarchy its watchwords, its parliaments ad its crude connections,
which the government can sever wit one saber blow. 1
FACING THE E NE MY
One seeks consolation where one may, but it is better to have someting
to "sever" than nothing at all, we might say. Lke a good "boui" 2 Jean Grave
drives his nail home into te queston, but very genty for he has to wade trough
elementary banalites such as, say, conceding that:
every time te human being seeks to accomplish someting, he fnds
himself obliged to join his endeavors to the efforts of oter like-minded
beings, in order to afford his action the widest possible scope and all of
the impact that they can bring to it. And, whatever they may say, tat is
what those who deny the useflness of associaton are compelled to
do. But the efforts brought jointly to bear, wit a eye to dervng the
greatest possible advantage fom them, must, i their goal is to be
achieved, be coordinated into collectve action, with each indivdual
taking up te part to which he is best suited, or which stikes him as
most apt in his sphere of activit. Some may call tat organization, some
may prefer the description of contract, but what matter the name, pro
vided the thing be accomplished.
As was his wont, that stance was immediately counter-baanced by te vsion of
seeing resurrected as a result (in these hopeflly vast federations) ,
central committees, shared minimum progras, and other authoritr-
ian appendages tat we imagined we had transfgured because we
yoked them to new formulas and hung new names upon tem.3
Te fear of "regimentaton" stll held sway.
Ltte by little, though, the natura need to seek company, even i only for
as long as a congress took, reappeared on te agenda. Especially as, whereas
anarchists had repudiated the need to hold congresses, tey had no objecton
to going
a
long to disrupt the congresses of the socialists: tus, it was on those
grounds that they were denied enty to te Zurich Congress (1893) and te
London Congress (1896), when recognition of state socialism was made a pre
requisite for participants. An anti-parliamentary congress was scheduled for
Paris in 1900. Several submissions were draed with that in mind. As the con
gress was banned, these appeared as articles or in pamphlet form. Te very
active Internationaist Revolutonary Sociaist Students of Pars group (Etudiant
Socialistes Revolutionnaires Internationalistes de Pars -ESR) tus brought
out its Submission on the Necessit o/Establishing Some Ongoing Undertanding
Between the Anarchist and Revolutionary Communist Groups. It was hedged
about by all sorts of provisos: it included te declaration that the authors had
no designs upon "any kind of centralized organization, nor any kind of admnis
tative authority. " Te groups would not be giving up any of teir autonomy in
this marriage of necessit: the professed aim was for them to be in contact with
one another, to have suitable addresses and to correspond or possibly get to
gether. Te overriding reasons for getting together followed: "Noting of any
import" had been undertaken in respect of the stuggle against the reacton: at
critical moments, they had been forced to resort to bourgeois newspapers in
IX . F R OM THE F REE CONT RACT 6 1
order to issue summonses to libertarians: personal misunderstandings, taken
togeter with the lack of liaison between the local groupings had occasionally
resulted in the decline, if not the demise, of certain national movements.
Aother drawback was stessed: newspapers were exclusively dependent
upon their owners and their relations with the groups were more rather desul
tory or even hostile for "a man is master in his own home" ( our quotation -A.
Skirda1 . When all was said and done, the authors wanted:
something that will allow us to maintain contacts with one another -
between te districts of a large city like Paris, between the different
communes in a county, or even between comrades fom different
countries - as ofen as we may have the need. Let it go under the
name of "understanding," "alliance, " "union, " "federation" or "corre
spondence bureau": the name is of litle signicance to us. But it will
stll be the frst step towards an organization, we may be told, "and
tat organization may culminate later in centralization! "4
In the name of their libertarian principles, the autors ruled out the possi
bilit of things following such a course. Te Marx syndrome was still doing
damage and cast a long shadow over minds as soon as organization was men
tioned. Al the same, was this not overstating things a bit and erasing all recol
lection of the Bakuninist Aliance or were the former members of that afaid of
liing the veil covering its structure and its mode of operation? Unless we are
to rule out that hypotesis, it is none too easy to understand how the general
disorganization of the anarchists failed to trigger some sort of a backlash and
how the ESRI group could have been induced to close its submission with te
stpulaton that its appeal for unit was addressed only to those who were sup
portive of it (!) and that thf
y
hoped others would not place ubstdde: ill ils patl
Even tis surprisingly timid proposal in favor of a correspondence bureau
and a federation failed to fnd favor with Jean Grave. In a later report drawn up
for the same banned congress, he opened by upbraiding the absurdit of those
who had tus fa, on one pretext or anoter, tried:
to dragoon, to discipline and draw individuals into hierarchical and
cent
a
lized arangements that are bedecked wit the name of organi
zation, (and] among the anarchists, we have witnessed comrades as
sertng tat, as they want nothing more to do with authority, so they
want no more truck with organization.
He then notes te lack of cohesion that leads anarchists to "be a litte bit
indiscriminate in their fre, having no links of any kind and losing something of
teir stengt as a result for want of solidit in afording their activity more
consistency. " However he did not bemoan that, for, by his reckoning, it was not
"such a big problem," because it was:
6 2
te wont of te autoritarian parties to decree agreement and federa
tion, setting up organizations and groupings whose object was to en
sure such union and unity of purpose.
F ACI NG THE ENEMY
As he saw it, federation would come about only through the progressive
agglomeration of groups and not because some decision would have been made
to set up a grouping charged wit seeing to its organization. Aso, in his vew,
agreement and relatons did exist between the anarchist groups: what was lack
ing was to have these in a coordinated, consistent and generalized way. In pass
ing, he congratulated himself upon the anti-militarist propaganda carried out
over the past twent years, this having made it possible for the Dreyfs Case to
be played up! 5
In Grave's view, had anarchists been "centalized or federalized at te out
set of teir propaganda, they would have lost in initiatve and autonomy what
ever they might have gained in unity. " And what of the correspondence bureau
to which reference had been made? Let us look at that: Grave himself had been
in chage of one at the London Congress and wow! it had remained a dead
letter. A distinction had to be made between cohesion and unifcation, which
meant proceeding fom the "top instead of fom the grassroots up. " Conse
quently, anarchists needed to become alive to the overriding necessit of it and
acquire the necessary convicton te better to connect wth one another. lke
wise, he had no particular "aversion" to mention of a "anarchist part." Pro
vided that the term was used to "designate merely a category of individuals
who, possessed of a fnd of shared ideas, therefore enjoyed a degree of effec
tve and moral solidarity against their adversary: the bourgeois societ." Te
counterbalance to that (again tat even-handed stle of his) came fom rejec
tion of any body "charged with expressing the ideas of te part":
In any group, however tny, tere are always, of necessit, disagree
ments in the thinking of its component members. And whenever ta
group afrms a set of ideas as its ow, that is only the mean of its
tinking, for i tey had set them all out, it would no longer be making
an affrmation but a staightorward contadictory expositon of them.
N ow, how are you going to arrive at an offcia organ of the anarchist
pat expressing te thinking of te "anarchist pat," when anarchists
are not and cannot be in agreement on, every partcular?
It is to some extent understandable that Grave should have questioned the
precept of delegation, but for him to postulate "necessary" disagreement be
tween anarchists seems absurd, for i tat were tuly the case, what ten would
be the common ground tat would just teir libertan convctions? Tat is
takng the cult of individualit a bit far, i one wishes to stuggle for realizaton
of its social ideal. Tis attitde is worth underlining, for it is what we might
describe as a human constant which boils down to saying, according to the
classic example, tat a bottle is hal empt when it is only half fll. In organiza
tional terms, it consists of advancing every possible and conceivable ground
for not seeing eye to eye on anyting, rather than stessing the grounds for a
fndamental unity: in the fnal analysis, tis is seting everybody systemat
cally against everybody else. Leading on to complete disunion, and i round
about fashion arriving at the prevailing mot of inegaitarian societies "te war
I X . F R O M T H E F R E E C O N T R A C T 6 3
of each against all": a position diametrically opposed to the revolutionary ethic
peddled by te founding fathers of the anarchist doctrine, as we have seen
above. Closed fst, or open hand -one has to choose!
Tis "negatvst" position on organization is not merely the one adopted by
Grave, he claims it as his own:
A unit of views is unrealizable: ten again, it would be harmfl, be
cause it would spell immobilit. It is because we do not agree upon
certain ideas that we discuss them, and that in discussing them we
will discover others which we did not even suspect. A huge diversit
of ideas, vews, aptitudes is necessary for the organization of a harmo
nious social conditon.6
Tat was far fom being merely his personal opinion: it was the view held over
whelmingly in the anarchist circles of the time.
Despite the smugness that Grave radiates, the development of anarchist
ideas was then unmistaably stagnant, especialy as the yearned for "Great
Day" had failed to arrive. In order to sidestep any charges of passivity, it be
came more convenient to rail against te "ignorance of the crowd" and te
brutalization of the workers by the state and the reformist parties. Aarchy
turned into an elitist concept: Grave talked about the "diffculties of making
oneself understood by the crowd" and of "drawing it up to us and not descend
ing to its level." Curious evoluton fom propagandist anarchist to libertarian
anchorite!
Grave's fnal argument against organization: the danger that police repres
sion posed for a central agency. It need only be "harassed" and its members
would be scattered and above all "the exchange of corresponcpnrf one was
tying tu facilitate, hobbled." Given the modesty of the connection envisaged,
such anxiety might seem exaggerated.
How are we to account for this attitude on the part of Grave, one of the
leading fgures Ll French aIarchism at tat tme? He was a self-educated cob
bler who had had an impoverished childhood, a real "son of te people" who
became a zealous propagandist so persnicket about the ortodoxy of te doc
tne tat he came to be nicknamed "te Pope of Anarchy" by maicious tongues.
His reasoning, stndpoints and opinions ofen seem essentially correct but, as
we have seen on severa occasions, tey added up to noting when it came to
practical acton in the short term. For all his gifs as a writer, his emotonal
natre lef him incapable of public speaking Gust like the taented Emile Pouget) .
Perhaps it was this inhibition that gave him a complex and led him to tae
refge in his work as a publicist -he was to edit excellent publications over a
fort-year period -and to recoil fom the slightest atempted interference.
With Fernand Pellouter, we are confonted by a horse of a quite different
color: he had his feet well planted in social soil. A convert fom sociaism to
anarchism (as was sebasten Faure, while Constant Martin was a convert fom
64 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
Blanquism) in 1892, when the "Ravachol era" was at its height, he immersed
himself completely in trade union affars: he played a preponderant role espe
cially in the founding of the Bourses du Travail, astutely fending off intrusion
by Guesdist politicians. In his celebrated Letter to Anarchist in 1899, he of
fered a hard-headed assessment of the movement:
Tus far we anarchists have conducted what I shall term practcal pro
paganda [as opposed to the purely theoretical propaganda of Grae]
without te shade of a unit of views. Most of us have fitted fom
method to metod, without great deliberation aforethought, and wit
no spirit of consistency, at te whim of circumstances.s
He noted tat anarchists' ''wonderfl'' written propaganda had been fol
lowed up only by the most mediocre "active propaganda." Which he regarded
as a great pit, for, as he saw it, the anarchist "has resources of energy and a
proselytizing zeal tat might be described as inexhaustible! "
Wat Pelloutier was asking for, then, was "tat each of us (in te light of
his own conscience) makes a frm opton in favor of one particular mode of
propaganda and the no less frm determinaton to commit to it all of the energy
with which he has been endowed. " Especially as te frst general congress of
the Socialist Party had just been held ad te workers' unions had been re
markable by their absence, proof of their mistrust of parliamentarism and te
useflness of reforms. In fact, socialists of various persuasions had managed to
fnd a temporary solution to the "abominable squabbling" between (in
Pellouter's words) te ''orquemada in the opera glasses and te would-be
shooter of anarchists, 9 Lfargue and Zevaes. " It should be said that tat same
year, 1899, had seen the sensational enty of a socialist, Millerand, into the
bourgeois government of Waldeck-Rousseau, a government in which General
Califet -who had massacred te Communards in 1871 -had been appointed,
by way of a counter-weight, Defense Minister! All to preserve te unit of the
naton, threatened by te Dreys Mfair. Te "man who shot down the Com
mune shook hands wit the defender of te shot": tat naturally triggered a
great storm, albeit a storm in a tea cup -for the reformists, and the appetite
for power in many socialists, tiumphed in te end and they adapted to the
good form of ministerial offce. It was on these grounds that Pellouter argued
that the existence of the Socialist Party was "precious" in te extreme, and that
"i it did not exist, we would have to invent it, given the way its haughtiness and
its impertinence mae politic
a
l sociaism hatefl in te eyes of the unionized
masses." Tere followed a few extemely pertnent and relevant lines about
te Socialist Party which "is not going to be just anoter politc
a
l part, paralyz
ing the energ and spirit of initiative that we seek to inject into the union group
ings, but will in addition be a counterrevolutionary pat, tantg the people's
appetites with anodyne reforms, and the tades associations, forswearing . . .
will again put their tust in te unrealizable promises of politcs. "
Pellouter then went on to offer this remakable profle of the anarchists:
I X . F R O M T H E F R E E C O N T R A C T 6 5
Outcasts fom the Party, because they are no less revolutionary than
Vaillant and Guesde, as steadfast in their advocacy of the suppression
of individual ownership, we are, in addition, something tey are not:
rebels aound the clock, men truly godless, masterless and nation
less, irreducible enemies of every despotism, moral and material, in
dividual or collective, that is to say, of laws and dictatorships (includ
ing tat of the proletariat) and keen enthusiasts of self-improvement.
In his estimation, that last point was a crucial complement to the economic
struggle, so that te awakening of the workers, who, aer having "long believed
themselves condemned to the role of instument, seek to become intelligent
creatures so tat they may be at once the inventors and the creators of teir
endeavors." 10 Tat, he reckoned, was where anarchy came into its own. As for
the unions, their dut was to "sow in the very belly of capitalist society the
seeds of the fee producers' groups through which it seems our communist and
anarchist ideal must come to pass." We might also note the advocacy of te
general strike, a point seting anarchists apart fom the Guesdists and political
socialists. For Pelloutier, it was the method par excellence whereby the societ
of oppression might be overtrned, thus replacing te famous volent overtrow
or the make-or-brea Great Day.
Tough he went to an early grave at the age of just 33 -the onerous task
he had set himself played its part in his demise -Pelloutier is te founding
father of revolutionary syndicalism, which really took off with the amalgam
ation of the various unions and the Federation of the Boures du Travail into the
General Confederation of Labor (Confederation Generale du Trvail -CGT.
Following his example, large numbers of anarchists henceforth gave of their
best to this.
One of te ones tat commited himself most to it was Emile Pouget. By no
means an unknown in the anarchist movement, it could even be said that he was
one of the founders of it in France, since he had belonged to it since 1879. He
took part in the London congress in 1881, then was involved in the Louise Michel
demonstration in 1883 that turned into looting of the breadshops. It was while
atempting to rescue "good old Louise" fom the hands of the police tat he was
arrested and sentenced along wth her in connecton wt the riots. Aer a three
year prison term, he was feed and in 1889 1aunched an extemely popular pub
lication, Le ?re Peinard, an anarchist reincarnation of the French revoluton's
frebrand Le Pere Duchene, which had been revived once before, in 1871 at te
tme of te Paris Commune. Pouget displayed a heck of a journalistic gif, wit
ing in popular stle. Lt us take a look at the program of tis old "shoe-mender":
66
It's as familiar as te villainy of generals: less long-winded tan the
1793 Constittion, it was summed up, a litte over a centry ago, by
the Old Man, Fater Duchene: "I don't want anyone shafng me!" To
the point. No weasel words there. And tat declaration, more incisive
than the Declaraton of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, answers
F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
everything, encapsulates everying, does for everything. Te day
when te common folk are no longer being shaed is te day when
bosses, governments, priests, magistates and other blood-suckers are
pushing up daisies. And on that day the sun wl shine upon every
body and tere will be a place at the table for everybody.
But, damn it, it won't all happen in one go! Te time is long gone
when quails fel fom out of te heavens, ready roasted and wrapped
in vne leaves. Come that day, i we want Societ to smile upon us, we
have to shif for ourselves and rely upon our ow efforts alone.
Tis blunt, rough-and-ready talk not only made him a hit wit his reader
ship, but aso brought Pouget and the paper's administation lots of brushes
with te authorites. During his enforced exile in London in 1894, Pouget had
acquainted himself with the Britsh tade unions and come to appreciate their
capacit for standing up to capitalism. As soon as he retrned to France he set
about spreading the sndicalist gospel:
I there is one group where the anarchos should be maing inroads it
is of course the Trades Council . . . . Te problem is as follows: "I'm an
anarcho, I want to plant my ideas, now where would they prosper best?"
"I already have the factory and the drinking den . . . . I'd like something
better: somewhere where I can meet proles who have some grasp of
the exploitation we suffer and are racking their brains to come up with
some remedy for it. Does such a place exist?" Yes, by God. And there
is only one: te trades association!
Pouget set about encouraging his colleagues into the unions -some of
them were reluctant, i not downright hostile - for the "big cheeses would
kick up some stink i it turned out that the anarchos, whom they reckoned tey
had muzzled, were seizing upon the opportunit to worm their way into the
unions and spread teir ideas there without any great to-do, or airs and graces. "
11
As good as his word, he became increasingly involved in the CGT, becoming
its assistant general secretary and editor in chief of its mouthpiece L Voix du
Peule. He also continued to elaborate upon its theory and practice in numer
ous articles and a few crucial pamphlets. His syndicalism was of a distinctly
libertarian hue: its prime and princip
a
l target was "elmination of wage-slavery
and te employer." Tis struggle was waged exclusively on the economic ter
rain, in stark opposition to the Guesdist politicians' stategy of going aer po
litical power. And it was wit some reason tat te elde
r
ly James Guillaume
regarded tis CGT as the "continuation" of the federalist anti-authoritarian In
ternational of Bakuninist tradition. Enriched, this time around, by the experi
ence accumulated over upwards of tent years of anarchist militancy. Along
with his colleages, Pouget devised a clear, well-defned stategy and tactics.
In keeping with the First International's device of "te emancipaton of the
workers will be te workers' own doing," that stateg relied upon direct action,
eschewng any intermediary or substitte for te workers' own determination
IX . FROM THE FREE CONTRACT 6 7
to fght and win. Te later was founded upon the " . . . personal worth of each
individual and tereby genuinely carried out an educational task, while also
carrying out a commission to bring to bring about change. "
1
2
In this way the proletat was released fom the sheepish stats in which
leaders and propert owners were their shepherds. As Victor Grifelhes, an
other revolutionary syndicalist teorist (with his roots in Blanquism) put it,
direct acton meant tat "happiness is not a gift but something to be earned
and worked for. "
Te main tctical method adopted was te strike, the "gymnastics of rebel
lion, " whether partal and local or general and expropriatory: in eiter instance,
it was not at all spontaneous but careflly cultivated. Te general strike was not
envisaged as a wholly peacefl process: volence was, so to speak, inescapable,
so it tended to be revolutionary and insurrectionary, thereby supplanting the
Blanquist coup de main and the armed uprising which had been regarded as
te only ways of overtrowing the old order. 13
At te suggestion of Emile Pouget and Paul Delesalle, the CGTs Toulouse
congress in 1897 approved to oter signifcant weapons of labor stuggle: te
boycot and sabotage. Te frst meant the "placing upon te Index, an interdict
placed upon an industalist or businessman, inviting workers not to consent to
work for him ad, in te case of a tader under boycot, invitng customers not
to use his shop": it was also a way of defending onesel against te greed of
intermediaries tying "on the backs of te consumer, to lay claim to the im
provements secured by te producer. " Te counterpart of this was the union
label, signifing conformit wt union conditons. As for sabotage, that was the
implementaton of te maxim: "Poor work for poor pay"; it hit te boss "where it
hurt, namely, in the wallet."
1
4
Al of tese ideas underpinned revolutionary syndicalism ad signaled the
ascendancy of aarchists inside the CGT fom 1902 to 1908, so much so that
one of te later generation of CGT leaders, Lucien Niel, wote that the CGT
had ceased to be a tades body and turned into an Aachist Workers' Party!
Tat wisecrack is not completely beref of truth, but it comes as a surprise i we
examine te organizaton
a
l thinking and internal operaton of the CGT Te
frst point that stikes us is that among the anarchists and their supporters,
who were ten in te majorit in the Confederaton, there was an uter repudia
tion of democracy. For example, at te Bourges congress in 1904, they rejected
the reformists' moton in favor of proportional representation. Let us see how
Emile Pouget accounted for tis seemingly paradoxical stance:
6 8
Te confederal organizaton's metods of action do not draw their in
spiration fom the vulgar democratic idea: they are not the expres
sion of the consent of a majority indicated by means of universal suf
fage. Tat could not be the case, in most instances, for it is rare for a
union to encompass the totalit of workers: all too ofen, it embraces
only a minorit. Now, i te democratc mechanism was operatng inside
F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
the workers' organizations, the dissentng voice of the unconscious
and non-unionized majorit would bring alaction to a standstill.
But te minority is not prepared to abdicate its demands because
of te inerta of a mass whose spirit of rebellion has yet to awake ad
spring to life. As a result, there is a duty upon the conscious minorit
to act, without regard to te refactory mass -on pain of teir being
forced to kowtow, as the unconscious ones do.
16
Also, according to Pouget, the mass had no grounds for complaint, for,
amorphous though it might be, it would be te frst benefciary of te minort's
action: whereas te militants were entitled to bear the fll brunt of te struggle,
often failing in the fay. Unlike universal suffage which entusts:
te helm to the unconscious ones, te foot-draggers (or rather to their
representatves) smothers te minorites who carry the fture within
them" [the syndicalist approach led tol "te diametically opposite re
sult: te drive comes fom the conscious, te rebels, and all well-mean
ing folk are summoned to acton, to partcipaton in te movement.
In the political sphere, Pouget reckoned that there was more j ustifcation
for proportional representation because under:
the simplistic mechanism of universal suffage, the unconscious big
battalions come together and crush the conscious minorites, so there
is more of a justifcation for proportiona representation in that it en
ables these latter to show themselves.
In spite of this repudiation of all democratism, the CGT's structures and
modus operandi could not have been more democratic and federalist. Com
prising of two sections, the Trades Federations and the Bourses du Travail, it
was run by a Federal Committee made up of the delegates fom each of its
afliated organizatons: tese delegates could be recalled at any time for tey
were in permanent contact with the group fom which tey received their man
date. Sovereignt was vested in Congress. Voting there was on te basis of
mandates, not in proporton wth te membership of each body or affliated
organization, but by grouping -this was a rejection of the democratism sought
by the reformists who accounted for a majority of the membership numeric
a
lly
but contolled only a minorit of the organizatons represented. Congress could
endorse or reject the reports presented by tose offcers whom it had commis
sioned to carry out certain duties: the general secretry, his assistant, the edi
tors of the CGT mouthpiece L Voi du Peuple, and oter committees and com
missions. Tese offcers were fll-tme offcias and were paid, albeit very poory,
and were described as "offcials. "
Tus, te CGTwas a mass organization embracing a conscious and active
minorit, with openly professed libertarian aims and metods tailored to the
social and economic circumstances of the day. In its operation, it departed fom
IX . FROM THE FREE CONTRACT 69
that utter rejection of delegation which had come to be the taditon among
French anarchists.
We can see here a resurgence of the anti-authoritarian current of the First
International and even, infrmally, of the Bakuninist Aliance, embodied this
time by te anarchists who assumed the leadership of the CGT though they
were not specically organized to do so. Aer a hiatus of thirty years, and the
blind alleys of propaganda by deed, anarchism was returning to its Proudhonist
and Bakuninist roots, at last successflly jettisoning the Marx syndrome which
had had such an inhibiting effect thus far. But was such social and economic
intervention by anarchists unanimously welcomed in anarchist ranks? Not at
all: that was far fom the case, as we shall now see.
Endnotes to Chapter Nine
1. Charles Malato, Philosophie de l'anarchie, (Paris: Stock, 1897) , p. 236.
2. Slang or trade term for shoe-mender.
3. Jean Grave, L'narchie, son but, ses moyens, (paris: Stock, 1899) , pp. 220-222.
4. Etdiants Socialistes Revolutionnaires Internationalistes de Paris ,Rapport sur la necessite
d'etablir une entente durable entre les groupes anarchistes et communistes revolutionnairs, (Paris,
1900) .
5. In fact, the period was prfoundly marked by that Af air: it gave rise to a confused turmoil in
which a revolutionary cat would have had great diffculty identifing her kittens! Te root
cause of it all was the unjust conviction of a captain, (a millionair and son of a millionaire in the
fancs of the day) on account of his Jewish fait. Many anarchists let themselves be dragged
into this questionable episode: Sebastien Faur even set up a daily newspaper with the backing
of Jewish capital, and good comrades wrote for it. It is questionable whether libertarians seized
upon thf i fl l f th" h.ter to atack and discredit the army, tli.: \ei y iI llIy whose commanders
had waded deep in the blood of the Communards. Tus, it was a sort of revenge fom beyond
the grave, albeit in a very roundabout fashion. But let us move on.
6. Jean Grave, Organisation, initiative, cohesion, (Paris, 1900) , pp. 3-15.
7. Jean Grave, L'narchie, son but, ses moyens, op. cit. , pp. 3445.
8. Fernand Pelloutier, Le congres general du Parti Socialite Franfais, (December 2-8, 1898)
preceded by his Lettre au anarchistes, (paris: Stock, 1900) . pp. III-I.
9. Pelloutier used these labels for Jules Guesde and Edouar Vaillant respectively.
10. F Pelloutier, "Lorganisation corporative et l'anarchie" in L'rt social, 1896, quoted by Vic
tor Dave in F Pelloutier, Histoire des Boures du Travail, foreword by Georges Sorel and bio
graphical outline by Victor Dave, (paris: Costes, 1921) , pp. 18-19.
1 1 . "A roublard, roublard et demi" in L pre Peinard, (October 1894) .
12. Encyclopedie du mouvement socialits part one, a anuary 1912) , article by V. Griffelhes on
direct action, pp. 12-17.
13. E. Pouget gave a excellent description of this imagined revolutionary process in his social
novel, written in partnership wth Pataud, Comment nous ferons la revolution, (Paris, 1911) .
14. E. Pouget, L Confedertion Generale du Trvail, (Paris: Ed. Riviere, undated-1908?) , pp. 44-46.
15. J. Prolo, Les anarchistes, op. cit. , p. 72.
16. E. Pouget, L CGT op. cit., pp. 36-37.
70 F ACING THE ENEMY
x. TH E I NDI VI DUA LI STS,
TH E RUSSI AN REVOLUTI ON OF 1 9 0 5
AND THE CONGRESS OF A MI ENS ( 1 906)
Athough the majority of French anarchists commited themselves to the
CGTs trade union action, some remained staunchly opposed to that. Tey re
garded the trade union as powerless to carry out the revolution and favored,
say, te wildcat to the organized strike, for, in the latter instance, i the de
mands made resulted in negotiations or agreements, that involved, they a
gued, compromise with the employers and the state. As a result, (the argu
ment went) syndicalism undermined the will to revolution and nursed a sec
tiona mentality, to te detrment of the class as a whole and, particulaly, those
whom te system tossed onto the scrap heap: the unemployed, the hoboes
(there were nearly 400,000 gentlemen of te road in France around 1900) , sea
sonal workers, even the ones with a police record and the prostitutes or any
unprotected worker.
Figures of some renown, like sebasten Faure, Jean Grave and Ernest
Girault were numbered among tese opponents of syndicalism but, for te most
part such opponents were recruited fom among the individualist anarchists.
With the appearance of the frst French translations of Strner, the old verbose,
provocative and suspect individualism was, so to speak, validated and made
more coherent. Aarchy was no longer a socia teaching but rater a philoso
phy and the art of a "lifstle. " Indeed, the "Bengal lights" of propaganda by
deed having failed to inspire the Slave's Awakening (to take te title of one
anarchist publicaton) , a change had swept over anarchists, the individualist
anarchists especially. Wile standing by teir advocac of libertarian commu
nism, they had no wish to postpone their emancipaton to some far-off tomor
row and took te line tha a start had to be made by regeneratng individuals
one at a tme, by making a "revoluton of minds," and feeing tem fom the
noxious infuence of the established society, so as to lay the foundations of an
anarchist society right now. Tus, for the most active of them, new felds of
actvit were opened up: educaton, not restcted to children but targetng adults
also, by means of evening classes: the question of birth contol and neo-Malthu
sianism, including eugenics and abortion: vegetaranism -veganism, for the
most radical, wit no eggs or dairy products acceptble: anarchist colonies and
so-called "fee space" where an atempt was made to live in as anarchistic a
X . THE INDIVI DUAL ISTS 7 1
fashion as possible: fnally, anti-patriotic and anti-militarist activities on more
systematic lines than hitherto.
Disappointed by the masses' lack of enthusiasm for their subversive
schemes, the individualists completely withdrew into themselves. Tey denied
the existence of social classes, acknowledging individuals only: some of the
latter would be willfl and aware, the others passive and unconscious. Tese
later seemed every bit as dangerous as the exploiters, for, by teir submission
and resignation, they were their accessories and accomplices. In 1905, one of
te editorial staff of L'narchie, the individualists' weekly newspaper, even took
the workers scornflly to task for being worse tha sheep because "on a sheep
farm, whenever a move is made to shear a sheep, it tries to escape and has to
be ted. No need of that where the worker is concerned: he offers his own
back. "! In the vew of the individualists, the anarchist should not be molded by
his environment, but should instead be the one who molded it.
Aound this time two personalities emerged fom among the individual
ists: Albert Lbertad and Para aval. A duo connected as i they were twins,
they were the motivating forces behind the causeries populaires (Popular Talk
ing-Shops) based in te rue du Chevalier de la Barre in Montmartre. Tey
peddled and, on occasion, acted upon the new doctrine of liberation of the indi
vidual. Para-Javal pushed a "scientic" version of anarchy, worked out almost
matematically: his exposition was based upon logical and unprejudiced analy
sis of a phenomenon, a fee examination that turned, by its conclusion, into a
fndamental and categorical theorem. Tus the feethinker is te man whose
thinking is a posteriori, working fom physical knowledge, unlike the "brute, "
with his unexamined, a priori opinions.2 Libertad was in his thinking a touch
less simplistic and above all else was possessed of a real journalistic talent. As
the founder of L:4narchic, the individualists' ufflial plaLfunn, he forcefily up
braided al oppressors and impostors, while not sparing their confederates, the
resigned types, and he sang the praises of the individual's "joie de vie" feed
of alimpediment through pursuit of his real needs and aspirations. We might
note particularly his original application of the Taylor system to real life: he
urged a "stoppage in useless gestures" as a means of shrugging off phony ac
tvities and harml acts. Tese included all useless and parasitical trades, the
object of which was laughable luxury, arbitrary supervision, defense of te
state and the accumulation of wealth. On that basis and himself woring ir
regularly as a proofeader of libertarian or kindred publications, it wl be ap
preciated that Libertad had but litle sympathy for syndicalism, which did not
at al suit the tades plied by his followers.
Despite their undeniable outrageousness, althese notions fying in the face
of conventional wsdom might have had a certain interest to them, had their
inventors not been associated with a "muckraking" (Lbertd's phrase) exhibi
tionist ethos, inevtably resulting in personal or factional squabbles and contro
versies. Wich led Para-Javal to devse a theorem for "mock-anarchists": "Most
were only brutes, for the scientic anarchists are the only tue authentic ones,"
scientic anarchists being those individuals "determined to be freetinkers in
72 FACING THE ENEMY
al circumstances and capable of being so. " Out of which sprouted attacks upon
his erstwhile "t" in anarchy, as Lbertad and his colleagues were character
ized as "ignorant every last one of tem, fltier and more patologica tan te
bulk of their contemporaries whom they label as bourgeois . . . (they are) ofn
addicted to acohol and tobacco, and megalomaniacs."3 Tese seemingly crack
pot disagreements degenerated dramatically, however: increasingly violent
punch-ups pitted the disciples of te respectve "feuding brothers" against one
anoter, ad ar Lbertad's death in 1908 fom an improperly-teated anthra
infecton (and not fom a police beating as te legend has claimed) , te score
seting by revolver cost lives. Para-Jav
a
l gave ground, drid away fom anar
chist circles and went off to bring the good news to what he reckoned was a
more likely audience: te Freemasons (e cae to wield complet contol of
one lodge, before setng up his own Masonic sect, where he broke new ground
by replacing the tree symbolic dots in the form of a tiagle by a hyphen!)
Atough highly crtcal of te social and tade union focus of the majorit
of teir comrades, te individuaists did not systematcally oppose tis, as Ernest
Armand, one of teir main theoreticians, asserts:
If he joins a tade union, the anarchist enters into it only as a member of a
given tade, in the legitimate hope of securing through collective acton
some improvement in his individual lot: but, should he secure a reducton
in working hours or an increase in pay, he wl see nothing anachist about
that. In economic terms, in current circumstances, every anarchist copes
as best he can: one by working for an employer, another by operatng
outside te law, another by avaling of the tade union, still another by
operatng inside a communist colony, but then only in matters related to
the communist colony and on condition that the undertang is genuinely
communist; none of tese ways of gettng by is any more 'anarchist' ta
any other: tey are "make-shif," no more, no less.4
Tus, Lbertad earned his livelihood as a proofeader: Para-Javal, afer
havng pronounced that te "trade union is a grouping wherein the brutaed
ae classifed according to tade, in an effort to render the relatons between
employers and workers less intolerable. One of two tings will happen: either
they would succeed, in which case trade union work is harmfl," made honor
able amends for it by writng tis tme that he supported entry into the unions
in order to "show the unionized that tey are brutaized and to ty to induce
tem to cease being such. I set an example myself at one time and entered a
tade union."5 Ad yes, fne phrases and persuasive arguments would not fll a
man's belly in te exstng society, and in order to get by, he had eiter to play
along as a wage slave, or ty to "live as an anarchist comrade" along with other
comrades by coming together into cooperatives or communities for livng and
working, or even be an "economic refactory," that is, operate "extr
a
legally" to
borrow Ernest Amand's phrase, or, to put it another way, carry out individual
recuperaton or illegaist actvity: housebreaking, counterfeiting, or some other
pursuit offcialdesignated as crimina.
X . T H E I N D I V I D U A L I S T S 7 3
Self-evdent it was for te latter two courses that those individualists who
were at daggers drawn with bourgeois society opted. Several colonies were
launched and survived for varying lengths of tme, only to founder either be
cause of the hostle surroundings or as a result of internal mismanagement, or
indeed due to te absence of real affnity between the participants. Among the
producton cooperatives, the printworks held out the longest. As for illegalism,
that was noting new but rather the continuation of te pioneering activit of
Duva and Pini. At the trn of the centry, Alexandre Jacob and his "workers by
night" were the fnest representatives of that. Whereas, for Jacob, such activity
was selective and targeted only outstandingly parasitical representatives of te
bourgeoisie, to the extent tat he set aside ten percent of the proceeds of his
burglaries for te anarchist movement's propaganda, in his colleagues the moti
vaton quickly turned into personal proft and they had no care for helping their
libertarian comrades, let alone offering any ideological justifcation for teir en
tirely criminal pursuits. Far fom bringing emancipation, "individual recupera
tion" led eventually to a dead-end street, to an almost inevitable promiscuity wit
the underworld, with its whole train of provocateurs, narks and dirty deals.
Armand in particular was the victim of a shady afair involving counterfeit money
(and sexual liaison as well) which earned him a fve-year prison sentence. 6
Mauricius, an individualist anarchist prominent at the time, and who tells
of the unfortnate mishap tat befell Armand, records a provocation along simi
lar lines in which he himself was almost ensnared.
Being at the tme editor of L'narchie, and having no idea how to come by
te money needed for publicaton of te paper, he was approached by one Pierre
N apoieon J aco b (no relation to the famous, well-respected illegalist of the same
name) who suggested to him that he get by via the methods he had theorized
about in the columns of CAnanhie: "I wlpractce illcgalism, placing my SW01 J
of Brennus in every baance, including the balance of miseries, mine own alone
being of any import to me as I reckoned. " A declaration which, as Mauricius
notes, leads to the "flling of te prisons, " and he says frther: "1 declined. So
he sent his wife to me. She was a fne-looking woman, the fesh is weak, she
drew me to her place and then, in the wae of her amorous displays she showed
me a fne 20-fanc coin that looked the part: 'Seven fancs, ' she told me, ' I can
get you as many as you lke. ' 1 made my escape, having reaized what was aoot. "
Te story does not stop with this "post-carnal" insight on the part of
Mauricius, which he may wit hindsight have exaggerated a little, for, a few
months later, we fnd this Pierre Jacob and his temptress of a w hauled up
before the assizes, charged wit the manufactring and passing of counterfeit
money. In their defense, tey stated that they "were agents of the prefectre of
police, to which they had been seconded at 150 fancs per month and tat they
had only manufactured the counterfeit coinage in order to gain acceptance in
anarchist circles!" Called as a witness, te head of the "anarchist squad" at the
prefecture acknowledged that they were indeed informants but claimed igno
rance of their cover as "counterfeiters"!
74 FACING THE ENEM Y
On the strength of several such episodes and the fates of most of the anar-
chist "expropriators, " Mauricius claims that:
housebreaking, counterfeiting money, swindles, even pimping (for
even that was practiced in certain anarchist circles at te time) as a
means of economic self-liberation was a puerile and dagerous utopia.
As I wrote in my Confessions, illegalism liberated nobody, it led them
to the court of assizes'?
To be sure, expropriation of the expropriators was also practiced during
these same years by Russian revolutonaries, not just by anachists, but
a
lso by
te Social Revolutonaries and even te Bolsheviks, as a means of securing the
wherewithal to prosecute their struggle, and there are differences of nuance
here, but let us note that there too, in most cases, things either backred, wit
the expropriators holding on to the loot for temselves, or blew up into a huge
scandal as a result of police provocation over tere as well (as in the case of the
Bolsheviks caught red-handed in the act of cashing stolen bonds) . Finally, let it
be noted that, insofar as our subject is concerned, individualist anarchist
illegalism filed as far as most of those who embarked upon it were concerned,
and then went on to an even more unfortunate and bloody denouement wit
te "tagic bandits" a few years later.
Te century's frst revolutionary upheaval took place in Russia in 1905. In
te wake of the Empire's military defeat at te hands of Japan, revolutionaries
threw themselves into the attack on tsarism. Party through concession and
reform and partly through savage repression, te autocratic tsar managed to
regain contol of the situaton. Despite the recession of the revolutonary tide,
anarchists multiplied, in view of the minimalism of the Social Revolutionaries
ad Socia Democrats, a minimalism that was one of the reasons why the revo
lution failed. Some f anarchist groups sprang up across the Empire, em
bracing tendencies similar to tose existing in France: individualists, libertar
ian communists and syndicalists. Te movement came to be a phenomenon of
some importance, atacting thousands of members, often former Social Revo
lutonaries, Soci
a
l Democrats or Bundists (the Bund being the Jewish Work
ers' Social Democratic Party) who had it in mind to conduct a radical and piti
less stuggle against tsarism's henchmen. However, te Russian libertarian
movement ran into the same problems as its French counterpart: inadequate
liaison between groups, police provocateurs and illegalist excesses, al added
to the crackdown upon the armed struggle.
In organizational maters, the prevaent tendency was at frst the one exist
ing in te West, especially as its chief exponents were the Russian aarchists in
exile: fee contacts between individuals witin a group and fee union between
groups, in accordance wth teir wishes or choices. Congresses were desir
able, but the decisions reached were binding only upon those who might be in
agreement with them. Te role of liaising between and coordinatng the feder
ated groups could not be fllled by committees, for tese "always have a ten-
x . THE INDIVI D UALISTS 75
dency to become, like any government, a brake upon frther development,
and quickly at tat." Voting was ruled out, unanimity being deemed the only
solution: i te matter was too important for either camp to make concessions,
te only option was to split. Te group retained complete autonomy and fee
dom in its activit Every publication represented nothing more than the view
point of te publishing group and there was no question of a cental organ of
the movement. All these prescriptions were laid down at a gathering in London
in 1906 of Russian libertarian communists in exile. In a way, this was a theoreti
cal updatng of anarchism in the light of the Russian revolution of 1905 and
quite i keeping wit te overall orientation of the movement wordwide. Among
te autors of te reports and submissions, let us note names such as Peter
Kropotkin, Zabrezhnev (ftre editor in chief of Pravda) , I. Vetov (who was to
become an historan of some renown in te 1920s) and above all Maria Korn
who drafed tree of the reports, on the matter of politcs and economics, on
organization and on the general strike. s
Yet tere were other active militants inside Russia itself pressing for a quite
different organizational approach. Assimilating the benefts of what he consid
ered the best of French anarchism, namely the revolutionary syndicalist the
ses of Emile Pouget, Novomirsky drafed an anarcho-syndicalist program (this
being the frst use of the term "anarcho-syndicalist") . He recommended an
umbrella organization for Russian anarchists, and indeed internationally. Well
=informed about events and tends abroad, and committed to direct action and
insurgency in Russia, Novomirsky stove to mae his analysis as concrete as
possible and to move away fom te usual abstactions and generalizations.
Te organization he advocated was to be distinguished fom a club, where de
bates and discussions might take place, and be a "political organizaton in the
best sense of the term, for it must seek to becomf thf poli tkal force necessary
to break the organized violence for which the state stands. "
Tat character, it seemed to him, was best expressed through use of the
term "Part": all "anti-authoritarian socialists should unite into a Workers' An
achist Party. Tne next step wouid be the formation of a vast union of all revolu
tionay elements under te black fag of te Internationa Workers' Anarchist
Part. Only ten wlanarchists represent suffcient stength to stuggle against
reactionaries, overt or covert."
Tis party stood apat fom the propaganda or debating clubs, which made
do with nurtring consciousness, while te part set itself the task of "combin
ing the actions of its members" and had need of a set theoretcal platorm, in
the absence of which, it is "impossible to achieve unity of action. " Consequenty,
te program was "the sine qua non for all activty by the Party of Lbor," which
would no longer confne itself to propagating but also organize the actions of
its members.
76
[Tis] Anarchist Party is te only revolutionary part, unlike the conser
vative partes which seek to preserve the established political and eco
nomic order, and te progressive partes which seek to reform te state
F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
in one way or anoter, so as to reform the corresponding economic rela
tons, for anarchists aim to destroy te state, in order to do away with te
established economic order and reconstuct it upon new principles.
Tis anarchist organiaton has nothing to do wit Lnin's con
cept whereby the Party depends chiefy upon stattory constaints and
where its members become mere fnctonaries. Nor has it aything in
common wit the Socia Democratc noton, whereby organiing meas
establishing a Cental Committee above indivduas. Te anarchist or
gaization is the fee union of individuals strugling for a common goal. 9
Aain according to Novomirsk, the Anachist Part's program had to be
complemented by a tactica plan suited to the everyday needs of te workers. In
te contex of the Russia of his day, tat tactc had t consist of extending the
revolutionay period initated in 1905 for as long as feasible, by al means avail
able, to wt: replying with revolutionary terror to te government's terror, tar
getng both their henchmen and tose behind the repression, the capitalists and
the big landowners. Expropriatons of banks and state establishments would
supply the requisite fnds.
Tis direct armed struggle had to be matched to an economic organiza
ton of te workers by means of te most widespread revolutionary tade unions
in every tow across the country.
To sum up, Novomirsky spelled out four points:
1. It is essental that we devise a clear program ad tactics, and, on the
basis of these general principles and tactics, unite al te wholesome
elements of Russian anachism into a single federaton: the Workers'
Anarchist Part.
2. It is vta that it diferentate itself organizatonally and theoretcaly
fom all the questionable elements which peddle and practice the
theory of thef as "a means of stuggling for anachism. "
3. We need to make participation i te revolutonary syndicalist move
ment the central objective of our work, so that we can mae tat move
ment anarchist.
4. Our practca watchword: a extended boycot of all state establish
ments, particularly te army and parliament, and the proclamaton in
villages and towns of workers' communes with sovets of workers'
deputies, acting as industial commitees, at teir head. lO
With hindsight, we can note tat tis program was to become the agenda
a decade later, at least up until the Bolshevks' coup d'etat.
Whenever Novomirsky sought to dissociate himsel fom "dubious ele
ments" in the anarchist camp, he was referring to tose who laid clam to the
label anarchist as a cover for their pet "indivdual recuperation" activties, or
indeed for carrying out "motiveless" acts of terror in the stle of Emile Henry,
that is, murdering bourgeois or people at random.
x . T H E I N D I V I D U A L I S T S 7 7
In Novomirsky's view, the latter activity was not, in certain instances, com
pletely fee of police "motives," as these provocatons played right into the hands
of the authorities, enabling them to treat revolutionary acts as terrorism.
In any case, aside fom the organizing of workers' communes and revolu
tionary trade unions, which was impracticable due to the tsarist repression, all
the remainder was implemented by most of the anarchist groups in te Rus
sian Empire. Tough their losses were heav, they were to succumb only be
cause outnumbered aer 1910, while planting the seeds of revolutionary ac
tion that were able to sprout in 1917.
Let us digress in order to point out that the organizational issue lay at the
root of the split between Lnin and his supporters ("the Bolshevks"=the major
ity) and Martov and his supporters ("the Mensheviks"=the minorit) inside te
Russian Workers' Social Democratic Part at its 1903 congress. Te debate had
centered upon te defnition of what constituted a party member, wt Lnin
takng a more restrictive line than te generous defnition of his opponents.
Tat article fom the party statutes became the focal point of the contoversy
between the protagonists for many a long year up untl 1917. As for the fnc
tioning of te Party, its pyramidal format -with the Cental Committee at the
apex making all the decisions - was not a matter of controversy. Te same
centralistic trend obtained in all the other parties and organizations in te Rus
sian Empire -the Social Revolutionaries, te Polish, Ltvan, Ukrainian, Geor
gian and other Social Democratic Partes. Te tsarist secret police, the Okhrana,
capitalized upon this fact to inltate its agents and, often very successflly,
neutralize the activites of these parties.
In France also the police managed to plant Henri Girard in high offce
inside the CGT Expl oiti ng hi " foiblp< - as a hea drinker ad 'omanizef,
with the debts that that inevitably implied - they managed to get this erst
while socialist worker appointed as a replacement for the general secretary of
the CGTs Commitee for the General Strike, a post that he retained for ten
years until his death in 1902. 1 1 In fact, the government found it to its advantage
to keep the apple of discord handy, in the shape of the watchword of general
strike that divided syndicalists and socialists. In the end, this parting of the
ways crystallized at the CGT's congress in Amiens in 1906 where te charter
adopted could not have been more explicit:
Te CG embraces, outside of all politcal afliations, all workers con
scious of the struggle to be waged for the elimination of wage slavery
and the employer. Congress takes the vew that this declaration is a
recognition of the class struggle which, on the economic terrain, pits
te workers in rebellion against all te forms of exploitaton and op
pression, material and moral alike, deployed by the capitaist class
against the working class. 12
Syndicalism set itself the two-pronged mission of improving the workers'
well-being through the achievement of short-term aspiratons such as reductions
78 FACING THE ENEMY
of working hours and te raising of wages, as well as pavng the way for the com
prehensive emancipaton that could only be accomplished by means of expropria
ton of te capitaist. Te general stike was te main metod envisaged, and the
tade union, as a mutual aid group, was destned in the fture to become te agent
of production and distibuton, the basis for the reorganaton of societ.
Outside of their tade union actvities, the union membership had a com
pletely fee hand to involve itself in any form of philosophical or political cam
paigning, witout tereby carrying tose campaigns into te union itself. Te
congress went on to repudiate any and all interference fom "paties or sects. "
Its concern was to differentate itself once and for all fom al socialists and other
politcians seeking to trow a halter over tade union stuggles: however, anar
chists or at least some anarchists were also targeted, as was noted the following
yea at the Anarchist Congress in Amsterdam. Syndicalism, trning itself into
te "Part of Lbor" (to borrow fom Pouget's pamphlet of te same name) an
nounced tat it was quite capable of conducting the class stuggle unaided upon
its chosen terrain, tat is te economic terrain, at a remove fom al te infu
ences of politcians or ideologues, and was therefore suffcient unto itself. Tis
was, in a sense, a resurrecton in a French settng of the First Internatonal,
quite in line wit Bakunin's last counsel.
Endnotes to Chapter Ten
1. L'narchi,e No. 26, October 5, 1905, "Refexions" by Redan, quoted by ]. Maitron, ojcit.,
p. 395.
2. Paa-laval, L'bsurdite des soi-isant libres-penseur: lefaux-libres-penseur et les vrais,
(ars: Edition du Groupe d'etudes scientiques, 1908) , p. 4.
3. Ibid. , "Teoreme des anarchistes libres-penseurs," p. 8 ad "Une variHe de faux-libres
penseurs, les faux anarchistes," p. 9. See also Rene Bianco, Parafaval, une fgure originalede
l'anarchime /anfai, (Marseilles, 1980) , p. 13.
4. L'narchime comme vie et comme activite individuelles: Rapports presentes au congres
libertaire d'msterdm par E. Armand & Maurcius, (paris: 1907) , p. 8.
5. Quoted by ]. Maiton, op. cit., p. 255.
6. E. Amand, Sa vie, sa pensee, son, oeuve, L Ruche ouviere, (Paris, 1964) . E. Armand tel
que je l'ai connu by Mauricius, pp. 104124.
7. Ibid.
8. Te Russian revolution and Anarchism (reports and fndings of 1906) published in 1922 (in
Russian) by te Federation of (Russian) Aarchist Communist Groups in the United States
and Canada, 6 pages.
9. Novomirsk, Te Program ofAnarcho-syndicalism (in Russian) , (Odessa, 1907) , pp. 172-173.
10. Ibid., p. 184.
11. Robert Brec, L grove generale en France, (paris: ED!, 1969) , Un aprtre nomme Judas,
pp. 66-70, and Maurice Dommanget, La Chevalerie du Travail /ranfaise 1893-1911,
(Lusane: Editons Renconte, 1967) , pp. 98-101.
12. Roger Hagnauer, L'actualite de la Charte d'miens, preface by Pierre Monatte, (paris,
1956) , p. 5.
X . T H E I N D I V I D U A L I S T S 79
XI. THE INTER NATIONAL ANARCHIST
CONG RESS IN AMSTERDAM ( 1 9 0 7 )
In 1906 Holland's Lbertarian Communist Federation and Belgium's Lber
tarian Communist Grouping had jointly foated te possibilit of summoning
an international congress. Te frst named organization assumed responsibil
it for the actual mounting of a week-long congress: the second published, un
der the editorship of Henri Fuss, fve issues of a Bulletin of the Libertaran
International, the purpose of which was to draw up an agenda and to publicize
the submissions handed in. Somewhere between sixty and eighty delegates,
attending in an indivdual capacity or representing the anarchist federatons of
a number of countries, were present at the Congress. Te largest number came
fom the host country and fom neighboring Belgium and Germany. Aong
the best known participats we might list the names of Errico Malatesta and
Luigi Fabbri (Italy) , Emma Goldman (United States) , Nikolai Pogdaev and
Wladimir Zabrezhnev (Russia) , Domela Nieuwenhuis and Christan Cornelissen
(Holland) , Henri Fuss, Georges Tonar and Emile Chapelier (Belgium) and
Rudolf Rocker and Alexander Schapiro (London Tewish An arChi st Federaton) .
Te French delegation was tiny, for many of the French were still hostle to te
holding of congresses, specic or otherwise. Even so, some anarchist syndical
ists fom the CGTwere present, people like: Pierre Monatte, Benoit Broutchoux,
R. de Marmande and Aedee Dunois (who was, bizarrely, te delegate for
fancophone Switzerland, although he was a Parisian through and trough) ;
Pierre Rmus (Austa) , altough living in London, was also tere; Dr. Friedeberg
headed a sizable German delegation; and, by teir presence, natives of Bohemia
(Czechoslovakia) , Poland, Bulgaria, Serbia and Agentina aforded an undeni
ably international and representative character to te Congress. Although it
was felt that the taking of a head count was intrestng, it was agreed that major
ity decisions would not be binding upon either te majorit or te minorit: tis
was in accordance wth te well-established practce of te anarchist movement.
Te Congress described itself as being the fourth in number aer the so
cialist congresses in Zurich (1893), London (1896) and the banned congress
that should have been held in London (in 1900). In fact, as a homogeneously
anarchist congress, it might be regarded as the second in number aer the
London Conference (1881) at which te dire decision had been to go for propa
ganda by deed. Te implicit task facing tis congress was precisely to draw the
8 0 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
lessons fom tat and to eliminate its damaging effects. Te agenda adopted
was a good refecton of tat preoccupaton:
1. Aachism and syndicalism.
2. Genera stike and politcal stike.
3. Anarchism and organization
4. Ant-militaism as a tactc of anarchism.
5. Integral educaton of children.
6. Productve associaton and anachism.
7. Te revolution in Russia.
8. Alcoholism and anarchism.
9. Modern literatre and anarchism.
10. lbertarians and a world language.
11. Anarchism and religion.
12. Anarchism as individual living and actvit.
Four oter items, reserved for the supporters of internatonal relations,
were to be dealt wit during te last two non-public sessions:
1. Orgaization of te Lbertarian Internatonal.
2. Drang of a statement of anarchist-communist
principles.
3. Creation of an international bulletn, an informaton
organ.
4. Te goal of the new International, 1
Te inaugural proceedings went ahead wt around a tousand people in
attendance; te Internatonale was sung. It fell to te German Dr. Friedeberg to
deliver te frst speech. He vehementy berated te German Social Democracy
and its sole metod of action, "corruptve parliamentaism. " Instead of which
he called for direct action in every guise and methodical diffsion of te idea of
the revolutionary general strike. He was followed by ten oter speaers, includ
ing Maatesta, Emma Goldman, Rogdaev, Pierre Rmus and Cornelissen.
Te next day, Monday, August 26, 1907, a reading was given to the submis
sions regarding te current stats of the anarchist movement in various coun
tres. Tree hundred comrades, delegates included, attended te evening ses
sion, which closed with the fnal report on actvt i England, fom Krl Walter.
Te followng day te congress appointed its chairman for the day and two
assessors, before the foor was made available to Amedee Dunois to broach te
prickly queston of organization. He opened by dismissing te opposition to
organizaton on te part of most anarchists as outmoded and overtaen by
events. In bygone days, organizaion's supporters might have been suspected
of "backward-lookng ulterior motves and autoritarian designs." "Individual
initate" was alleged to have been suffcient; te realit of the class stuggle
would have been denied and misrepresented as "confictng views for which it
was the very task of propaganda to prepare te indivdual. " Tat was how anar
chism had lost sight of te "terra frma of reality and practical action and been
X I . T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L A N A R C H I S T C O N G R E S S 8 1
washed up on the desert isle of individualism." Organizaton was no longer
tought of as aying oter than "forms inevitably oppressive of te indidual"
and alcollective action had been systematic
a
lly shunned. But in France things
had moved on: syndicalism and anti-militarism now occupied pride of place.
Anachism had become a "revolutonary teory, a specifc program for te tans
formaton of society, the most perfect theoretcal expression of te tendencies
of the proletarian movement," and was not any longer the "ultimate elaboration
upon the old bourgeois individuaism. " Dunois even defned it as "integral and
primaily associationist feder
a
lism."
Te speaker dismissed te individualist argument against organization: "I
cannot see how an anarchist organization might harm the individual develop
ment of its members. No one, in fact, would be under any obligation to enter it,
nor, having entered, would tey be obliged to quit." According to him, tat line
of argument did not stand scrutny, for it might as easily be deployed against
any form of society. As he saw it, the syndicalists' objection had more substance
to it. Te existence in France of a labor movement wit a plainly revolutionary
outook was te "major fact upon which any attempt at anarchist organization
risked stumbling, if not foundering. " Indeed, unlike "opinion groupings, tny
chapels into which none but te faithl would venture, te tade union move
ment had not lost hope that it might yet encompass te proletariat in its entiret
witin its supple, accommodatng fameworks." Consequenty that was where
anarchists belonged, lest they be separated fom te people, te "essental driv
ing force of every revoluton." Unless they, like the Social Democrats, had "in
terests different fom tose of te proletariat to pursue -te interests of part,
sect or clique?" Was it not the role of aarchists to draw nearer to the proletariat
(and not the other way round) to live its life, to "earn its confdence and incite it
by word and example to resistance, revolt, revoluton?" Thal :au, DUIlUis re
solved the issue by ventring te idea that te role of anarchists, who tought
temselves the "most advaced, most daring and most liberated facton of tat
militant proletaiat organized within te unions, is to be at all tmes at its side
and, fom its very ranks, to fght in the same battles. " I tey were to keep fit
wth their vocaton as educators and exhorters of the working class, anarchists
nonetheless had to band togeter wt one anoter so as to "endow-teir trade
union actvit wt maimum force and contnuit. " Te stonger tey were,
(and tey could only be stong if tey banded togeter) the "stonger also wll
be those currents of ideas tat we might direct trough te labor movement."
Did this mean that they could make do wit te task of educating militants
to "keeping te sap of revoluton alive in them, letng them acquire self-knowl
edge and contacts with one another?" Would they not have some "activt of
teir own to pursue 'directy?" By his reckoning the answer was yes, and he
supplied a precise defnition of the role of the active revolutonary minorit:
82
Te social revoluton can only be the handiwork of te masses. But
every revolution is of necessit attended by acts which, by their very
F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
natre -technicall so to speak -can only be the work of a tiny few,
of te boldest and most enlightened facton of te proletarat on the
move. In every distict, so every region, in times of revolution, our
groups would form many litte fghtng organizatons designed to carry
out delicate specialist measures for which te broad masses are most
ofen unsuited.
Wat Dunois was geting at was tat afnit groups, wherein te members
are wen-known to ad tust one anoter, are beter suited to carrying off daring
and decisive operatons which the masses cannot possibly accomplish sponta
neously. Not tat tere should be any substttion for te wishes of te later.
He also nominatd anarchist propaganda as te essental, ongoing object of te
group's activites, teoretically as well as practcally. Such activit had been con
ducted on a individual basis hiterto and so te point was to ensure tat it was
tackled on a more collectve and consistent basis. In France and despite te
large numbers of anarchists, te chief obstacle remained te lack of areement
and organizaton. Wat was needed was an anarchist movement that would
marshal "on a common footing, all tose forces which have tus f been fght
ing a lonely fght." Tis would spring fom joint acton by anarchists, fom teir
concerted, coordinatd acton. Needless to say, te anarchist organiza
ton would not presume to unite althose elements which profess, very
mistenly at tmes, to subscribe to te idea of aarchy. It would be
enough for it to raly around a program of practcal action altose com
rades subscrbing to our principles and desirous of working wit us.
Tis stikes us as a crucial address by Amedee Dunois and it bears at once
te stamp of the best Bakuninist spirit and a precise and clear vision of the
tasks devolving upon revolutonary anarchists. Some of tose at te Amsterdam
Congress were not quite of our opinion, as te contibutons that followed made
plain. Georges Tonar, for example, abdicated his rght to address te con
gress, saing that he subscribed to every word of Dunois's speech, but he de
claed himself opposed to any vote being taen and asked congress to align
itself wit his positon. Tat contadictory attitde created uproar: M
a
latesta
immediately spoke up in favor of a vote being taen, fnding no reason why one
should not proceed. Monatte followed suit, saing tat he failed to see what
tere was in the taking of a vote that was at-anarchist, or, to put it another
way, autoritarian, as tere was no question of equatng it with parliamentary
voting or universal sufage. Voting was a regular practice inside te unions
and, tut to tell, he saw absolutely noting in tat tat was contary to anar
chist principles. He berated tose "comrades who, on every item, even the
most tivia, felt impelled to raise issues of principle. "
Christa Cornelissen reckoned tat votng was to be condemned only i it
imposed an obligaton upon te dissenting minorit: de Marmande agreed wit
tat reasoning, and te contoversy was defsed. Ten an individuaist, Croiset,
X I . T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L A N A R C H I S T C O N G R E S S 8 3
spoke out against Dunois: he saw anarchy as opposed to any system of organi
zation, for tis had the "inevitable result of always placing limits upon the fee
dom of te individual, to a greater or lesser extent, " and, by shouldering the
"pointess ambiton of being practca" anarchists had stepped on to organizaton's
slippery slope. (! ?) As Croiset argued it, anarchist ideas had to "cling to teir
ancient purit rater tan seek to become more practical." Tat caricature of a
response drew no support. Siegied Nacht spoke along te same lines as Dunois
and called for acton which alone could educate the people and invest it wit a
"revolutonary ment
a
lity. " However, he rater curiously described the role of
te masses in the ftre revolution as being tat of the "foot soldiers of te
revolutionary amy," whereas te anarchist groups, "specializing in technica
tasks, will be its artillery"! What a pit he failed to mention its general staff and
its cavalry (which was to play a considerable, not to say, primary part in te
Mexican and Russian revolutons) !
Oter speakers expressed some misgivings about Dunois's submission,
without however daring to contadict him. Emma Goldman pronounced her
self "in favor of organization, in principle" but had misgivings about a possible
"exclusivism" and insisted tat the autonomy of te individual, the essential
principle of anachy, be respected. She would countenance organization on one
condition only: that it be "founded upon absolute respect for all indivdua ini
tiatives and place no obstacle in te way of teir interplay or evolution. " We
may note te incongruousness of that word "all, " the source of al the possible
and conceivable confsions which Goldman seems to have overlooked.
I appears tat te clarity of Dunois's statement of position had lef the
antiorganizationists in disarray, but there was a lingering opposition and it was
Errico Malatest who took it upon himself to disarm it. Deliberately concilia
tory, he put te diferences over te organiatun Ibbue duwIl to semantcs:
basically, he was convnced, everybody was of the same mind about it. Accord
ing to him, all anarchists, regardless of whatever tendenc they belonged to,
were, to some extent "individualists. " But the converse was very far fom being
true. Te category frst named included those who "claim for every individual
human being te right to integral development, their own as well as their
neighbor's. " Te second category embraced tose who "have a care only for
their own individualit and never have any hesitation in sacrifcing others to it.
Te tsar of all te Russias is numbered among the latter. "
Malatesta went on to spell out a few home truts about individualism tus
understood, describing as a "colossal nonsense" Ibsen's assertion tat: "te most
powerfl man in the world is te loneliest of men! " Because what sets the indi
vidua fee, "what allows him to develop alhis facultes, is not solitude but asso
ciaton." Altough cooperaton was indispensable, he neverteless reckoned that
association ought to leave fll autonomy to its afliated indivdu
a
ls, and te fed
eration should respect that same autonomy in the groups. He called for organs
tat would be expressions of te groups and not of indivduals, for in that way
each opinion might be feey measured alongside all the rest. Aropos of autort
and authoritariaism, they had to be clear: anachists took up arms against the
84 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
autorit of te state, but i they were faced wth a "purely moral authority ema
nating fom experience, intelligence or t
a
lent, ten, aarchists though we al
may be, tere is none among us who will not respect such authority. "
He closed his address with a curous aiom: whether they were "organiz
ers, " federaists, or individualists opposed to organization of any sort, what dis
tnguished them was not some alleged authoritarianism, on the grounds they
would be having a bureau and taking decisions in the case of the former, in the
case of the latter, te acta authoritarianism of many groups wherein the "abso
lute feedom of the individual" was noisily proclaimed -it was above all else the
fact of their "doing nothing or next to nothing." From which he concluded that:
words divide and action unites. It is high time we all set to work to
geter in order to exercise some effectve infuence over social events . . . .
So let us stive to make a realit of the Aarchist International. I we
are even to begin to issue an urgent summons to all comrades to
stuggle against the reaction, as well as display revolutonary initia
tve when the tme comes, we must have our International!
Te discussion resumed with the seventh session of the congress on the
morning of August 28t. A number of speakers picked up and refned certain
details of Malatesta's address, and then Amedee Dunois's moton -amended
by Emma Goldman in the mater of indivdual initative, and by Malatesta and
te Czech Vohryzek in the mater of the organizationa format envisaged -
was put to a vote. A second motion, fom Rmus, was more or less a repetition
of the frst, and took only 13 votes in favor and 17 against, with all the rest
abstning: as a result it was rejected. Te Dunois motion was passed by 46
votes against a single dissenter. Tis marked the arrival of anarchism as a so
cia teory and not a philosophy of te individual. It was a signifcant milestone
in te movement's history, so we shall reprint it in its entirety:
Te anarchists assembled in Amsterdam, August 27, 1907.
Considering tat the ideas of anarchy and orgaization, far fom be
ing icompatble, as has sometmes been claimed, ae mutually comple
mentay and illuminate one another, te very precept of anarchy re
siding in the fee organization of the producers;
Tat individual action, important though it may be, could not make
good te absence of collective action, of concerted movement: "any
more tan collective acton could make good te absence of individual
initatve; " (Emma Goldman's addendum)
Tat organizaton of militant forces would assure propaganda of fesh
wngs and could not but hasten the penetaton of the ideas of federal
ism and revoluton into the working class;
Tat labor organization, founded upon identit of interests, does not
exclude a organiaton founded upon identt of aspiratons and ideas;
XI. THE INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST CONGRESS 85
Are of the opinion tat te comrades of every land should place on
their agenda the creation of anarchist groups and the federation of
existing groups.
Te Vobryzek-Malatesta addendum
Te anarchist federation is an association of groups and individuals,
wherein no one may impose his will, nor diminish te initiative of an
other. Vis-a-vs the current society, it has as its goal the alteraton of all
moral and economic conditions and, to tat end, it supports struggle
by all appropriate means.
Tat last amendment adds noting and wanders of into generaities, which
is not like Malatesta: he probably endorsed it as a gesture to Vohryzek and in
an effort to setle te debate.
Be tat as it may, that resoluton on anarchist organization represents an
historical milestone and a libertarian publication of the time asserts that it will:
no longer be feasible for our social-democratic adversaries to invoke
out ancient hatred of organization of any sort to banish us fom the
socialist camp without frter ado. Te anarchists' legendary individu
alism was publicly slain in Amsterdam by the anarchists temselves,
and all te bad faith of certain of our adversaries will not be enough to
resuscitate it. 2
Te eight session, on the afernoon of August 28, was held in camera: te
public and journalists were not admitted. On the agenda was the practcal orga
nizaton of the International. Aer several elliptcal addresses, including one by
Emma Goldman who suggested a bulletin as the sole link, instead of te envs
aged fve-member Internatonal correspondence bureau, everybody agreed upon
its creation. Its powers consisted of the creaton of international archives acces
sible to comrades, and keeping in touch with anarchists fom different coun
ties, either directly, or through the agency of the three comrades chosen by
the federatons or groups fom the countries involved. Indivduals could be
members of the Internatonal, provided tat tey had been vouched for by an
organizaton, by te Bureau or by comrades known to it A resoluton to tat
effect was passed by te Congress. Emma Goldman's motion commending te
bulletn only, picked up only four votes. London was fxed as te Bureau's seat
among the fve members appointed to it were Malatesta (despite his protesta
tions!) , Rudolf Rocker and Wilquet (Germans) , Alexander Schapiro (Russian) ,
and John Turner (who was not even at te congress! ) .
To judge by tis specic outcome, te organizatonal mountain diligenty
erected during te congress trned out to be a molehill: the Bureau appointed
looked to be a mere formalit, as did its role. It was to be acte aer a fashion
until 191l, then was swalowed up by the countryside!
Regarded as the oldest advocate of organization and collective action,
Maatesta welcomed te creaton of te Internatonal as "afrmaton of te desire
8 6 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
for shared soldart and stuggles." Te Bureau's existence stuck him as being
of "lesser importance. " As he saw it, the most important thing was "te desire
to stuggle alongside one another and the intention to keep in touch so that we
do not have to go looking for one another when the time comes to act, with the
risk that the moment may pass before we have found one another" P
Its appetite whetted by the spicy hors d'oeuvre on organization, Congress
moved on to te main dish on the menu: the relatons between revolutonary
syndicalism and anarchism. Te ninth session, on the evening of Wednesday,
Augst 28, opened before a packed hall. Pierre Monatte, a member of te CGT
national committee, took the rostrum. Ten 25 years old, he was already a
veteran labor actvist, steeped in tade union actvt. He gave a mastery expo
sition of the natre and aims of the revolutionary syndicalism that had asserted
itself in the face of sociaism, and of anarchism indeed, not so much theoreti
cally as trough its actions and so "it is in actons rather than in books that we
have to search for it."4
All the same, it was anarchism that had been the chief inspiraton behind
syndicalism, anarchism tat "dragged te workers' movement dow te revolu
tionary road and popularized the idea of direct action." In its trn, syndicalism
had "recalled anarchism to a feeling for its labor origins. " It was inside the CGT
that tese two currents were best embodied, for the "greater good of them both. "
Monatte launched into a lengthy description of te CGT, its actvty, its modus
operandi and its distnctve identit in te worldwide workers' movement. Te
Confederation had successfully fended off politcal intruders and government
attempts to seduce it: its chief weapon was direct acton, tat is, "acting on its
own behalf, reliance upon none but itself, " wholly in keeping with the First In
ternatona. He catalogued the various forms that this might assume -strikes,
sabotage, boycotts, etc. -as well as te revolutionary superweapon, the gen
era stike. Syndicalism had breated lie back into the revolutionary spirit which
had withered in te face of te verbosit, or worse still, electoralism and parlia
mentarism of Guesde or te governmentalism and ministerialism of J aures, on
the one hand, ad the revolutonism of anarchists "disdainflly beatng te re
treat into te ivory towers of philosophical speculation" on the other. Tus it
was "important that the Proletarians of other lands should learn fom te syndi
calist experience of the French proletariat." According to Monatte, it was in
cumbent upon anarchists wheresoever there was a workers' movement to make
tat experience known. In that way te class stuggle could be prosecuted "in
a
ll its fllness and to maximum effect." He referred to te famous declaraton
by te congress of Amiens that -"syndicalism is suffcient unto itself' -which
was sometimes misinterreted by certain anarchists, when all that it meant was
tat the "working class, having reached te age of majorit, aims at long last to
shi for itself and no longer looks to anyone else for its emancipaton. " What
anarchist "could fnd fault with such a loud affrmaton of te will to act?"
Syndicaism "does not waste tme promising the workers an earthly para
dise. It asks tem to go out and win it, assuring them tat teir actons wll
never be quite in vain. It is a training school for determination, energy,
X I . T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L A N A R C H I S T C O N G R E S S 8 7
purposefl thinking. To an anarchism too long wthdrawn into itself, it holds
out te prospect of fesh promise, fesh hopes. " As a result, Monatte called
upon libertarians to commit temselves to sydicalism. He made no bones
about its having faws that needed to be eliminated, especially this tendency
on the part of individuals to:
entrust the chore of struggling to their union, their federation, to te
Confederation, to appeal to strengt of numbers, when their individual
energies would have suffced. By constantly appealing to the will of
the individual, his initiative and his daring, we anarchists can mount a
vigorous backlash against tis hamfl tendency to have constant re
course, in litte tings as in big, to stength of numbers.
Trade union bureaucracy was also a problem, but all that could be elimi
nated or put staight by a "constantly vgilant critic
a
l spirit."
Te congress's tent session, on the morning of August 29, found it draw
ing togeter te questions of syndicaism and te general stike. Siegied Nacht
caused an incident by accusing the individualist Croiset of having, the evening
before, frnished Amsterdam's bourgeois pressmen with information concern
ing the in-caera proceedings that day. Te congress was outraged. Croiset
took the foor to admit to the charge, and accepted the reprimands that might
be issued to him over his "CUlpable thoughtlessness. " Te bulk of those at the
congress censured him.
Te aernoon session resumed with a moton on the Russian Revolution
which was passed unanimously, before the debate on Monate's submission
continued. Cornelissen expressed reservations: anarchists ought to support
syndicalism and direct action, but on one condition: that these be revolution
ary in their objectives, that thfY "never cease to aim at te transformation of
te existing societ into a libertarian communist societ. "
I n support of his agument, he invoked the case of the Asterdam and
Antwerp diamond cutters, and workers in England and te United States, all of
whom had used direct acton in order to secure special privleges for temselves:
he also spoke out against direct action that was directed against modernization
of te means of producton.
Errico Malatesta followed him in the speaking order. Amid utter silence in
te auditorium, he spent quite some time tang issue with Monatte; he an
nounced that he was dissenting fom Monatte's conclusion to the effect that
"syndicalism is a necessary and suffcient means of social revoluton," or, to put
it anoter way, tat "syndicalism is suffcient unto itself. " He frst of all drew a
distncton beteen te workers' movement and syndicalism: one was a fact,
te oter a doctrine, a system. Moreover, he was quite in favor of tem both,
unlike tese intellectua anarchists who had walled themselves up inside "te
ivory towers of pure speculaton. " He even supported tade unions "wide open
to
a
ll workers, witout regard to opinions, absolutely neutral unions. " However,
it was in order to spread teir ideas tat anarchists should get involved in these,
using them as a meas to a end, te "best of all te means open to us, of course, "
88 FACI NG THE ENEMY
whereas syndicalists tended, instead, to make an end of that means, posing a
"treat to te very existence of anarchism." Now, even i it "decked itsel out i
the utterly useless label of revolutonary, syndicalism is only and will be only a
legalistc, conservatve movement, wit no accessible goa oter tan te bet
terment of working conditons. " In support of this, he cited te case of te great
Aerican tade unions. Once radically revolutonary in teir weaer days, tey
had, as tey had grown in size and wealt, turned into plainly conservative or
ganiatons "solely preoccupied wit makng their members prvleged persons
in te factory, workshop or mine, and persons a lot less hostle to employer
capitalism tan to the unorganized workers, " te very people lashed by the
social democrats as the "ragged proletarians" (Lumpenproletarat) and whom
anarchists defended not less, but rater more ta the rest.
According to Malatesta, te mistake made by Monate and te revoluton
ary syndicalists arose fom a "too simplistic noton of te class stuggle": tey
tought tat te economic interests of all workers -of te working class -
would be all of a piece and that
a
ll it took was for te "workers to look to te
defense of their own interests for tem to be defendin, in so doing, te inter
ests of the entire proletariat against the bosses." As he saw it, it did not work
tat way: wthin te working class itself, as witin te bourgeoisie, tere was
competton and contenton. Wat is more, certain workers were closer to te
bourgeoisie than to the proletariat: aside from the examples cited by
Cornelissen, Malatesta chose the example of workers using violence against
"scabs" who were every bit as exploited as temselves! Here, in our estima
ton, Malatesta was overstating tings a bit and displaying his actal ignorance
of the class struggle, but apparenty he was determined at all costs to head off
te competiton fom the revolutionary syndicaists and any argument would
do tere. So he seized upon te point made by Monate regarding te danger
in paid tade union offcials, as a danger comparable wt parliamentarism! En
the general strike held no chams for him: it would come to nothing, unless
accompanied by an insurrecton . . . . Anyway, te general stike was pointess
unless it was active, that is, unless it trned work to its o service. To sum up,
he deplored the fact that many comrades had let temselves be consumed by
te workers' movement for "yet again, workers' orgaization, te stike, the
general stike, direct action, boycotts, sabotage and armed insurrecton itself,
are but means. Anarchy is te end." And anarchy was far more ta the inter
ests of a class: anarchy aimed at te "complete liberaton of mankind, presently
enslaved on three counts -economic, politcal and social. " So, Maatesta closed,
we should steer clear of "any unilateral, simplistc metod of acton": syndical
ism therefore could not be the only means, much less "should it mae us lose
sight of the only goal wort the effort: Aarchy!"
I appears tat Malatesta did not listen propery to Monatte's address, or
was grievously mistaken about te reait of French revolutonary sydical
ism, for the criticisms he offered and te analogies he drew -illogically, we
might add -were off the mark. I was more a case of his pursuing an agenda
of his own, offering his own interpretaton of te Internatonal's taditon and
X I . T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L A N A R C H I S T C O N G R E S S 89
invoking a highly abstract Aarchy. It was to that that Henri Fuss set about
replying: Fuss stipulated that it was "impossible not to regad te organized
proletariat as fertile soil for propaganda" and a "straightorward means;" hence
forth te class stuggle proceeds upon te economic terrain and "the time is
past when revolution consisted of seizing a few town halls and decreeing the
new societ fom some balcony" (a reference to the Benevento insurrection in
1874 in which Malatesta had been a participant and which had ended in fasco) .
Fuss went on: 'Te social revolution towards which we are marching will con
sist of te expropriation of a class. Henceforth, the fghting unit is no longer, as
once was the case, the opinion group, but rather the trades group, the workers'
union or syndicate. Te later being the agency best suited to the class struggle.
Te essential thing is tat it should be nudged progressively in the direction of
the expropriatng general strike, which is what we invite comrades fom every
county to do."
Te Frenchman Benoit Broutchoux, an anarchist worker militant forged
in te hard school of te miners of the Nord, also voiced objections and offered
a "formal rebuttal of Malatesta's teories. "
Pierre Rmus likewse failed to identi with Maatesta's misgivings: revo
lutionary syndicalism's direct action methods were properly anarchist, so syn
dicalism was "contained within anarchism" and not the other way round. How
ever, syndicalism could not be suffcient unto itself: anarchism, having sup
plied it with its weaponry, now had to endow it wit a philosophy and an ideal,
until such time as it would become anarchism itself and be capable of sel
suffciency. He closed by declaring: "Let us be anarchists frst and above all
else: let us then be syndicalists. But not the other way about. "
Monatte's response was a lively one: trough te "bitter crticisms" which
Malatesta had leveled at these newfangled revolutionary notions, he believed
he could make out "a voice echoing fom the distant past. " To these fesh ideas
whose "brutal realism unnerves him, Maatesta has at best opposed only the
tired old tinkng of Blanquisll which fatered itseif that it could make te
world anew by means of a successfl armed insurrection. " He rebutted the
accusations of revolutionary minimalism and announced that "our anarchism
is wort as much as yours and it is not our intenton that you should shove our
beliefs down our troats. " While te experience of syndicalism might hae, in
certain countes, given rise to "errors and deviations, we have te experience
tere to prevent us fom repetition. " Ad i, instead of "loudly carping about
syndicasm's vces past, present or even fture, anachists were to involve tem
selves more closely in its activities, any misgivngs there might be would be
exorcised forever. "
Neverteless, the spell was broken: the dissension voiced was to leave its
mar on the movement and create a gul between the two sides. Te debate
was considered closed and at the tirteent session on Friday, August 30, four
motions were voted on, ad all four were carried by a very wide margin even
tough tey contadicted one another in places! Te frst moton, submitted by
90 FACING THE ENEMY
Cornelissen-Vohryzek-Malatesta, backed by Rogdaev, Emma Goldman, Wilquet,
de Marmande and Knotek, was carried by 33 votes to ten. It was of course in
favor of unions as bot "fghting organizatons in te class struggle for im
proved working conditions and as unions of producers that might frther the
tansformation of capitalist societ into an anarchist communist society. " Ay
inhibition arose out of the "anarchists' task, which is to represent the revolu
tonary element witin tose organizatons, to propagate ad support only those
forms and manifestaions of 'direct action' (strkes, sabotage, boycotts, etc.)
which are inherenty revolutonary in character and make a contribution to
wads te tansformation of societ," as well as fom te fact that anarchists
"regard te syndicalist movement and the general stike as powerfl revolu
tonary instuments, but not as substittes for te Revolution" and thought
tat "destuction of capitalist and autoritarian societ can be accomplished
only by means of armed insurrection and violent expropriaton and that re
course to a more or less general strike and the syndicaist movement ought not
to blind us to more direct metods of struggle against the military might of
governments. "
Tis was tantamount to taking very litle account of the extremely volent
struggle conducted by te CGT against the army and police, which at that very
moment were being deployed by the French government to break and repress
stikes and demands wit some bloodshed. Tere was, as it were, a dichotomy
beteen the sentiments expressed and the realit of events. Te authors of the
moton posed as lectrers and instuctors in revolution before proletans com
mited to the class conscious active minort represented by the CGT
Te second of the motions, tabled by the German Fredeberg, was even
more stad offsh: it made a clear distinction beteen the class struggle and
te emancipation of te proletariat by means of the ideas and aspiratons of
anarchism which "aims - above and beyond the short-term aspirations of
classes -at economic and moral redemption of the human person, at a setting
wherein autorit has no place and not at some new power, that of a majorit
over a minorit. " A curious amalgam was constructed of the parliamentarism of
Marxist socialism wth the tade union movement and the strike for political
rights - al of it irrelevant and none of it so much as breathed during the
debates. Tis motion closed wit a reference to te aachist spirt which "might
pervade the syndicalist movement and lead it on to te advent of a societ fee
of all authorit. " It was passed, though, by 36 votes to six.
Amedee Dunois's submission, endorsed by Monatte, Fuss, Nacht, Fabbri
and K W
a
lter, recalled the realit of the class stuggle waged by the mass of
producers, the specic and basic agency of which was the trade union organi
zation, destined to turn into a producton group and to be "in the present soci
et the living embryo of the societ of tomorrow." It committed the
comrades fom every country, witout losing sight of the fact that an
achist acton is not wholly contned witin te famework of te union,
to participate actively in the autonomous movement of the working
XI. THE INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST C ONGRESS 9 1
class and to develop within the trade union organizations the ideas of
rebellion, individual initiatve and solidarit which are the very essence
of anarchism.
Passed by 28 votes to seven, this was complemented by the Nacht-Monatte
motion (endorsed by the very same signatories) on the expropriatory general
strike which was held to be a "remarkable incentve to organization and the
spirit of revolt in the present societ and the format in which the emancipation
of the proletaiat can be effected. " Tis had nothing to do with the politcal
strike, and was suggested as the main route to "destruction of the present soci
et and expropriation of the means of production and their produce. " As a re
sult, it was by way of a dismissal of Malatesta's reservations, his insurrectionist
tactics and clea intention to see the general stike as servng te interests of
the working class alone. Nevertheless, the motion was carried by 25 votes.
Moving on trough the agenda, Emma Goldman moved a resolution in
favor of "acts of revolt by indivdual and whole mass alike. " Although that was
open to a number of interpretations -as an endorsement of individual or ter
rorist attentats, or indeed insurrectionist movements - (which is to say, that
damaging old propaganda by deed) and although there was no debate that
could have dispelled that vagueness, the motion was rushed trough unani
mously. In fact, the congress was well behind schedule on its agenda, and there
was no time lef for dissecting the meaning of words. It was decided that the
anti-militarist item would be dealt with at the anti-militarist congress that was
underway simultaneously in the neighborhood. Te following item on Alcohol
ism and Anarchism was dealt with by the teacher Van Ree: he was against not
merely the abuse of alcohol but even moderation in its use, and in fact he railed
aganst the drnkng of diluted "healt" beverages. Tis item was postpOnO
until later, probably time enough for "a wee drink," to give tempers time to cool
and tme for fller consideraton of the matter!
Te item on Productive Association and Anarchism was touched upon
briefy by the Dutchman Samson who declared himself in favor of production
cooperatives and libertarian colonies which might be of service to the work
ers with an eye to their emancipation. Integral Education of Children was
handled by de Marmande whose conclusion was that te Bourses du Travail
and Workers' Unions were best placed to decide upon te character of the
educational provision for workers' children. As the rapporteurs upon Anar
chism as Individual Living and Activity (E. Armand and Mauricius) were not
present, tat item on te agenda was skipped. Te items on alcoholism, pro
ductive association and Esperanto did not result in the passage of resolutons,
due to lack of time to discuss them, and Errico Malatesta delivered the
congress' s closing address, at its seventeenth and fnal session Satrday, Au
gust 31. He offered congratulatons upon te holding of tis frst congress
which had "opened the way to fuitl union . . . . To be sure, differences of opin
ion have emerged among us: however, tese relate only to secondary maters.
We are all in agreement in affrming our essential principles, " and he called
9 2 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
upon his comrades to work away at propaganda and organizaton "wt more
confdence and energy tan ever. "
A round of applause "greeted these resounding words. Enthusiasm was at
a pea. Faces were lit up by j oy" (read the minutes) and everybody stood up to
sing te Internatonale.
Te revolutionary syndicalists present at the congress held to meetings
to launch a common Press Bureau serving all of the internationa tade union
orgaizations, pending a "practical internationalism for the mantenance of the
closest solidarity connections. " (Dunois) .
So much for this important internatonal anarchist congress. Important on
a number of counts: it was te frst rea congress of te sort since te Lndon
congress in 1881: it allowed ventilation of the issues preoccupyng te liberta
ia movement, especially the matters of orgaizaton ad revolutionay syndi
calism, determining its soci
a
l practce and signaing its interna divisions. It
aso provded te occasion for a physical get-togeter of militants internation
ally, who had hiterto kown one anoter only as naes and could now get
down to open comparison of their various modes of acvity. On the oter hand,
te concrete results of it were limited, the links forged in tis way rater loose,
and no real decision leading to concerted practcal undertakings was arrived
at. Which explains why tere were no oter congresses for many a long year:
the organizatons and most of the individua militants were absorbed by teir
naonal and day-to-day tasks, and tat was a great pit in te years leading up
to 1914, when internatonal connectons were so sorely needed i te looming
treat of war was to be defsed.
Endnotes for Chaptr 1 1
1. Congres anarchists tenu e Asterdam, aoft 1907: Compte-rendu analytique des seances et
resume des rpports sur {'etat du mouvement dans Ie monde en ter (ris, 1908) , 116 pages.
2. Ibid. , p. 57.
3. Ibid. , p. 4.
4. Ibid., p. 62ft.
XI. THE INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST C ONGRESS 9 3
XI I . L I B E RTAR I ANS I N T H E C GT A N D
T H E I L L E GAL I S TS ( B O N N OT AN D
C OM PANY) I N ACT I ON
While certain anarchists preened temselves upon their "orthodox" as a
way of bolstering their claims to revolutionary pre-eminence, tose anarchists
committed to revolutionary syndicalism inside the CGT took it upon themselves
to espouse a tactic of direct class warfare. The real difference between the two
schools really lay there at that level, the direct product of their contrasting orga
nizational beliefs. Te former trusted almost exclusively to individual initiative
ad the "spontneous" receptivit of the masses, while the latter abided strictly
by the organizational practice of a class-conscious active minority. That practice
was founded upon the autonomous activity of each afliated union, connected
and coordinated wit the other unions in the Confederaton by the Confederal
Committee, which was not a leadership organ but, according to E. Pouget:
an agency for coordinating and widening the revolutionary action of
the working class: it is, therefore, the very opposite of democratic
bodies which, with their centralization and authoritarianism stifp thp
life force out of their component units. In the CGT there is cohesion,
not centralization: there is drive and not direction: Federalism is om
nipresent: at every level, the various bodies - fom the individual
ilember, Union, Federation or Bourse du Travail, right up to the
confederal branches -are all autonomous. Which is what makes for
the CGTs radiating power: the drive comes not fom te top, but fom
any point and its vibrations are passed on by being widened to encom
pass the confederal masses. l
As for the Union Council, it carried out the decisions made by the union's
general assembly which was at all times sovereign. All union members should
atend these assemblies: should they neglect to attend, they have to acquiesce
in the decisions reached. "It cannot be otherwise, without a relapse into the
dangers of democratism, where the witless and spineless hobble the vigorous.
Tus, there can be no appeal against the decisions of the general assembly,
however many may have been present. " Te CGTs national congresses, orga
nized at to yearly intervals, were the equivaents of the general assemblies of
te grassroots unions: they encouraged a "usefl distilation of te currents of
opinion evolved and the clarifcaton of guidelines. "2
94 FACING THE ENEMY
All such clarication carried some weight, for it was a way of distinguish
ing this revolutionary minority -a worthy continuation of te I -fom
te Blanquist stle of revolutionary minority which deliberately supplants its
mandators, and of banishing some anarchists' misgivings about te nature and
purpose of the CGT, misgivings that did not seem, at that point, to have any
foundaton.
Tis may have been all very fne on paper, but what was the realit? Well,
the struggle waged through direct actions and variations upon tat theme -
strikes, boycots -was telling in its results. Pouget gives fgures for strikes
and actions mounted beteen 1890 and 1905: te percentage of stikes that
ended favorably rose fom 56 percent in te years 1890-1900 to 62 percent in
te 1901-1904 period, rising to 65.67 percent for the year of 1905. Te number
of stikers beneftting increased even more plainly: 23.38 percent for 1890
1900,79 percent for 1901-1904 and 83.24 percent in 1905.3
It was at this point that the French bourgeoisie chose to hand over to radi
ca and J acobin politicians of "lefist" backgrounds, that is, more "knowledge
able" about their subject and thus capable of smothering this victorious on
slaught by te organized working class. Clemenceau (the former mayor of te
commune of Montmartre in March 1871, implicated in the business of the can
nons tat launched the Paris Commune) became the "Beast of the Interior
Ministry" and then, in 1906-1908, Prime Minister. "France's number one cop"
as he described himself, displayed his talent for repression: prison terms tota
ing 104 years were handed down, 667 workers were wounded and 20 killed,
and 392 dismissed fom their jobs, in the years 1907-1908 alone.4 1908 was the
watershed year: following te massacre of workers in Draveil-Villeneuve Saint
Georges, in which the provocateur Metivier (a CGT offcial in the pay of
Clemenceau) played a capital role, telve CGT leaders, chosen fom aong
the most militant, were arrested: Griffelhes, Pouget, Delesalle, Janvion,
Monatte, Merrheim and other less celebrated names. Also, whether for mo
tves like those or because of their ant-militarism, the CGT leaders were regu
larly jailed, then acquitted or sentenced to prison terms.
Clemenceau meant to bring the CGT to heel, through the use of the stck
or the carrot. Just prior to the Marseilles congress at the end of 1908, he had
his two betes noires, Griffelhes and Pouget, thrown in jail. His gambit was
simple: by exposing the alleged irresponsibilit of these die-hards, he sought
to isolate tem fom the rest of te leadership -among whom he had, i Ltapie,
a henchman -and secure a moderation of te CGT's approach. His plan was
only partly successful: the congress failed to disown the imprisoned leaders,
but Griffelhes stepped down as general secretary, as did his right-hand man,
Pouget, aer the confederaton's teasurer, Albert Lv, had tied to mae tings
impossible for him during his period of absence. Griffelhes was subsequently
to be cleared of all suspicion of embezzlement, but was nevertheless to remain
in retreat, spending his time on theoretcal studies ad his own trade union
activities.
XI I . L I BERTA RIANS I N THE CG T & THE I L LEG A L I S T S 9 5
Aer a reformist interlude, quickly terminated by the blunders of the new
general secretary, Lucien Niel, it was a libertaran militant, Uon Jouhaux, son
of a Paris Communard and grandson of a (shot) 1848 rebel, that stepped into
te breach on a provisional basis.
Far fom drawing the teet of te CGT the government crackdown proved
a spur to its expansion: its membership grew fom 100, 000 in 1902, to 400,000
in 1908 -out of a total unionized population of 900,000 workers. Its fght for
te eight-hour day, against employment bureau, for a day off work each week,
for wage increases and improvements in working conditions - a fght ofen
crowned wth success -made it the representative of the fnest of the labor
movement's aspiratons to emancipation.
Clemenceau's heavy-handed approach having failed to produce te desired
results, the renegade ex-socialists Aistide Briand and Viviani, takng up cabi
net offce ad the premiership, set about corrupting the CGT by introducing
reforms relating to workers' pensions, collective bargaining agreements, com
pulsory arbitration and business size: all of them things forceflly rejected by
revolutionary syndicalists. So much so that the latter launched an offensive
against this social offensive: in March 1909, there were two consecutive postal
workers' strikes, followed by a failed attempt at a general strike; in 1911, tere
were strikes by railway workers, Newfoundland seamen, dockers and construc
tion workers; in 1912 there was the strike by registered seamen that brought
the commercial ports to a standstill; in 1913 came the general strike by the
miners of the Nord; in February of the following year, there was a frther gen
eral strike by miners, excepting the departments of the Nord and the Pas-de
Calais. Te CGT systematically snubbed all draf reforms presented by the
government or emanating fom thp parliament. Its membership cimbed Lack
to 600,000 in 1912, and by January 1, 1914 stood at 839,931.5
Obviously it was not all wine and roses in the CGT: far fom it. Personal
squabbles arising out of personalit clashes or differences of temperament,
(Griffeihes, for example, was coarse to say te least and that made him staunch
enemies) divided the leadership. Te reformist minority -supporters of joint
action with the Socialist Part -was stll signifcant and was bolstered by te
affliaton of the powerfl Miners' Federation. Trade union bureaucrac en
sconced itself, being bound up with te charisma of leaders who were re-elected
over and over again or confrmed in offce by the rank and fle membership:
most of te affliated Federations had no thought for anything beyond teir
short-term sectonal interests and were indifferent to the demands of other
Federatons, and even more so to overal revolutonary aspiratons. Let us quote
fom te hard-nosed analysis of the anarchist miner, Georges Dumoulin, who
became a CGT offcer:
96
Everyone was in hot pursuit of advantages down tisted parliamen
tary pats. Class mentality was ill-defned and even worse expressed.
I was no longer coordinaed direct action, it was desultory sectional
F ACI N G T H E E N E M Y
acton that was to produce, one aer another, te stke of te railway
workers, te seamen and then the miners, all tree heavly infuenced
by te politcians.
I shall pass quickly over this pre-war sitation, but te disease
had deeper roots. Te mass of the union membership was af ted by
te same disease as its leaders. Let me go frther. J ouhaux draed a
report in which mention was made of te "immoralit of the workng
class." Alcoholism was a greater scourge than ever in te ports and
demoralizing workng metods were still in vogue among union mem
bers. In the construction industry [the backbone of the CGT at the
tme -A. Skirdal the preference was for a fat wage packet -for a
beter standard of livng, with no improvement of te indivdual con
science. Merrheim and Lenoir reported te same scourges among
metalworkers. Among jewelers, hairdressers and waters, horseracing
was a big thing. A proletariat corrupted by envy, still clinging to its
class instnct but increasingly losing its soul.
A ignorant proletariat unable to read, wit no urge to read or
reading only flth. Militants playing interminable cad games with teir
drinking pals.
Dumoulin was even more scating about te mass of non-unionized work-
ers, among whom:
It was common practice to make capital out of another ma's actons.
It was well understood tat good wages were the result of trade union
action but tey reaped te benefts without lifing a fnger. Tey pro
vided the audiences for public meetings. Tese were the people who
badmouted te CGT in order to keep in with the boss .. .. Tey joined
the union because it might be momentarly of use in securing a fat
wage packet. Tey stopped payng their dues because, once tat fat
wage had been extracted, they no longer had any use for the union. 6
Mistakes, the corruption of the leadership, union members and te non-
unionized, in short the entire proletariat, according to Dumoulin, eroded class
consciousness.
Yet we should introduce a few nuances into this very dark portait, drawn
in June 1918, that is, before the armistice in November 1918, for it is also the
expression of its author's personal anger at the proletariat's lack of prepared
ness in te face of war in 1914. Sure, al of it is true and fair comment, but all the
same it should not be allowed to conceal the lingering revolutonary resoluton
of many CGT militants. Furtermore, te anarchists in te CGTwere well aware
of all tese failings and did what they could to remedy tem. Te essental
point is tat the CGT adhered stictly to te Charter of Amiens, keeping te
socialist or government politicians at a distance, and that its revolutonary op
tons were staunchly upheld, in principle at ay rate.
XI I . L I BERTA R I ANS I N THE CG T & THE I L LEG A LIS T S 97
For teir part, the anarchists who gave te CGT a wide berth pressed on
wit their well-meaning propaganda activities, expressed virtally entirely in te
written word ad remained as inimical as ever to organization in any form. Jean
Grave went on bringing out his publications and, tyically, working in his usual
idiom, the paradox: "An indivdual seeking to stand alone against the crowd would
soon be trampled. Ten again, tying to unite men behind a genera program is
condemning tem to disintegraton the moment they might need to go into ac
tion!"? At best, he noted that the "proselytizing spirit tat moved the earliest
anachists is wanting in te newest ones, and it is to that want tat we must
ascribe te inerta of most of those who profess to be anarchists."
He held the individualists chiefy responsible for tis: "failed bourgeois, lack
ing only the capital or they would be the most accomplished exaples of exploit
ative loutishness." All of tis, he argued, was due to "haf-assimilated ideas." I, on
occasion, he was prepared to concede that anarchist activit was in a dormat
state, this was not to be explained in terms of dispersion of effort but rather atib
uted to "the indolence, the apathy, the indifference of the vast majority of individu
als and to the fact that in them ideas have not yet attained that status of convic
tions."8 For his part, he remained convinced that it was absurd:
to seek to get anarchists to put their heads together with a view to a
common action program. Tere are differences of temperament, of
character that involve different ways of looking at things. And each of
these ways of seeing and acting has as much right to exist and be
observed as any other.
So it was not desirable that anarchists should put their heads together in
order to "thrash out a common program, for this could only be feasible at the
fXPfO"f of initiatives and te birth of originaliueas." The least that we can say
about him is to note that his stance was increasingly isolated and out of step in
anarchist circles and removed fom the course of events.
Fsopotkin, too, was isolated, in England; elderly and ailing, he was also
resticted in what he could do. Even so, he published te results of his reseaches
into the French Revolution, Mutual Aid "the positive and sure source of our
ethical notions" and te "best guarantee of furter evolution" of te human
species.9 In so doing he set out clealy the essentials of libertarian communist
theory: we might single out his excellent defnition of te metod employed:
Aarchy represents an atempt to apply the generalizatons derived
fom the inductve-deductive method of the natral sciences to te
evauaton of human institutons. It is likewise an atempt to guess, on
the basis of that evaluation, mankind's march towards libert, equalit
and faternit, in order to secure the greatest possible measure of hap
piness for every single component of human societies.tO
Divorced, in his English exile, fom all social practice, he failed to appreci
ate flly the latent dangers of statism ad was emphatic that state communism
9 8 F ACI N G T H E E N E M Y
was an impossibility, as he had so "ofen demonstated that it would serve no
purpose to labor this point."ll As for a specicaly anarchist organizational prac
tce, that is startlingly missing fom his writings of this time.
In spite of everyting, in te wake of the Asterdam congress, a number of
attempts at organizaton had been made in France. Te anachists fom the nort
of te county met in congress in December 1907: the concrete outcome of which
was the establishment of the newspaper L Combat with an editorial committee
tantamount to te "federatve bureau of a Federation not actally in existence"!
In June 1908, a federation was set up in te Paris region. Tat venture was taken
up the following year on a more serious basis: a statement of prnciples was
published, broadly reiterating the motions passed at te Amsterdam congress.
Organizational, it comprised branches linked by a federal committee made up
of one delegate fom each group, assisted by a deput: each group had only one
vote, regardless of its numerical size. A general assembly held at four monthly
intervals was envisaged. Subscriptions were payable monthly by te groups in
proportion wth the numbers of their members. Tat federation stmbled along
and one of te most active anarchists of te day, G. Durupt, complained that
there was no "atmosphere" there a more and that the groups were "awash
with stammerers." Much of the blame for this he atibuted to Jean Grave's dis
organizing infuence. A plan emerged for a "lbertian Party, " affording gener
ous autonomy to its groups, at the suggestion of the insurrectionist wng of te
Socialist Part and te disciples of Gustave Herve, but tat, too, was stillborn. In
1910, a Anarchist Communist Alliance was launched; but its over-fimsy stuc
tures led to its collapse. Its place was tken in June 1911 by a Communist Fed
eraton: tis soon changed its name to te Anarchist Communist Federaton.
Louis Lecoin was its secretary. In September 1912, it was considering a member
ship card and montly dues stamps. At te same tme regional congresses were
held. Tese al looked forward to a national congress in Paris in 1913 which
would at last lay te foundations of the long awaited Anarchist Confederaton.
12
Tis sudden preoccupation with "serious" organization was not fortitous.
I refected a plain determination to dissociate fom te individualist anarchists
who had just been making headlines with the spectacular exploits of lules
Bonnot and his pals. Indeed, since the demise of Albert lbertad in 1908,
L'narchie (the newspaper he had founded)had led a desultory exstence as
director aer director took it upon himsel to keep it aoat. In theoretical terms,
Para-J aval discredited himself i n the eyes of his comrades for referring his
differences wit Lbertad's disciples to te "bourgeois courts": so it was Andre
Lorulot who stepped frst into the breach. Lorulot was involved with the liber
tian colony in Saint-Germain fom 1905 to 1907, then been a regular contibu
tor to L'narchie and sampled imprisonment for anti-militarism. Settng aside
the class stuggle and te principle of organizaton, he scarcely differed fom
te libertaria communists. I anyting, he laid more emphasis upon vigilant
observance of real solidarit between individuals, based upon reciprocity and
naturally culminating in communism:Te individualist anarchist accepts soli-
XI I . LI BERTA R I A N S I N THE CGT & THE I LLEGALI S T S 9 9
darit as a lever, a weapon, a new force. It is not a dogma to be respected nor a
dut by which to abide -it is an interest that one is wise to heed. Conscious
solidarity proceeds trough selection, it is not indiscriminate in its faternity.
In order to retain its utlitarian value, it selects its associates on the basis of the
principle of reciprocity.
Communism is that form of social relations that levels economic
barriers and destroys all obligation in respect of production and con
sumpton. It is the most integral form of comradeship, the most advan
tageous solidarity, the one that best allows individual interests to coor
dinate. Tere can be no real mutual aid without communism.
1:1
Such genuine faternity was anarchist comradeship. It remained indidu
alist because te startng point of it all had to be the individual affecting himself
and his surroundings. "In order to make the revolution around him, he must
frst of all be capable of makng it within himsel," he averred, in the tradition of
Libertad. Just like Libertad, he berated the resigned accomplices of te sys
tem. Ad the proletarian did not fnd favor with him either:
He bows before te rich exploiter, licking his boots with servilit Turn
and turn about: crimina soldier, spineless worker, collaborator of the
police, mainstay of every despotsm, the people cannot overnight ac
quire the capacity to live out its fate wit pride, logic and solidarit.14
Tis was one of te reasons why, he argued, anarchist atentats had proved
incomprehensible to te "uncultivated mind of te witess masses." Self-educa
tion and rebellion were the virtes he preached: refsing to sacrice the present
to some hypothetical revolutionary fture, the individualist anarchist had to
drain fom his existence all of te delights that it had to offer him. "Lving his
l," fee of al slavshness, ot all impediment. But what i the impediment was
these "witess proletarians?" On te answer to that he remained evasive and
found illegalism acceptable only i it was "interestng, seriously pursued with a
minimum of rsk and with grag benefts."15
Oter theoreticians and editors of EAnarchie, like Ernest Armand and L
Ret (ictor Serge to be) were deliberately more indivdualistic, making light
of solidarit and in the name of a demented cult of the "ego" they encouraged
all manner of extavagances, including "economic rebels." So much so tat
they ended up uncovering zealous disciples of "living with no care for the cost,
by any metod whatever" until the paper's editorial offces were vsited fom
time to tme by weird indiiduals jumping around "pop-eyed" to demand wit
"much gestculaton, a bomb, a Browning, some weapon to spill bourgeois blood,
to deal some blow,"16 without anyone's quite knowng wheter these were pro
vocateurs or "nut cases." In short, some people were not content wt Lorulot's
"cosy" illegalism and preferred to indulge in "house-breaking," pet larceny
or even carrying out "con operatons." Ten on to the scene comes a "lad" fom
Lyon, a peerless mechanic and expert driver with nerves of steel: Jules Bonnot.
He fell in with some individualists driven to despair by an iniquitous societ
100 FACING THE ENEMY
and looking for some "big job" to rescue them fom it. In December 1911, in
te Rue Ordener in Paris, tey set upon a bank messenger before going on to
commit frther atacks, using an automobile every time, and quick to shoot
anybody who stood up to tem or even to "bump off' witnesses (as Garnier put
it). Among their victims were a rentier in his ninetes and his maidservant; a
driver working in a garage; a traffc policeman; an uncooperatve motorist and
two bank clerks, not to mention several others who were wounded. Tese "mo
torized bandits" held the font pages of newspapers on the lookout for a sensa
tonal story, this style of criminal actvit and holdups using an automobie be
ing a real innovation. Rewards were posted, and the network of informers was
at fll stetch. But the "grapevine" did not tae long to discover who was in
volved: the perpetators of these bloody attacks were quickly taced, and some
of them picked up on "information received." His back to the wall, Bonnot
gunned down the number two at the Surete, Jouin, before making a run for it
and perishing aer a lengthy siege. 'Turned in," Valet and Garnier were also
besieged for a long time in Choisy-Ie-Roi where the police were reinforced by
Zouaves fom te army! For tem too, it ended in death. A huge dragnet rounded
up their close associates and a tial was held in February 1913.
Te signifcant, and also the telling, point is the attitude adopted by the
indiidualist teoreticians, who might be held responsible for te illegalist craze.
Lorulot was to say the least unforthcoming, and had indeed always been hos
tile to violent activities: the only thing for which he might be taen to task was
the contempt in which he held the witless accomplices of te system. Even so,
he, alone of them all, ventured to wonder, aer Callemin, Soudy and Monnier
had been executed, whether:
we did not have some indirect, unwt g responsibili in this carnage.
Not by preaching illegalism which, no offense to our detactors, few
of us did, but by urging struggle, rebellion and life upon natres that
were pathological, impetuous, simplistic or unbalanced. But no, te
fault lies wit human speech which can germinate in different soils
and produce the most varied fuits.
In tis way he acknowledged te tee as legitimate, but not its "fuits."
Armand broke ranks by wrting that he had thought of te illegalist in
abstact terms whereas in fact he was a-legal. Aside fom this splittng of hairs,
he would not condemn the illegalists and even tried to show his solidarit. L
Retf, on the other hand, himsel facing charges of receiving two stolen revolv
ers, began to play along with te crowd in berating te illegalists, swearing te
he had always been against them. As he was to make a habit of this sort of
behavior, namely, damning today what he was idolizing yesterday, let us see
the fox at his work, in this impassioned tirade which was carried by L'narchie
on January 4, 1912, te very next day aer te incident in the rue Ordener:
Tat a wretched bank messenger should be shot down in broad day
light is proof tat men have at last grasped the vrtues of audacity . . . . I
XI I . L I BERTA R I ANS I N THE CGT & THE I LLEGA L I STS 1 01
have no fear in admitting it: I am on the side of the bandits. I fnd theirs
to be a beautifl role: maybe I see them as men. Also, I see naught but
boors and puppets. Te bandits spell strength. Te bandits spell da
ing. Te bandits demonstrate their steadfast determination to live.
Whereas the others suffer the proprietor, the employer and the
cop, and vote and protest against iniquites and go to their deaths like
they have lived, wretchedly. Be that as it may, my preference is for the
fghter. He may go to his grave younger, he may know the manhunt and
penal servitude: he may well fnish up beneath the abominable kiss of
te widow. It is a possibility! I like the man who accepts mc risks of
open stuggle: he is manly. Ten, whether he be victor or vanquished,
is his fate not to be preferred to the sullen vegetaton and interminably
slow agony of the proletarian who wll go to his death brutalized and
broken, witout ever having known te benefts of existence?
Te bandit has a go. So he has some chance of winning. Tat is
enough. Te bandit is a man!
IH
In his Memoir, L Retit -the troubadour of the "manliness" of the ban
dits, who was to turn into Victor Serge -the minstrel of Bolshevism, seems to
have suffered an "amnesia" attack regarding these youthfl writings. At his
trial, he was to pass himself off as a "theoretician" who had blundered into a
situation not of his mang, and he was to put his conviction down to heretical
opinions (whereas the charge was receiving) and to his refsal to cooperate
with the police authorities. Te later does him credit: somewhat less credit
able was the attitude he displayed when Lorulot showed up at the hearing, as a
character witness: he insisted that Lorulot too be charged for having mixed
with and harbored the illegalists. Disappointed in his petition, he was to accllse
Lorulut upenly of informing!
Anoter prominent individualist, Mauricius, brazenly championed te cause
of the "tragic bandits, " publishing an apologia for teir "offense"19: "driven by
te implacable logic of facts, ?/c will crasC soccIy`s crimes by crimes against
society. " Athough this may have been rater nebulous and something of a
literary device, he was to make himself scarce for a tme, before he was ar
rested and then acquitted in 1915.
However, it was patently clear that Bonnot and his comrades came fom
the individualist anarchist circles. In addition, tey abided strictly by te pre
cepts laid down by Lbertad and the "scientifc" school: teetotalers and vegetar
ians, extremely fssy about their appearance, they practiced calisthenics in
prson. Tat said, they refsed to cite anarchy as a cover for their foul crimes:
t
h
is was not for the cause (partly at any rate) like the crimes by Jacob and his
"workers by night": they were active, but for teir own ends and it was on that
count t
h
at tey were judged severely by most anarchists. We should note, fr
ther, that te vast majorit of these illegalists were in their twenties and tat
teir operations were handled very amateurishly: "jobs" were carried out on
the spur of the moment, tere was no discretion, and no real organization to
lU2 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
follow up operations (scarcely surprising when deaing with individualists!).
Tey were, in short, bicycle and car thieves who graduated too fast to bank
robberies and atacks. In the end tey bravely paid the price for teir actons.
In terms of lethality, theirs was a drawn match with societ: nine dead on each
side. Te "braid-wearers," te professional killers would shorty be conducting
an incomparably worse slaughter.
We shall leave the last word on illegalism to Victor Meric: its "ravages
among thousands of entusiastc youngsters were beyond reckoning. For hav
ing sacriced to te illegalist idol, anarchists flled the penal colonies and prs
ons: they had become the stuff of jailers and 'screws. ' A rater odd way of
living to the fll."20
Tese dismal af s made plain the dissolution of te indidualist milieu.
Many lacked elementary courage and, concerned only for themselves, "had no
hesitation in grassing" and making "deals." Not a thought was given to the
teory of it al.
In popular imagination, the anachist was already the planter of bombs,
and now tat te "bandit" was added to the picture, the French anarchist move
ment felt threatened in its very existence. Tere would have to be a closer
check kept upon the use of the label "anarchist" and demarcation fom these
criminal "deviationists." Te congress in August 1913 set to it. It drew around
130 delegates fom 60 groups (24 fom Paris and 36 fom the provinces), and a
few indivdualist touble-makers who, in a move unique in anarchist annals,
were expelled fom the gatering.
It should be pointed out that Mauricius, teir spokesman, had arrived bear
ing a submission on his view of anarchism, which conficted unduly wth that of
te congress. For example, lest te "rights of the indivdual be snuffed out," he
refsed, when it came down to organization, to countenance a vote, the emer
gence of a majorit view and the appointment of working parties. He saw all
that as simply a threat of "dragooning and kowtowing to a group of leaders."
Te prnciples of delegation and mandate, put into ef fect at the congress, repre
sented for him the "biggest joke played on anarchists in f years."21 Let it be
noted that Jean Grave was particularly insistent tat Mauricius should be ex
pelled.
Te Anarchist Revolutionary Communist Federation (FCRA) was estab
lished at te congress on the basis of a theoretcal consensus that Sebastien
Faure took it upon himsel to set out in a declaration that he read to the gater
ing: anti-militarism, anti-parliamentarism, trade union action and condemna
ton of individualism, the latter being henceforth separated by an "unbridge
able abyss" fom libertarian communism. Regional federations were created
and tese were founded upon the untouchable precept of te independence of
indiiduals witin the group and the groups' autonomy witin te regonal or
nationa Federation. Such loose connections ruled out suffcienty consistent
activity allowing only lobbying campaigns like the campaign against extension
of te term of compulsory military service to tree years, and against militarism
XI I . L I BERTA R I A NS I N THE CGT & THE I L LEGA L I STS 1 03
as a whole. Tus all of its activtes boiled dow to propaganda by means of
newspapers, pamphlets and sundry published materals. Te practical under
t of waging a social and economic struggle against the system devolved
in fact upon the CGT And tat was how the position stood on the eve of the
confagraton in 1914.
Endnotes to Chapter 12
1. E. Pouget, Le parti du travail, (paris: Bibliotheque syndicaliste, undated), p. 28.
2. E. Pouget, Le sndicat, (Nancy: Bibliotheque de documentation syndicaliste, undated),
pp. 22-23.
3. E. Pouget, L CGT op. cit., pp. 51-54.
4. Edouard Dolleas, Histoire du mouvement ouvrier (Paris: Amand Colin, 1948), Tomef,
p. 145.
5. Alexandre levaes, L CGT (Paris: Editions du journal 'L Concorde: 1939), p. 72.
6. G. Dumoulin, Les sndicalitesfanfais et la guerre, in Aed Rosmer, L mouvement ouvrier
pendant la guerre: De I'Union sacree A Zimmerwaid, (Paris: Librairie du travail, 1936),
pp. 523-542.
7. Jean Grave, Rejormes, Revolution, (paris: Stock, 1910), p. 36.
8. Jean Grave, L'entente pour {'action, (emps nouveaux, 1911), pp. 13.
9. P Kropotkin, L'entr'aide, (paris: Aed Costes, 1938), p. 326.
10. P Kropotin, L science moderne et {'anarchie, (Pais: Stock, 1913), p. 132.
11. P Kropotin, Communisme et anarch ie, (paris: L librairie sociale, undated), p. 10.
12. Jea Maiton, Hitoire du mouvement anarchits, op. cit., pp. 416-421.
13. Andre Lrulot, Jndividualime anarchits et Ie communime, (Romainvlle, 1911), p. 10.
14. Andre Lrulot, L theores anarchites, (paris: Giard et Briere, 1913), p. 238.
15. L'narhie, No. 42. January 2!, 1901, quoted by J. Maton, op. cit., p. :9:.
16. Victor Meric, Le bandit tragigues, (Paris: Simon Kra, 1926), pp. 142-143.
17. L'narchie, No 419, (Aril 24, 1913), cited by J. Maiton in "De Kibaltchiche i Victor Serge"
in L Mouvement social, No 47, (1964), p. 68.
18. Le Reti, "Les bandits" in L'narchie No. 352, Ganuay 4, 1912).
19. Mauricius, L'apoiogie du crime, (no place, undated), p. 16.
20. Victor Meric, Les bandit tragiues, op. cit., p. 153.
21. Mauricius, Mon anarchisme, report submited to the Paris Congress (paris: Editions de
I'Anarchie, August 15,1913), pp. 4-5.
1 04 F A C I NG THE E NE MY
XIII. THE SACRED UNION AND
"THE WAR TO END ALL WARS"
Franco-German rvalry had been at a peak since 1905. Ever since te war
in 1870, they had been at odds: French patiots had te famous blue line of te
Vosges mountains, symbolizing the two lost provinces of Asace and Lorraine,
forever in mind. To tat was added a fantic competton to WAican colo
nies, as well as the anxiet of Brtish imperialism, worried about the preserva
tion of its "pearl" of the Indies and other assets fom the covetousness of the
Germans and Turks. For its part, the Austo-Hungaria empire had the Serbian
irredentsts to contend wit. And it was fom that quarter that the spark came:
te heir to the Austrian throne was assassinated by Serbian nationalists in
Sarajevo. Austia declared war on Serbia and, tanks to the system of alliances,
teir respective allies found themselves at daggers dran. In August 1914 te
whole of Europe combusted. What was te line adopted by the workers' orga
nizatons of te protagonist nations?
First and foremost, there was Germany, the county where the socialist
movement was stongest. Te Social Democratic part had 110 (out of a total of
400) deputes in te parliament and nea
r
ly four million voters. Te tade unions
directy under its contol numbered over tree million members. Now fort
years of class collaboraton had so integrated te Social Democracy and its na
tonal bourgeoisie tat on August 4, 1914, it unaimously, in a fenzy of entusi
asm, voted credits for the war! In December 1914, Krl Lebknecht was to stand
alone in votng against frter credits and, in March 1915, only Oto Ruhle joined
him in voting against the budget proposals. How are we to explain away tat
stance, so much at odds with all te resolutons fom te internatonal con
gresses of te socialist parties? Well, tere was the diffcult of tying to mobi
lize te German wo
r
king class at te very tme when military mobilizaton was
underway, and te implacable repression tat would ensue (Karl Lebknecht
was subsequenty to be sentenced to a four year prison term for his oppositon
to te war) and, above all, te treat of annihilaton of all Social Democrat actv
it, so laboriously built up over decades. Ten tere was te general feeling,
wdespread among te rich and powerfl German tade unions, tat tere was
a close identt beteen te interests of workers ad capitalists ute empire's
industial and commercial expansion. Finally. tere was te important consid
eraton of te concept of a defensive war against te barbarian hordes of tsarism,
XI I I . T H E S A CRE D U N I O N |U5
which stood for feudalism and reacton; in which respect the Social Democracy
was quite in keeping with the Russophobia of Marx who reckoned, fom 1848
on, that Germany should wage a "revolutionary" war against Russia.
In the Russian Empire which was burgeoning economically, the workers'
movement was expanding in terms of numbers and political signifcance; on
the eve of the declaration of war, a stike wave had affected 250,000 workers in
st. Petersburg. Te autocracy was wrestling with all of the contadictions aris
ing out of the survival of feudal privileges alongside economic growth and na
tionalist movements in its many colonies (Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Caucasus,
Asia, etc.). Tere was nothing like a litle war to restore national unit and
revive the falterng authorit of the state, is what Nicholas II and his entourage
were saying. Ad their gamble largely succeeded: many Social Democrats, not
least Plekhanov, rallied to the defense of their homeland in the face of the threat
fom German imperialism. Te Social Revolutionaries joined them en masse:
some anarchists like Kropotkin and Tcherkessov, though living in exile, also
embraced the cause of the Entente, in hopes of an overhaul of the regime in
the wake of victory. A tiny number of Social Democrats - Lenin was their
mentor -advocated revolutionary defeatsm instead, that is, anticipated that
victory for te Central powers would precipitate the collapse of tsarism and
open up the prospect of social renewal.
In Britain, the tades unions, more than three million members strong,
and with f Lbor MPs, were hostile to the war and participated only reluc
tantly. Several European nations opted for neutrality: Italy (to begin wit at any
rate), Holland and the Scandinavian countries and Spain and Portugal.
In France the problem was rather more ticklish. Tere was no problem
with the socialists who, in spite of the assassination of Jaures, the "apostle of
peace," readily reverted to the rhetoric of the soldiery of the Year II of the
Revoluton and the Paris Communards to repel the German invader. (Note that
in Europe the dager always emanated fom the East: was this perhaps some
vestige of the ancient fear of barbarian invasions, going back to the beginning
of the Christian era?) Gustave Herve, the Socialist Part's insurrectonist, who
had planted the "tricolor fag in te shit," turned into a rabid jingoist. Jules
Guesde and Marcel Sembat joined the government of Sacred Union. Te rea
son was quickly grasped: here too this was a "defensive" war. Except that, "te
better to defend themselves," everybody was atacking: the French scurried
off to liberate Alsace and Lorraine; the Germans invaded Belgium so as to out
fank te French positions (and avert the loss of 100, 000 men, as te German
Social Democrat deput, Dr. Koster, was to explain while deplorng the hostil
ity fom te Belgia workers for, had they but played ball, they could have had
universa suffage, legislation protecting women and children and social ser
vices, in short, a "welfare society") .1
1 06 F AC I NG THE ENE MY
Te "fatherland" card was harder to play when it came to te CGT the
libertarian mass organizaton to which many members of te French proletariat
looked for a lead. Ever since its inception, it had been violenty opposed to te
army and to militarism. Yvetot and others of its leaders had been jailed tme
and tme again on chages of ant-militism. Te CGT had regular denounced
the arms race, the intoduction of a three-year term of compulsory military
service, budget allocatons to te army, belligerent speechifng and other an
cillary threats. It had played a preponderant part in te success of a demonsta
ton by 150,000 Parisians on the Pre-Saint-Gervais against te army and milita
rism on March 16, 1913. In its defense it should be noted tat every time it
atempted to mount a joint campaign wit its German counterart against war,
te Germans, wholly in thrall to the Social Democrac, had declined, on te
grounds tat this was a matter to be handled trough te political process, tat
is to say, trough the good offces of teir respective socialist partes! Never
teless, for years past, te CGTs policy had been set out clearly: in te event of
wa being declared and a general mobilization being decreed, an insurrection
ary general stike would be called. To be sure, in July 1914, under Jaures's
infuence, there was some back-sliding: its ant-militrsm was exchanged for a
peace campaign. Tere is some signicance to this nuance, for te backsliding
continued in the manifesto of July 29, 1914: the CGT invoked its opposition to
war, but at the same time emphasized Austa's guilt (coming very close to the
offcial government line); it caled for popular demonstratons troughout te
land for peace. Two days later, following te assassinaton of Jaures, contary
to all expectations, it was not outrage at the French wamongers tat prevaled,
but appreciation tat war was a "fait accompli" and "a crisis on te way." At
Jaures's fnera on August 4th, Jouhaux delivered his famous address and did
a U-trn: he spoke at some leng aboutJaures in very eUlogistc trms (scarcely
justed by their political disagreements) before announcing tat:
we did not want this war . . . . We shall be te soldiers of feedom in
order to win for the oppressed a regimen of feedom, so as to create
harmony between peoples through fee agreement beteen the na
tons, trough an alliance beteen te peoples. Tat ideal will make it
possible for us to succeed.2
Tis was a discreet but rea defection to te patiotc cause, and it was for
that reason that J ouhaux was feted by everybody, lef and right alike. Tis was
the celebrated "Sacred Union." Set alongside te old ant-militarist stuggles,
tis was the word trned upside down, so how ae we to explain it away?
J ouhaux himsel was later to say tat above all else what he wished to avert was
that his words should supply the pretext for an crackdown on te working
class and tat tat was what lay behind his speaing. In fact tere was the
ominous treat of the "Carnet B," tat is, te list of tree tousand, and some,
revolutionay militants on te books of the police as dangerous individuals to
be rounded up immediately upon te outbrea of war. Te Minister of War,
General Messimy, had publicly threatened to "te [te CGT leaders] to the ex-
XI I I . T H E S A CRE D U N I O N lU7
ecution stke" and ship ant-mist militants off to concentration camps. Ad
tese were no idle treats, for te army was omnipotent at tat point. Te CGTs
assistant secretary, Dumoulin, an opponent of te Sacred Union, did not mince
his words: he stated that it was fnk tat induced the majorit of the CGT's
confederal committee to make its U-turn: "tey were aaid of war, afaid of
repression, simply because they were men like other men."3 Himself called up
and posted to Verdun, to share te harsh life of the private soldier, he delivered
himself of tis pained and deserved comment in August 1915:
At te start of the war, as during te few days leading up to te decla
ration of it, the impotence of te peace part was equally plain in ev
ery part. Nowhere had ant-militaism succeeded in eradicating either
natonal prde or race prejudice. Our at-militsm, more stident tan
te pacifsm of the German workers, failed to neutralize the poison
peddled in great profsion by te lying press among the masses of
ignoramuses unreached by alwholesome propaganda. Were we went
wrong was in overestimating te impact of our anti-militarism and our
militnts would have done wel to shoulder the blame for our power
lessness instead of shifing that blame on to the shoulders of the Ger
man labor leaders.4
Dumoulin frter adds tat te CGT had not ten an adequate interest in
te play of diplomatc aliances. Sure, tere were secret clauses, and it would not
have been easy to get wind of tem. However, Dumoulin patenty underplays te
culpabilit of the German Social Democracy, which is blatnt. In spite of every
ting, the CGT leadership was also to blame and there is no way to disguise tat
fact by invoking outside factors. Despite the jingoistic mania, tere was a worker
minorit ready to te acton, and if the CGT COn0dtru committee had Ost
cauton to the wnd and declaed a general strike against mobilization, it would
frst of ahave been tue to itself and to te stategy pursued for years past, and
a proletarian backash might have dampened te warmongers' entusiasm. In
additon, te mility chiefs in charge of the mobilizaton had anticipated a de
serton rate of ten percent and were delighted to have had a desertion rate of
only two percent! 5 As J ouhaux explained, te likelihood was tat te CGT lead
ership was not merely aaid for itself but feared a "Saint Bartholomew's night"
massacre of its best militants.
Tat said, and witout excusing the conduct of Jouhaux and the CGT
confederal commitee, we might look at te opinion of Monatte who remained
opposed t war:
I will not take the confderal bureau to task for having failed to un
leash a general stike against te mobilizaton order: no! We were pow
eress, one and all: the tida wae passed and we were swept awa 6
Even Merrheim, te chief adversary within the CGT of te Sacred Union,
was to concede in 1919 tat:
lUb F AC I N G T H E E N E MY
We were in utter disarray, lost our heads: how come? Because at that
point the working class of Paris, caught up in a formidable tide of
nationaism, would not have allowed the securit forces the chore of
shooting us. Tey would have shot us temselves.7
Be tat as it may, Jouhaux became a Commissioner of the Nation and,
along with all of te oter CGT leaders, was a close conderate of the govern
ment in its war effort, right into 1917.
As for the anachists, wrong-footed by the speed of events, tey did not
have the tme to react collectively, for want of a real feder
a
l organization, so the
decisions were made on an individual basis. Some complied wit te mobiliza
tion order, oters deserted and lef te country. Sebasten Faure bravely pub
lished texts hostile to the war and to te Sacred Union, but the main event was
the appearance in February 1916 of the Manifesto of te Sixteen (in fact, ff
teen, the place name having been mistaken for the name of a signatory ) in
favor of the Entente powers against Germany. Among the signatories were
militants of some repute: Kropotin, Grave, Malato, Paul Reclus, Marc Pierrot,
Cornelissen and Tcherkessov. Teir statement was countersigned by about a
hundred oter anarchists, half of tem Italians. Although this was very much a
minority in the international anarchist movement, it did tat movement great
damage. To account for this disconcerting stance, we have to look to the past
and compare Karl Marx's stance atte tme of the Fraco-Prussian war in 1870,
when he wrote to Engels that te:
French need a good drubbing. I the Pussians are victorious, te cen
traization of state power will be of service to te concentaton of the
German working class. Furtermore, German preponderance wlshif
the European workers' movement's center of gravit fom France to
Germany; ad we need only compare te workers' movement in tose
two counties fom 1868 up to te present to see tat the German work
ing class is superor to the French in theoretical terms as well as orga
nizational. The ascendancy upon the world stage of the German
proletariat over the French proletarat would simultaneously give our
theory the ascendancy over Proudhon's.8
Tat leter had just been made public trough James Guillaume's book
Kar Marx, Pan-Germanist, and would have provoked te wath of te older
generation of anarchists who
a
lready despised Marx as te gravedigger of te
international and hated his heirs, the German Socia Democracy for the very
same reason. Tat subjective, emotional factor has to be taken into account if
we are to grasp te spirit of te times. Likewise, te fact tat te French Repub
lic was under threat fom emperors and teir aristocratc hagers-on is anoter
point to be included in te reckoning (although te Russian aristocracy was a
somewhat embarrassing ally to have in tat respect).
As hostlites erupted everybody was frmly convnced tat tis would be a
short war. In France, certain zealots imagined tat tey would be in Berlin
XI I I . THE SA C R E D U NI ON 1 09
within three weeks, on the strength of the heartening immensity of the mas
sive Russian army. As the hostilities grew prolonged and part of France was
overrun and an atrocious trench war involvng countless masses of humanity
and heavy loss of life ensued, this gung-ho attitude gave way to a critcal perspi
cacity. Many people now had their eyes opened to how they had been taken in
by "brainwashing." It was no longer a question of waging "the war to end all
wars" -to bring everlasting peace! -but rather of acting as guinea pigs for all
sorts of murderous machinery and letting onesel be slaughtered so that a few
generals might strut around bedecked with medals. Te "fesh and joyous"
war turned into a great butchery for everyone in which lots of men met their
deaths while stll in their prime.
On the Russian font, initial successes quickly gave way to unspeakable
disasters. Al of the shortcomings of the autocracy were sensatonally exposed
to public gaze: the ineptitude of the High Command, te virtually non-existent
logistics, the speculators and fence-siters enriching themselves beyond belief
in the rear. With an eye to easing the pressure on the western font, the Russian
generals dispatched troops equipped with decrepit rifes and only a handfl of
cartridges against impregnable German positions bristling with machine guns
and artillery, and that without any prior sofening up by artillery barrage, very
ofen for want of shells! Te "grim reaper" had a feld day: the millions of dead
and wounded on the Russian font inspired a rising tide of indignation. At te
beginning of 1917, an incident of no great import -the refsal by a Cossack
unit to break up a demonstration by the hungry in Petro grad -brought the
300-year-old Romanov regime tmbling down like a house of cards. It was re
placed by a provisional government. Wen that too proved powerless to stop
the slaughter, it was overthrown by a few tousand soldiers and some Peto grad
workers. Lenin and his Bolshevk Sl1pport!rs, as well as his allies, the L Su
cial Revolutionares, established a new government, the Soviet of People's Com
missars, before signing a separate peace deal wit Germany and the Austro
Hungarian Empire in February 1918.
Russia's defecton fom the Entente camp was made good by the entry into
the war of the United States, but the morale of te "poilus" (French equivalent
of the Britsh ''ommies'') sank, because by now the ftility of te carnage was
apparent to all and tey were, in any event, infuenced by the outbreak of the
Russian revolution. In April 1917, there were mutinies along the French font:
these were harshly repressed. On that same occasion, the power of the gener
als was turned against pacifsts in the rear. Herve's ersthile lieutenant,
Almereyda, tossed into prison, was found "suicided" in his cell.
Sebastien Faure who, in spite of the censors, managed with the aid of
Mauricius to bring out the pacifst journal Ce qu'il/aut dire, fell vctm to a crude
police fame-up: he was indicted for "moral turpitude," that is, for havng pinched
te botom of a teenaged girl! Faure, who for telve years had been the out
standing educator fom the L Ruche children's setlement! Despite the absur
dit of the charges, he was sentenced to a six-mont prison term.9 Cut to the
quick psychologically, it was only thanks to the unstnting assistance of his com-
110 FACING THE ENEMY
rades that he recovered fom tis blow. Armand, indivdualist or not, spoke out
against te wartme carnage: he was charged wit having aided the deserton
of one Ramond Bouchard, a dubious character addicted to drugs who had
earlier led to te sentencing of the pacist Gaston Rollad to a feen-year term
of penal servitude for havng harbored him. Armand "went down" for fve years!
Te indomitable Louis Lcoin, gardener and dauntess aarchist, who had
already a conviction against him for havng refsed to mach (he was then in
te army) against stiking railway workers i 1910, plus a frter fve-year prison
term for his anti-mism, threw himself into a fat-out campaign aong wt
some colleagues for an immediate peace, the moment he was released fom
prson in November 1916: only to be re-arrested and re-convicted. Aed 24 in
1911, he was to spend a total of eight years out of the next ten in prison! Dozens
of oter anarchists, including Lepett (who served two years) were convicted
of pacifst propaganda. Tanks to the "Clemenceau" approach (Clemenceau
the "strike-breaker" having retrned to power in te interim). What is more,
outaged by tis repression, an anarchist caled Emile Cottn opened fre on
the "Fater of Victory" on February 19t, hittng him with to bullets. He was
at frst sentenced to death, ten, on te lobbying of Clemence au himself, to ten
years i prison when, just one month earlier, Villain, who had kiled J aures, had
been acquitted!
10
We might do well to remember tat tere were some anarchists of integ
rity -these were in fact te larger number in te movement -who did not fail
to live up to teir beliefs, contary to the noton peddled by Bolshevik detac
tors whose constant preoccupation was with harping upon te stance adopted
by te "Sixteen" who went over to te Sacred Union.
Endnotes t Chapter Tirteen
1. Alexandre levaes, L faillite de l'nterationale, ( Renassance du livre, Paris, 1917) ,
pp. 143-144.
2. Annie Kriegel & Jean-Jacques Becker, L guerre et Ie mouvement ouvrer /anfai, (pars:
Armand Colin, 1964) , pp. 135-143.
3. G. Dumoulin, Les sndicalistes /anfais et ta guerre, quoted by A Rosmer, op. cit., p. 530.
4. G. Dumoulin, Carnets de route (Quarante annees de vie militante) (lle: Editions de I'Avenir,
1938) , p. 7f77.
5. Edouard Doileans, Histoire du mouvement ouvrier op. cit., Tome f, p. 221.
6. Ibid. , p. 222.
7. Quoted by Etienne Martin-Saint-Lon, L deux CGT Sydicalisme et communime, (paris:
PIon, 1923) , p. 20.
8. James Guillaume, Karl Marx pangermanite, (paris: Armad Colin, 1915) , p. 85.
9. Une infamies L'affaire Sebastien Faure, les dessous d'une odieuse machination, (paris, un
dated) , 32 pages.
10. Paul Savgny, Luis Lcoin, Emile Cotn, Alphonse Barbe, Eugene Bevent, L anarchite
et le cas de conscience, (Paris: L librairie sociale, 1921) , 32 pages.
X I I I . T H E S AC R E D U N I O N I I I
XIV. THE " MIRAGE OF SOVIETIS M" AND
ANARCHIS M IN CRISIS
Te establishment in October 1917 of what was sold as soviet power lies at
the root of one of te most tagic misunderstadings of tis century. Ever since
the February 1917 revolution which had toppled tsarism, the soviets (or "coun
cils") had become te grassroots organs of the Russian workers' direct democ
racy. In the face of the impotence of the provisional revolutonary government
made up of liberals and Social Revolutonaries, a government led towards te
end by the capricious Kerensk, a dual power sitation had increasingly fa
vored those who called for "al power to te soviets on the spot and at the cen
ter," with, as its corollary, the demands of "the land to the peasants, the factory
to the worker," and, above all, "immediate peace, with no annexaons and no
tribute." Lenin was remarkably sklll at adaptng to tese watchwords and
above all puttng them to use in carrying out the coup d'etat of October 1917,
purportedly in te nae of te soviets but in fact for te exclusive adantage of
his party and its sole decision-making organ: the central committee. Tat sub
stitton was quickly spotted but in the light of mecrctI msIanccsIwas consid
ered a temporary expedient. Te Russian anarchists, who were quite numer
ous uinsuffcienty organized, supported and even cooperated with the Bol
sheviks. In fact, their interpretaton was that the Bolsheviks had jettisoned te
entire socia democratc inheritance and gone over to the libertaian theses.
With the passage of tme, tey came to realize tat tis was not in fact the case,
and that the heads of Lnin and his fathfl followers were still crammed w
the centalist and staist outook. However, civil war, foreign interventon and
te threat of a return to te despised old order induced tem to keep teir
criticisms to temselves and led to teir taking an actve role in the defense of
what tey termed "te revoluton's gains," all under te guidance of te Bol
shevik part. It was only at te end of 1919, when victory over the Whites be
came likely and the new Bolshevik autorities made plain teir hegemonic
ambitons and set about blatanty repressing them, tat many anarchists sev
ered their links, atough tey did not m take up arms against the Bolsheviks.
Aer the crushing in March 1921 of the Kronstadt sailors' revolt, such
reservatons as tey had turned into open hostlit and te breakdow was
complete. Obvously, by then it was too late, for te new autorites were sol
idly entrenched in positon, could call upon a might state machinery of contol
l l 2 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
and repression and were able to face down any interna challenges witout too
much diffcult. We ought to make it clear tat this phenomenon of rallying
around te Bolsheviks was not exclusive to anarchists, but was equally the
case among all the oter old revolutionary tendencies: te Social Revolutionar
ies, te Mensheviks, the Bundists (ewsh Workers' Social Democratc Part)
or indeed dissident social democratic factions. (Hitherto hostile to Lenin,
Trotsky went over to his camp aer his retrn to Russia in 1917.) Tis second
edition of an allegedly revolutionary Sacred Union, in te name of the "mirage
of sovietsm" was, when all is said and done, even more damaging to the Rus
sian and worldwde revolutionary movement.
Retrning to Russia afer forty years in exile, Kopotin quicky grasped
how tings stood and in a celebrated Letter to the Worker of Western Eurpe on
June 10, 1920, he set out his analysis of te position. First, he railed against any
armed interventon in Russia by the Entente powers, in that this would be di
rected primarily against the Russian social revoluton, which he related to its
English and French predecessors, and which, he argued "seeks to build a soci
et in which the entre product of the combined efforts of labor, technical exper
tise and scientc discovery would go to te communit itsel. Any interventon
[he wrote] would only reinfrce the Bolshevks' dictatoria methods and render
the county hostle towards te Western nations." He regaded te indepen
dence of te Russian empire's former colonies, Finland, Poland, te Baltic na
tions, the Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Siberia, etc. , as irreversible. By his reck
oning the Russian revoluton was trying to venture where the French revoluton
had not gone, namely, into the realm of de facto equality, meaning economic
equality. Unfortnately, tese efforts were the work of a "strongly centd
part dictatorship" which was, to some exent, te heir of Babeuf's centalistc,
Jacobin outlook. He believed that it was all about to end in fasco and provide an
object lesson in "ow not to introduce communism, even for a people grown weary
of te old regime and offering no actve resistance to the experiment conducted
by te new governments. " Te idea of the soviets, he went on, was a "great
idea, " especially as these should be made up of "all who play any real part in te
producton of the naton's wealth trough teir own personal endeavors. " In the
shadow of a pat dictatorship, they became meaningless, especially i tere
was no press feedom and no election campaigns to decide their compositon.
Such a dictatorship was "the death knell of te new constuction. " Te new
bureaucracy created by the Bolsheviks was even worse tan that of the French
which "requires, for example, te involvement of fort offcials just to sell off a
tree felled across a national route by some storm. " Western workers had to
learn fom this, for "appealing to te genius of part dictators" was te best
"means of not carrying out te revolution and of renderng its achievement im
possible. " He cautoned against such leadership and closed wit a call for a great
International that would not be a mirror image eiter of te second or of the
tird, bot of which were directed by a single party, but would embrace tade
unions worldwide - all who created the wo
r
ld's wealth -in order that tese
might "deliver themselves fom their present subjecton to Capita. "
X I V. T H E " M I R A G E O F S O V I E T I S M " 1 1 3
In 1920, during a vsit by a foreign comrade, the aged apostle of libertarian
communism frther declared tat the "communists, with their methods, in
stead of setting the people on the road to communism, will end up making
them hate te very mention of it. "l A all too accurate forecast, alas! although
Lnin did not use te term communism untl 1918, in te obvious hope of shroud
ing his teoretca gobbledy-gook (which the French social democrat Charles
Rappoport at te time was to label bluntly as "Blanquism served up in a tartar
sauce") wit that noble title.
Kropot's analysis was shared by the vast majority of Russian anarchists,
but a not inconsiderable number of them neverteless opted to carry on coop
erating with te Bolsheviks, though stopping short of formal affliation to their
part. Tis was te case with, aong others, our old acquaintance Kibaitchitch,
formerly I Retif, the fellow who marveled at te "manliness of te bandits, "
that onetme director of L'narchie and ersthile teoretician of individualist
anachism, hencefort to be known as Victor Serge. His patron, Zinoviev, the
president of te Communist Internationa, entusted him with te uneasy task
of explaining away his defecton. Wich he did in a pamphlet published in France
in 1921, Te Anarchist and the Eperience o/the Russian Revolution.2
In his foreword, tis guy has the nerve to argue tat several foreign anar
chist militants - including Lpetit and Vergeat, who mysteriously vanished
durng their retrn journey to France, a disappearance upon which Serge could
certainly have shed "his" litte light -had "agreed" wit the tinking he was
setting out in his paphlet. Even so, he notes that in several countes "a num
ber of anarchist militnts, have felt it teir dut to espouse wt regad to Russia's
proletarian dictatorship a fankly hostile atttde that most ofen is revealing of
inexperience and a taditonalism loaded with dangers"! He therefore was tak
ing it upon himself to spell out few "elementary tUtlS." Aer the "experence
of war and revolution, our ideas stood in need of a complete and methodica
overhaul," yes, but in the light of what? Of te "new fact" in History, "te vic
tory of the October revolution . . . the victory of te soviets . . . the victory of tle
social revoluton. " Tat progession is a good refecton of the offcial Bolshe
vik falsehood that their coup d'etat was synonymous wit ideas that were te
very reverse of it: soviets and socia revoluton. Ten comes an enormous lie of
Serge's own: "te social revoluton in Russia is largely te work of Bolshevism."
He himself had not reached Russia untl the beginning of 1919, so he was
scarcely in a positon to judge, but it was so convenient to peddle tat ofcial
version that he was to lose no tme in spreading it in France through his two
mytomaniaca works: Te Year I o/the Revolution ad Te Yar I o/the Revo
lution. His defnition of Bolshevsm is a f return for his mess of pottage: "a
lefard movement of socialism -brnging it close to anarchism -prompted
by the will to carry out te revolution right away. Wil to revoluton: the es
sence of Bolshevism is encapsulated in those three words." Some performance
tat, to reduce the social revolution to te power cravings of a tiny caste of
doctinaire intelectuals! Alof it is only playing wit words, something in which
1 1 4 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
he was a past master already, as we have had occasion to see. But tere is a
more serious aspect to this when he goes on to justi the Bolshevik terror:
From the vantage point of tose who made it (e Revoluton) , it is a
tough, dagerous undert
a
king, sometmes a dirt business into which
one has to wade up to one's knees, sleeves rolled back, braving te
urge to retch. I is a matter of cleansing te eart of te scum of te
old world. One wl have to shif the flt by the shovel-fll: and tere
will be a lot of blood among tat flt.
One ca hear an echo of Nethaiev tg about "revoluton fll steam
ahead, trough blood and mud." Red terror was to be implemented "on pain of
deat, " as one "weakness could have spelled defeat." Defeat would have ush
ered in te Wite trror "a hundred tmes more ghasty." Here Serge cites te
example of te Pais Commune, when the Versailles forces allegedly shot down
in a fortight three tmes as many victms as te Red terror had claimed in
Russia in tree years of revoluton! Lke Pinocchio's, his nose must have grown
considerably with tis enormous lie: Ltsis, the Chekist ideologue himself ac
knowledges tat te Red terror claimed nearly one ml ion seven hundred tou
sand victms, many of tem peasants and workers. Without blinking, Serge
slashes tat fgure to a mere ten tousad victms of "mud and blood." And
here we are faced with deliberate lying, for he was well placed, in Petograd, to
know what lay behind te regime's statstcs.
Next comes a walk down te memory lane of te individualist anarchist:
contempt for the masses "corrupted by te old regime, relatvely uneducated,
ofen unthinking, racked by te feelings and instncts of the past." Tis is al
leading up to a justcaton of revolutionary dictatorship: "I confess that I can
not tink how one could be a revolutonary (except on a purely individual ba
sis) wiout conceding te necessit of te dictatorship of te proletiat." "Over
te proletaiat" he should have said, for te sake of accurac. Lst te reader
has failed t grasp his meaning, he goes on later to rehearse the essentals of
his new credo:
Suppression of so-called democratc feedoms: dictatorship, backed
up, i need be, by Terror: creaton of an amy: centalizaton for war of
industy, supply, administaton (ence te statsm or bureaucracy) :
and lasty dictatorship of a part .... In tis redoubtable chain reaction
of needs, tere is not a single link tat can be dispensed with, not one
link tat is not sticty dependent on te one before it and does not
determine the one tat comes aer it.
Lt us quote his refain: "Every revoluton is a sacrce of te present to
te ftre." One might wonder i tis is the same Kibachitch, te erstwhile L
Retf, talking here. Te shades of his old chums fom te Bonnot gang must
have started upon reading such lunac! We can understand how Victor Serge
Kib
a
ltchitch, havng zealously embraced his new fait, had to demonstate his
loyalty and justif his membership in the Bolshevik part, that "vigorous,
XI V. T H E " M I R A G E O F S O V I ET I S M " 1 1 5
innovative minorit required to make good, trough constraint, the defcient
education of the backward masses (!?) ," but even so, what a betrayal of the
ideals of his youth and what abject surrender to his squalid mission! Not that
this sad fellow was to stop tere, for he acted as the offcial escort to foreign
anarchists and revolutionaries visiting the red Mecca, sometimes poisoning
their minds and reporting back to his masters. Te most startling thing was to
fnd him, feen years or so later, posing as a vctim of Stainism!
Aong those anarchists who threw in their lot with the Bolsheviks, very
few, fortnately, plumbed those depths of servility. Most of them either left the
party, i they had joined it, or distanced temselves fom it following the re
pression of the Kronstadt revolt, the prohibition upon factional work inside the
part and the ensuing introduction of te NEP Tis was especially true of
Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman.
Te "mirage of sovietism" had an impact every bit as pernicious abroad,
most especially in France. Government censorship, alongside denunciation of
the Bolsheviks as accomplices of te Germans, up until 1919, made a substan
tial contribution to this. According to the precept that "the enemies of my en
emies are my fiends," many who opposed the Great War thought they de
tected genuine and consistent pacifsts in Lnin and his disciples. Te myth of
"sovet power" was the fnishing touch in persuading the most revolutionary
elements, a goodly number of tem anarchists.
So much so that te frst Parti communiste, French Section of the Commu
nist International, was set up at the start of 1919: it recognized the "temporary
dictatorship of te proletariat." It was comprised almost exclusively of anar
chists -and the oddest thing is that one discovers one-time individualists con
verted into fervent supporters of Bolshevism. In November 1918. Lrtllot wotE
that "in time of revolution, a measure of dictatorship is necessary"; in 1921 he
was at it again and worse: the "iron dictatorship of te proletariat" was to be "a
dictatorship of elites over brutes." Mauricius and even Armand admitted feel
ing a "certain sympathy" for te Bolsheviks; Charles-Auguste Bontemps also
reckoned that dictatorship was "an evil but a necessary evil" in helping to "es
tablish a communist system."3
At its congress of December 2528, 1919, the Parti communiste turned
itself into a Communist Federation of Soviets, which is testimony to the
preponderant inuence of the anarchists, in that its stuctre was federalist:
the rank ad fle soviets made up regional soviets and these in turn appointed a
centa soviet, the whole thing refecting the desire for ongoing rank and fle
supervision. Needless to say Moscow did not at a time recognize the exist
ence of either of these communist organizations, for it reserved its favors for
te part tat emerged fom a split at the Tours congress of the Socialist Part.
Be that as it may, they still remain a rather telling indication of the spell cast
upon many libertarian comrades by tis "mirage of sovietsm." In addition, most
of these retrned to te anarchist orbit, with te notable exceptions of certain
revolutionary syndicaists and CGT anarchists, belonging to the ant-Jouhaux
1 1 6 F A CI NG THE E NE M Y
minority: people like Monatte, Rosmer, Amedee Dunois, etc. Te latter took a
lot longer to see te error of their ways.
Meanwhile, as te fow of informaton bega to improve, and corroborating
evidence became more plentl, the Bolshev regime's soviet mask flaway
ad everyone was able to see it for what it tuly was. Te better to dissociate
itself fom tem, te Aachist Communist Federaton of 1914 chaged its name,
as soon as it was reformed, to te Aarchist Union (UA) , which was blatnty
ad relentlessly hostle to the Bolshevks fom the end of 1920 onwards.
Dumoulin and Merrheim, te two leaders of te CGTs ant-Sacred Union
minorit, were not taen in by Lenin like Rosmer ad Monatte were. Merrheim
had met him face to face at Zimmerwad in 1915 ad had quicky got the mea
sure of te man: "He is a Guesdist, a hundred tmes more sectarian than all the
Guesdists put togeter, which is no mean feat," his sole ambiton being "dicta
torship over everying and everybody, his own dictaorship, even should it
set civlizaton back by a century. " Te labor militat discerned in the "myst
cism of Lnin's adorers" te very same sentment tat had motvated the en
tusiasts of Genera Boulanger to decades ea
r
lier, tat same untinking ar
dor of persons "searching for a savior, the ma who wl make teir revoluton
for them."4 Dumoulin, who returned to te fold alongside J ouhaux and becae
te "stong man" of te Confedera Committee, was violenty opposed to the
"Muscovites" and was the chief architect of te 1921 tade union schism with
te pro-Bolshevik minorit and its aarchist allies. Te latter in turn broke
away fom Lnin's disciples in 1924. Tus the CGT like the internatonal work
ers' movement, fnished up split into tree factons: Jouhaux's CGT afliated
to te Amsterdam Trade Union Internatona, te Bolshevised CGTU, afli
ated to te Red Internatona of Lbor Unions, and te Revolutionary Sndical
ist CGT (CGT-SR) of Pierre Besnard and the anarcho-syndicalists, afliated to
te Berlin-based Internatona Workers' Association.
Te French and wordwide anarchist movement, already stethed to the
limit by te w found itself even more divided in te face of te new sitaton
created by te advent of Bolshevism. Te congress of te Anarchist Union did
not meet untl November 1920, nearly seven yeas aer te preceding one (1913) .
An internatonal congress had been planned for September 1914, but did not
tae place untl December 1921 when it met in Berlin. Anarchists had been
caught wrong-footed by events, not to say completely overwhelmed by them.
Te obvous cause of tat was te lack of proper liason and quite simply of rea
organizaton: one can only speculate what an orgaaton in te Bauninist
Aliance might have achieved: genera guidelines might have been adopted and
made known, some practcal policy line laid dow ad put into effect, wit re
gard bot to te war ad to te Bolshevk phenomenon. Instead of which, tere
was a lengty hiatus, followed by a genera fagmentaton of forces. A te Lyon
congress of the Anarchist Union, Mauricius, recovered fom his Bolshevik rap
tre, following a nine-mont stay in Russia, urged his comrades to draw up an
agrarian and industia program, lest anarchists be caught even more off guard
X I V. T H E " M I R A G E O F S O V I E T I S M " 1 1 7
by ftre revolutionary crises. Anoter delegate to the congress even moved
tat taining schools for militants be established: broadly speaing, emphasis
was laid upon te crucial importance of scrutiny of issues of a political, agrarian
and industial nature.
As for te individualists, tey were increasingly sidelined fom congresses
ad organizations. Anyway, 1orulot fnally bade frewell to anarchism and de
voted himself exclusively to attacking clericalism: Armand declared witout
equivocaton tat he was no revolutionary and thereafer devoted his energies
to his hobbyhorse of "loving comradeship, " ventring so far as to set up an "In
ternatonal for te fght against bodily possessiveness, sexual jealousy and amo
rous exclusivsm"! Just as seriously, he caled for personal owership of te means
of producton to be vested in te individu
a
l and became the "pope" of a tiny sect
fom which al consideration of society was excluded, "guile" being regarded as
the only means open to te "liberated" individualist to break fee of it.
Now, affrmation of individual autonomy had not been exclusive to the in
divdualists, but was, rather, as we have seen, a constant motif in te interna
tonal anarchist movement and particularly in the French movement. Tat no
ton, marred to the autonomy of the group within the organization, relied upon
te untouchable principle of the fee agreement. So that was where te real
diffculty lay. In an artcle entitled "Let's Get Organized, " Louis Lecoin labored
te need for a "wellordered cohesion" as a means of repairing the movement's
ineffectait. Another leading militant, Georges Basten, wrote: "Only through
organization wlwe achieve mamum results in terms of propaganda and ac
ton." Appreciating, in 1925, the diffdence on te part of certain dogmatc cham
pions of indivdual autonomy, he anathematized them by asserting that they
were "scared of seeing teir ego trampled underfoot in an organizaton. Tat is
the reason behind their rejecting it categorically L ill ome roundabout fash
ion, by quibbling over every minuscule detail. It all makes regular association
repugnant to them."5 Te need for a specifc and coherent and cohesive organi
zation was consequenty making itsel felt more and DOIC, even if it mea.t
revsion of certain of anarchism's tradition
a
l vaues. Tis was the task that sev
era survivors fom the Russian and Uainian anarchist movement who had
taen refge in Paris that year were to set themselves.
Te anarchists' most enormous defeat was sustained in Russia. Trough
out 1917, teir ranks had swollen incessanty, untl tey numbered tens of thou
sands of supporters in te Anarchist Federatons of Petograd and Moscow
(each of which issued its daily newspaper) as well as across all the important
cites in te land. Teir role in te July Days of 1917 - te abortve rising
aganst Kerensk -in every stike wave and of course in the fghtng in Octo
ber 1917, (te fuits of which were claimed by te Bolsheviks
a
ll for temselves)
indicate te crucial infuence tey welded at that point. And yet they were too
slow to develop mistust of the new Lninist autorites, paying them no heed
in a sense, busy themselves wth te immediate implementation of the socia
and economic changes of which tey had long dreamt. Not tat they remained
1 1 8 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
unorganized: in Moscow they set up 50 Black Guard detachments wit one
overall command and tousands of members. Te onslaught came fom the
quarter they least expected: on the night of Aril 12-13, 1918, Moscow's 26
anarchist clubs were stormed by units acting upon the orders of the Bolsheviks
and their Lef Social Revolutonary allies. Seeking to avert faticidal fghting,
600 anarchists surrendered. By te autumn of 1918, te Black Guards in Mos
cow reckoned tey were stong enough to consider overthrowing Lenin, and
were only deterred fom doing so by the threat of counterrevoluton. In fact,
te Sacred Union around the Bolsheviks in the face of te threatened restoraton
of the old regime was to cloud the issue and help to ensure tat libertarians
were progressively and irreversibly pushed into the background.6 At the time,
Kropotin deplored te lack of liaison between anarchists and foated the idea
of estalishing an "anarchist part so as not to "remain with arms folded. " He
used the word "part" in a sense different fom that of the politicians' usage of
it, and only because the word "group" struck him as a bit lame and inadequate
in the circumstances. In fact, it was an anarcho-syndicalist part, uniting a "band
of honest, dedicated anarchist militants capable of settng aside their personal
vanites," tat he wanted and he regretted that he was not young enough any
more to give it his all. Let us note that he gave priority to person-to-person con
tacts and correspondence over the press and printed matter.7
In te Ukaine, tings took a different course. Tere the Bolsheviks were,
to begin with, all but nonexistent and they relied upon the extraordinary
Maknovst insurgent movement driven by the local anarchist groups. In short,
tey had, shall we say, a lot more problems securing their mastery of the situ
ation. We might mention that a powerfl anarchist confederation, the Nabat
(ocsin) confderation, had been in existence in the Ukraine for several years:
its apotheosis was to have been a pan-Russian anarchist congress in Karkov
in November 1920, but this was nipped in the bud by the Leninists who quickly
realized the implicit danger.
Nabat's organizatonal structure and modus operandi are also worthy of
note: a denomination
a
l organization, it set itself the exclusive task of spreading
libertarian ideas among the workers. Militants and sympathizers were orga
nized into groups or circles: on a recommendation fom group members, sy
pathizers could be accepted as partcipants in the organization. Groups got
together to form regional or urban federations which in turn came togeter to
make up the Confederation. Every group appointed a secretary, whose task it
was to oversee its activtes and keep in touch with other groups and organiza
tions. Te regiona and urban federations set up a secretariat, appointed at a
general assembly. Tis secretariat undertook to supply the groups with the
necessary literature, propagandists and agitators, and took charge of the over
alactvt of te federaton. Delegates fom the groups made up te federation' s
soviet, which took care of all organization business: its decisions were carried
out by te federaton's secretarat. Te Confederation's secretariat was elected
by a congress of all affliated anarchist organizatons and its term of offce lasted
X I V. T H E " M I R A G E O F S OV I E T I S M " 1 1 9
until the following congress. Its duties were to bring out a press organ, publish
writings, organize propagandist training schools, convene congresses and keep
in touch with anarchist organizations fom other countries. Organizational dis
cipline arose out of the moral duty upon every member to implement the
organizaton's principles and tasks. In particular responsibility had to be as
sumed for any acton taken. Any intervention on behalf of the group had frst to
be debated and endorsed by a general assembly of tat group. Offcers had
regularly to report back on the implementaton of the tasks entrusted to them.
Te Nabat Confrence, involving anarcho-syndicalists and libertarian com
munists, drew attention to te abuse of the name "anarchist" by all sorts of dubi
ous types and recommended that these be exposed by word of mouth, or in
leaets or in print. On tis point, it issued a reminder that no anarchist worthy of
te name could belong to any Cheka, milita, or tibunal, or be a jailer or play any
part in other instittions of a repressive natre. Likewise, no anarchist could be
a director or offcer of instttions of the bureaucratic-authoritarian tpe. Tese
practical resolutions, lifed fom a signifcant body of other resolutions reached
at the frst Nabat Confrence on November 12-16, 1918, are indicative of the
seriousness of te sort of organization set up and explains why it prospered for
over tree years. We do not have suffcient information about the other organi
zations existng at te tme in Russia or elsewhere in the country, but tere is no
doubt that, had they broadly corresponded to Kropotin's wishes and Nabat's
principles, the course taken by events might have been very different. 8 Tat, at
least, was the profound conviction of te members of the Group of Russian Aar
chists Abroad, based frst in Berlin, then in Paris, and countng Piot Arshinov
and Nestor Mahno among its membership. Tis group was to mae strenuous
efforts to analyze the precise reasons for te anarchist movement's defeat in
Russia and to draw leson theoretical and practical fom that for the beneft uf
the movement internatonally. Tere was a happy coincidence there with the
concerns of the French comrades taumatized by the defectons of the Sacred
Union and te growing Bolshevizaton of te workers' movement.
Endnotes to Chapter 14
1. Les Tems nouveau, No. 19-21, March 1921, special issue devoted to Peter Kopotkin, pp. 14-17.
2. Reprinted in Alexander Skirda Les Anarchites dns la revolution russe Pars, L Tete de Feuilles,
1973, pp. 129161.
3. Cited by Jean Maiton, Le mouvement anarchits en France, (Paris: Maspero, Tomen, 1975) ,
pp. 41-55.
4. Ma Hoschiller, L mirae du sovietime, foreword by A. Merrheim, (paris: Payot, 1921) , pp. 21-22.
5. Cited by J. Maiton, op. cit., p. 81.
6. For frter details, see A Skirda, Les anarchites dns la revolution ruse, op. cit.
7. Camillo Berneri, "Kropotin," Noir et Rouge Ganuary 1964) , pp. 13-14 and P A. Kropotkin and His
Teachin (n Russia) , (Chicago, 1931) , p. 204.
8. Te Firt Conference ofthe Anarchit oranizations ofthe Uraine on November 12-16, 1918, in
Kurk (ublished i Russian in Argentna) .
1 20 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
XV. T H E ORGAN I ZATI ONAL P LATF OR M
OF T H E D YEl O TR UDA G ROU P
Since Nestor Mahno is a rater filiar fgure, we shall provde instead a
few biographical details regarding Piot Arshinov (rea name, Marin) . He was
a locksmit by taining: his working l had begun as a railwaan in te
Eastern Ukraine. By the age of seventeen in 1904, he was a sympatizer wit
te tinking of te Bolshevik facton of te Russian Soci
a
l Democratc Lbor
Part, but quickly realized that they were not equal to te revolutionary situa
ton in which the county then found itself, and so he became a libertarian
communist. Armed struggle by way of resistance to te relentess repression
fom te tsar's henchmen was then on te agenda: so, at the age of just nine
teen, on December 23, 1906 he blew up a building housing members of a police
punitive expedition. Several Cossack offcers and gendarmes perished in the
rubble. A little later, on March 7, 1907, he publicly gunned down with his re
volver the boss of the Alexandrovsk railway workshop, who had been respon
sible not merely for te oppression of the workers for years past but also for
having denounced 120 of them during te stikes and insurrections of 1905
and 1906 (around a hundred of tese had either been sentenced to deat or to
penal servitude) . Arrested and condemned to deat, Ashinov managed to es
cape in incredible circumstances, tanks to assistance fom his comrades, and
resumed his actvties. Recaptred and sentenced to deat once again, he man
aged to pull off another escape. Nothing daunted, he continued his activism,
smuggling weapons ad anarchist literatre across te border fom Austia.
Apprehended in 1910, he contrived, by a happy conjuncton of circumstaces,
tanks to def use of a range of aiases, to escape suspicion i n connecton wit
some of his terrorist acts and was merely sentenced to politca servitde in
te Butrk prison in Moscow. 1 Tere, he made the acquaintance of Makhno
and the par established solid bonds of fendship and like-minded ideas. Tey
even decided tat some day tey would publish a libertaa communist teo
retical review, the lack of which was sorely felt at that point.
February 1917 opened te prson gates to te survvors fom tose heroic
days. Ashinov stayed in Moscow and was intensely involved in te work of te
local Anarchist Federaton. Wile stayng in te cit in May-June 1918, Mahno
prompty asked Arshinov to come back to the Ukraine, where tey could cary
on the struggle as a team. He arrived back at the beginning of 1919 and
XV. OR G ANI ZAT I ONAL P L AT F OR M O F D YE L O T R U D A G ROU P 1 2 1
immediately assumed a position of importance in the Makhnovist movement's
cultral commission, seeing, aong other things, to publication of te insur
gents' newspaper. He stuck wt te movement until te end of 1920 and was
then commissioned to write a history of it. He carried out this commission -
not wthout some diffcult, for he had to redra the opening of his book four
times aer the inital manuscript had been seized by te Cheka in the course of
search operatons -while living underground in Moscow. He made his way to
Berlin by clandestine means, had his book published there and immersed him
sel in te actvities of the Russian anarchists in exile tere. So it came about
that he joined them in publishing an initial review (in Russia) The Anarchist
Messenger, of which seven issues appeared between July 1923 and May 1924.
Having come across Nestor Makhno again, afer the latter had had a devil of a
time feeing across Europe fom te provocatons of te Cheka, te pair of them
decided to fee beyond the danger by settling in Paris. Tere they founded te
review Dyelo Truda (e Cause of Lbor) in 1925, which was to carry excellent
studies and analyses. A number of teir compatiots lent a hand in this: so did
some Poles -Walecki, Ranko (Goidenburg) and Ida Mett (Gilman) who had a
perfect command of Russian. Teir collectve deliberations led to their publica
tion in June 1926 of the Drf Organizational Platorm for a Generl Union of
Anarchists: this was to be a watershed in te history of anarchism. For a long
time it would be known as the "Arshinov Platorm", for te introduction to it
had borne his signature, he being the group's secretary. But this was a misno
mer, for it was a collective undertaking, the expression of teir fndament
ideas: in additon, several oter texts bore the collective signatre of te group,
as we shall see fom a chronological scheme of their appearance in Dyelo Trud.
Piot Arshinov's Our Organizational Problem appeared in August 1925 and,
in a way, signaled te beginning of te process. In it, he examined te politcal
sitation in Russia, noted te ravages caused by Bolshevism, but offered an
apolog for te anarchist movement which, as the revoluton had proceeded,
had been overten teoreticaly and organization
a
lly, all too ofen confning
itself to "positons tat were, yes, correct, but too general, actng all at once in a
diffse way, in multiple tny groups, ofen at odds on many points of tactcs."
Keeping a cool head, he steadily examined al of te prospects offered by the
Bolsheviks, te Russian soci
a
lists and te liberals. Te former could only tread
te pat of "prolonged exploitaton and enslavement of the masses." Te only
point was to fnd out if tey would share teir power wth the bourgeoisie. Te
second group listed, statists every one, seemed like te "partes of socialist
promises, noting more"; as for te liberals and out-and-out monarchists, tey
would go even to te lengs of joining forces wth the Bolsheviks, just to re
cover a morsel of teir lost privileges. Anarchists were still the only real expo
nents of social revolution, dragging te workers' movement forwards and not
backards. Simple:
1 22
awareness of tat should multply our strengt percent ten-fold and
encourage us in a protacted, biter struggle. Te proletariat's pat is
F A C I NG THE ENEM Y
a winding, tiresome one: more than once, weariness and doubt will
grip te revolutionary ranks: but, as diffcult as that path may be, none
among us should fnk the struggle and abdicate by embracing sub
mission to the present order of things. May te spirit never cie! Tat
popular sayng should now, more than ever, linger in te mind of ev
ery worker and every revolutonary fghter.
Arshinov underlined the "differences, dissensions, absence of solidart
and collectve responsibilit" that had hiterto prevented the anarchist move
ment fom playing a crucial part in social stuggles. Te only solution lay in
"common organization of our forces on a basis of collectve responsibilit and
collectve metods of action." 2
Chernyakov, a Russian anachist very much to te fore during te revolu
ton, published an article Te Immediate Task wherein he advocated the cre
ation of an anarchist part, which would of course have no autoritarianism
about it and nothing in common with the statst sociaist parties.3 It would be
modeled on the Bakuninist lura Federation. Voline replied to this i n te follow
ing edition: he rejected the use of the term "party" which was overloaded wth
suggestions of aspirations to state power. Tis was no ritalism, for he recalled
that the mere act of appointing a chairman to preside over a meeting had, until
very recenty, been deemed ant-anarchist. Tat said, he invoked the Ukrainian
Nabat (in which he had been involved for a tme) as the organizational model.
Voline retrned to the theme again in an article in which he reviewed te ac
tties of N abat and in partcular te declaraton and resolutons passed at its
Kursk conference. He had been commissioned to write a theoretical platorm,
someting he had not been able to accomplish, but he gae a glimpse of it by
suggestng tat te common denominator compatible with each anarchist ten
denc -the communist, te syndicalist and te individualist -be retaned,
and the rest discarded. Tis was in rough te Synthesis that he was to propose
a
long wit sebasten Faure i te years to come. Te organizatonal issue stuck
him as being of secondary importance, although Nabat should again be te
inspiraton: "union, on a basis of federalism, with some of the elements of a
natural, fee and technical centralization, which is to say, (and let us not balk at
te words) fsion between faternal and fee discipline and collective responsi
bilit." and Nestor Makhno' s piece in te same edition of the review focused on
te very theme of discipline.4
At tat tme, it was stll possible to correspond wt comrades lef behind in
te USSR, even the deportees among tem, and in every editon of te revew,
a rubric was set aside for tem. Some of tem called for a more developed
sense of organization, for tat seemed indispensable and prudishness wt re
gard to it stuck tem, fom where tey sat, as incomprehensible or puerile.
Not untl issue no. 10 in March 1926 was tere any collective response
fortcoming fom the Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad to Volne's artcles
on syntesis. Te latter was systematically rebutted as incoherent and ill-in
formed about anarchist history (a sideswipe at Voline's late conversion to
XV. OR GA N I Z AT I O NAL P L AT F OR M OF D Y E L O T R U D A G RO U P 1 2 3
libertarian tinking, a litle before 1914) . Te article Te Organizational Issue
and Te Notion a/Synthesi (reprinted in fll as an appendix to this book) states
tat it was not a question of turning the doctine upside down, as its spinal
column was still "libertarian communism," but of draing one's inspiration fom
the "material amassed by anarchism over the years of its life process and its
social struggle."
It was in issue No. 13-14 oOune-July 1926 that the frst part of The Orga
nizational Platarm saw the light of day. At the end of that issue, Ida Mett re
ported on the meeting of June 20, 1926, the date on which the Platarm emerged
and the frst birthday of the review. Several French, Italian, Bulgarian and other
comrades (Chinese among them) were invited along on that occasion.
Arshinov spoke frst, as the secretary of the group, rehearsing its work
and intoducing the Platarm as the child of the collective deliberations which
had led it towads a homogeneous ideological and tactical outook. Te speaker
added tat the work accomplished by the group could be of signifcance for
international aarchism, in that it was blazing a trail in the selection and mar
shaling of anarchist forces and that there was no other way of ensuring their
expansion wordwide. Makhno followed Arshinov, drawing atention to the ab
sence of anarchist infuence among te peasants prior to the revolution, which
he ascribed to the nonexistence of an organizational mentalit or thought for
coordination aong anarchists. on the one hand, and to their prejudices about
what they supposed to be the petit-bourgeois character of the peasanty. on te
other. He reckoned that Dyelo Truda was doing vit
a
l work in working out an
swers to te revolutionary and political tasks of the anarchist movement. Next,
Maria Korn spoke briefy to welcome the work undertaken by Dyelo Truda and
wish it success. sebastien Faure spoke when his trn came to declare that he
too had long hppn calling for a solid anarchist organization. However, it was not
his belief that it could embrace the exponents of contrary tendencies. In con
clusion, he recalled that he had been in the French anarchist movement for the
past 35 years and failed to see where this crisis was with wh ich it was alleged to
be afcted. A Bulgarian comrade spoke up to align himsel with te Dyelo Truda
scheme, for an atempt at a synthesizing anarchist organization in Bulgaria had
come to noting. Te Chinese comrade declared that tere was such a dispar
it beteen te social, economic and political setngs in Europe and China
tat te same approach simply would not be appropriate. In Europe, techno
logical and cultural progress was such that anarchists should be active rather
tan talkative. As time was running out, the meetng stopped at tat point, al
tough there were several other listed speakers.
Publication of the Platarm continued in the subsequent issues of the re
view. What did it amount to? Te arguments set out in those early artcles in
Dyelo Truda were reiterated and expanded upon. Te chief reason for the anar
chist movement's lack of success was the "absence of frm principles and con
sistent organizational practice." Anarchism had to "marshal its forces into an
active gener
a
l organizaton, as required by realit and te strategy of the social
stuggle of the classes," which was in tune wit the Bakuninist taditon and
1 24 F A C I NG THE ENEMY
the wishes of Kropotkin. Tis organization would lay down a general tacta
and political line for anarchism, leading on to an "organized collective prac
tice. " To these ends, a homogeneous program was needed. Te Platorm rep
resented only a broad outline of this, an outline needing exploraton and expan
sion by the whole body of the General Union of Anarchists. Te Platorm fals
into three parts: a general part, afrming and reafrming the basic principles
of libertarian communism - class struggle, the necessit of a violent soci
a
l
revolution, repudiation of democracy, negation of te state and authorit, te
role of anarchists and the masses in the social struggle and social revolution,
te transition
a
l perod and trade unionism; the constructive part deat wit
matters of industri
a
l and agrarian producton, consumpton, then defense of
the revolution; fnally, the concluding part was given over to the principles of
aarchist organization, dependent upon ideological unit, tactcal unit or col
lective methods of acton, collective responsibility, federalism and the powers
of the Executve Committee of the General Union of Anarchists. (See the com
plete text in the appendices.)
In issue No. 16 of the review in September 1926, Ida Met returned to te
mater of the ideological direction of the masses. As she explained, this was to be
understood as te dut upon anarchists to make their conception of revoluton
the predominant one among te workers, and not to aspire to take over state
power as the political parties did. Te followng mont, she reported on a dis
cussion session given over to the Platorm : that meetng was a follow-up to te
one cut short on June 20th. Arshinov was the frst to speak, repeating his fnd
ing that there was no specifc ideology or detailed organizational principles. He
asked whether this was to be laid at the door of objectve circumstances or
blamed upon the anarchists themselves? He inclined to the latter answer. He
cited the example of Kronstadt: had there been an anarchist organizaton in
existence at the time of te revolt of Mach 1923, the revolt might have been
spread to all parts of the county and tings might have taken a diferent trn.
Similarly, right now, for want of an organization, anarchists were powerless to
intervene on behalf of those Russian workers hostile to the Bolsheviks. In spite
of the efforts made by isolated indivduals and groups, the anarchist movement
was treatened by disintegration. A number of comrades, with none of the revo
lutionary experience of the Russians and Italians, consoled themselves with
saying that the Revolution would set their movement to rights. Pie in te sk!
Quite te contrary: the revolution would annihilate tose who would not have
organized themselves in tme, anarchism was the ideology of the working class
and its best tactic, so it had to present a united font, theoretcally as well as
organiationally. Te Dutchman Cornelissen retorted that if te movement had
not been able to come up wth a soluton to te organization problem in thirty
years, it was too late to do so now, for every day brought pressing situations.
Valine then piped up to express the view that, on the contary, it was not
too late to resolve this problem, but tat there had to be a prior clarcation of
doctrine. He invoked the Nabat experience. In contast, he detected i the
7Y. OR GAN I ZAT I O N A L P L AT F OR M OF O L / ! K U O G RO U P 1 25
organizational principles of the Platorm a Bolshevik deviation: namely, party,
program, the policy line and direction of the masses.
Several other libertarians present spoke up on a variety of points, without
really dealing wit the agenda, as Ashinov noted in his fnal address. He pointed
out that in spite of their argumentative aspect, the criticisms that had been
voiced had not been thought through and that nothing had been offered as an
aternative to the criticized proposals. As far as he was concerned, it was hard
to answer to comrade Yudov's reasoning: 'Te Group of Russian Anarchists
Abroad expounds the notion of a revolutionary class struggle and strategy,
which means that it has designs on power." He could only refer the critic to
more comprehensive explorations of semantics. If it had not been possible to
devise a soluton to the organizational problem over a tirt-year period, as
comrade Cornelissen had said, it was not too late to do it now and it was unre
alistic to rely upon the trade unions to handle the economic aspect of the revo
lution, unless these were anarchist in outlook. He replied to the charge of Bol
shevik deviation leveled by Voline, by saying that in terms of theory, anarchism
had nothing in common with Bolshevism and the state socialists, which fore
armed it against that danger; frthermore, it had no designs upon the con
quest of state power Te notion of ideological direction of the masses was not
at all a contradiction of anarchism: on the contrary, that was where its mission
lay, otherwise it had no raison d'etre. Nor was it true that the Russian revolu
tion and Bolshevism had demonstrated the harmflness of ideological direc
tion of the masses: instead it was the statist approach that had been so ex
posed. Te novelt in the approach of the Dyelo Truda group lay in its aspira
tion to "organize the ideological infuence of anarchism over the masses, not as
a weak and intermittent factor, but as a constant in the workers' social revolu
ti onary struggj p, " On which note the meeting came to an end.
Issue No. 18, in November 1926 carried a Platorm Supplement, containing
replies to a frst series of questions (put by the old Kropotkinist, Maria Korn,
alias Isidine, real name Maria Goldsmidt) . Tere were six of these ql 1 estions
and tey related to: majorit and minority in the anarchist movement; te struc
tre and essential featres of te regime of fee soviets; the ideological super
vision of events and of the masses; the defense of the revolution; feedom of
the press and feedom of speech; the anarchist principle: to each according to
his needs. (See the complete text of this Supplement in the appendices.)
In Dyelo Truda's Issue No. 2021, of January-February 1927, there were
several articles marking the tenth anniversary of the Russian revolution of Feb
ruary 1917. Lnsk's article registered the current unfeasibilit of establishing
independent workers' organizations in te USSR, due to the omnipotence of
te GPU. He drew comparisons between the situation of the Russian workers
and that of German workers in 1916-1917, and found only te factory commit
tees capable of any response: anarchists had to radicalize these as much as
possible against the Bolshevik regime. Maxim Ranko, in another article,
stessed te ideological differentation necessary in anarchist ranks if they were
to create an anarchist International capable of having an impact upon the course
1 26 F A CI NG THE ENEM Y
of events. Arshinov replied to questions fom a certain F (Feshin?) on the
anarchists' role in the wake of te social revolution, on the threat of a new war
and on individual terrorism. His most intriguing answer, it seems to us, con
cerned the defnition of soviets, which were envisaged as being, unlike the
Bolsheviks' soviets of worker and soldier deputies, worker and peasant pro
ducer and consumer organizations. As for te Terror, that could not be the
work of an individual, but rather the maturely considered policy of an organiza
tion in the light of the precise situation in the country where it took place.
Under the heading Te Struggle for the Spirit of Organization the review
carried a report on a frter meeting held aong wth Polish and Bulgarian com
rades. Ashinov had spoken on behaf of te Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad:
he indicated that the discussion about the organizational issue had been in
progress in Paris for nearly a year and that two schools of thought were already
evident regarding the group's draf Platorm: one for organization, the other dis
organization. Which ftted in with three attitudes adopted with regard to the
Platorm: one positive, one wth reservations and the last one individualist and
"devil may care. " Te frst of these attitdes was, for the moment, te most wide
spread; the second showed itself in te questions put by Maia Korn in te Suple
ment; as for the tird, it took the line that anarchism should be able to be the
vade mecum of every person and tus that there was no need for "organiza
tions," much less any Platorm. Voline was the most tyical representative of this
anti-organizatonist school of thought: also, he was at tat very moment working
on a reply to the Platorm, with an eye to exposing its ant-anarchistic contents.
Although there was little prospect of that being anyhing to get worked up about,
we look forward to seeing what it would be like. In reply, Arshinov once again
rehearsed all of the strong points of te Platorm. Makhno spoke afer him: he
endorsed what Arshinov had said and would have liked to answer the criticisms
fom "our opponents through misunderstanding," but these had filed to take up
the invtaton to take part in the meeting, and he found it diffcult to critcize
them in their absence. In any event, their irresponsibilit, organizational and
political alike, could only lead tem into a swamp where they would not be able
to do any more tan "carp. " It had long been plain tat the movement needed to
marshal its forces, failing which it could never have ay influence upon revolu
tonary developments, even when these might boast an unmistakably libertar
ian character. It was because the "opponents through misunderstanding" had
never bothered about that and had absolutely no intention of doing so, that tey
had begun to seek out anything in the Platorm that might be construed as ant
anarchist. Te only people they could recruit would be elements who had blun
dered into the anarchist movement by accident, not having lived through the
chastening experience of the Russian revolution. Teir politcal and organiza
tional irrelevancy was plainly exposed -the Ukrainian exile went on -when
they attempted to rebut te lessons of our revolutonay experience, bought at
the price of "our blood, our heart and our nerves."
A old militant fom the Bulgarian movement took over ten and explained
tat it was precisely this "devil may care" atttude on the part of certain anarchists
XV. O R GAN I Z AT I O N AL P L AT F OR M OF L ! K UO G RO U P 1 27
tat had shown itself to be the chief obstacle to the expansion of libertarian
ideas in Bulgaria. Another Bulgarian stipulated that above all else the problem
of organizing te anarchist movement should not be mied up with the prob
lem of organizing the societ of the fture. Tese were two extremely impor
tant maters tat had to be dealt with separately. One Grisha Br. broached the
issue of majority and minorit: he failed to understand why it was the minority
that had to defer to the majorit and not vice versa. Arshinov's answer to that
was that this was not a mater of principle, but rather a matter of practical com
mon sense: otherwise, no policy line would be possible. Te meeting closed
wit unanimous support for continuation at other meetings of the debate on
te issues raised by the Organizational Platorm.
In the Arl-May 1927 edition, No. 23-24, Arshinov reviewed the review's
to years of existence and its organizatonal approach. He stressed the back
ing it had received fom every quarter and, in order to differentiate himself
fom all the disorganizing elements, he employed, for the frst time, the ex
pression "Libertarian Communist Party," which alone could aford anarchism
the opporturity to take up its rightl place in the ranks of struggling Lbor. In
the very same edition, following its appearance in a French translation and the
reactions, favorable or unfavorable, that it had elicited, Arshinov devoted a
lengthy article to the Organizational Platorm. For some, it was an "historic
step forward in the development of the anarchist movement: for others, it is a
curse. " Tere was nothing starting in that, for the "authors of the Platorm
started fom the fct of the multiplicity of contradictory tendencies in anar
chism, not in order to set temselves the task of blending them all into one,
which is absolutely impossible, but in order to make an ideological and politi
cal selection of anarchism's homogeneous forces and at the same time diferen
tiate themselves fom anarchi Rm' (hotc, petit-bourgeois (liberal) and root
less elements. " Tat selection, as well as the differentation, could only be ef
fected through te union of all theoretically homogeneous anarchists into one
"revolutionary politcal collective, in a General Union of Anarchists, or, to be
more specic, in a Libertarian Communist Part which, as we see it, amounts
to the same thing. " Next, Arshinov turned to Jean Grave's objections: Grave
found unity of action acceptable but was hostile to centralization of it. In
Arshinov's view, that sort of attitude was the result of a misunderstanding or
differing interretation of words. Te entire chapter of the Platorm dealing
with federalism was quite explicit and the sort of centralization it had in mind
could readily be understood. Apropos of the minorit, Grave depicted its con
cessions to the majorit as subordination and suggested areement in its place.
Te latter, tough, could only come about through concessions fom the mi
nort or indeed, i they were considered too important, a parting of te ways
was te only solution. Similarly, Grave' s misgivngs about the Executive Com
mittee of the Union/Part simply refected his ignorance of anarchist organiza
tonal endeavor. I he acknowledged te need for serious collectve effort, bound
up with te existence of a general anarchist organization, he had to accept the
1 28 F A CI NG THE ENEM Y
necessit for organs like the Union's Executive Committee, as well as for collec
tve orgaizational responsibilit, discipline, etc.
Arshinov rebuted a frter objecton regarding te use of expressions
like "class struggle" or "workng classes" -an objection that sprang fom the
belief tat there would be no classes in the anarchist society of the ftre, and
thus no class stuggle. Tis was quite simply a refsal to ackowledge the
present realit, which was independent of te wishes of anarchists temselves.
Although aspiring to a classless society, all our hopes ae pinned upon the aspi
rations of workers who have te most interest in social truth. Tat is why their
class struggle is one of anachism's underlying principles. Denial of that boiled
down to "rejoining the swamp of bourgeois liberalism, which has ofen hap
pened to anarchists who came to us fom the ranks of te bourgeoisie but failed
to grasp the revolutonary spirit of Lbor."
Certain comrades fom Europe and Nort America have seen ft to draw
attention to the appaent contadiction between our negation of the transitonal
period and the assertion tat achievement of te libertarian communist soci
ety would not follow immediately upon the social revolution, but would be a
protracted process of hard work and social creativity. Tat contradiction is
merely apparent and, yet again, arises fom a fault understanding of te no
ton of the tansitional period. Obviously, libertarian communism could not be
introduced immediately and would be te product of steady and protacted
construction. It is essential tat one have in mind a clear picture of the ways
and means involved in that construction, workng fom the basis of a realism
that signifes not anarchism's we
a
kness but rater its strengt and has nothing
to do wit the noton of a tansitional period, which implies a time lapse be
teen te revoluton and the advent of the fee societ embodied in a politica
and economic system. He referred to the example of the Bolsheviks, whose
dictatorship had no time limit and might last anything up to a century. We anar
chists are against that notion of the transitional period, for it presupposes the
survival of state power and exploitation of te workers. We stad for social
revolution and for the process of direct social reconstruction. Arshinov concluded
his article by putting tis question: can te text of the Platorm be amended in
any way in order to take account of the comments and criticisms made by these
ones or tose ones? He answered in the negatve, for there would assuredly be
bickering at every step over the points needing amendment. Only an anarchist
congress establishing a General Union of Anarchists could do that.
In issue No. 25 of Dyelo Truda in June 1927, Chernyakov returned to te
question of the Lbertarian Communist Part, te establishment of which he
regarded as the only vable alternative to the empty chatter and individual ef
forts of groups and the squandering of time, energ and manpower. In that
fashion, the anarchist revolution would drive out Bolshevism. Nestor Makhno
himself brought out a substanta article on Te Defense of the Revolution, largely
sharing his personal experiences.
It was at this point that we reckon the expository stage of the Dyelo Truda
Organizational Platorm came to its conclusion. Now that a French tanslation
XV. OR GAN I ZATI O N AL P L AT F OR M OF O L / !K U O A G RO U P 1 29
of the document had been made available, as well as a number of artcles in L
Libertaire fom Arshinov, Makhno, Walecki and Ranko, its arguments were
quite well known and the real debate could begin.
Endnotes to Chapter 15
1 . I n 1927 Arshinov was to issue a pamphlet (in Russian) Two Escapes relating these activ
ties: this was to lead one of the former chiefs of the Okhrana, then also an emigre in Paris,
to describe him as one of the most dangerous terrorists on his wanted list.
2. Dyelo Truda, No. 3, (August 1925) .
3. Ibid. , No. 4, (September 1925) .
4. Ibid. , No. 5, (October 1925) and No. 7-8 (December 1925-January 1926) . See Makhno's
article in the antology Te Strugle Aainst the State and Other Writing, a.-p Ducret,
1984) , pp. 75-76 (English edition published by A Press and translated by Paul Sharkey) .
1 3 0 F A C I NG THE ENE M Y
7. THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT
THE L1L
Te earliest polemic brought a confontation with Voline, who had made
the tanslation into French. In LLibertaire Rnko took him to task for mis
tanslaton or misrepresentaton of certain terms and expressions. Te sug
gestion was even made tat an "expert" comrade be appointed before whom
bot sides could verif their grounds for recrimination. But, on te day ar
ranged, Voline failed to show up for the rendezous. l Te fact is tat relatons
beteen Voline and Makhno, and later, Arshinov, had recently begun to worsen.
Up to ten, Voline had been a fll member of the Group of Russian Anarchists
Abroad and a regular collaborator in Dyelo Truda. Wat could have been te
cause of the fiction between tem? Assuredly, certain personal and ethical
derelictons towards Makhno on the part of Voline2; probably also, the plain
differences of opinion over the Synthesis that Voline had been trying to peddle
for some years past, continually harking back to his Nabat experiences. Invo
caton of tat was rendered less credible when Dyelo Truda carried a leter
fom one of the N abat founders who had stayed behind in Russia, describing
the Confederation's modus operandi in terms contradicting Voline's accounts:
(see the appendices for the full text) . Teir social orgins were also at odds:
Voline was a bourgeois intellectal, painstakingly reared by governesses who
taught him the foreign laguages in which he was fuent (German and French) ,
while both Ashinov and Makhno were of very humble extactons, did not
have te same glibness of expression and thus did not enjoy the same audi
ence among their comrades. Tere was also Voline's dalliance in Masonic
lodges, which fted in very well with his idea of Synthesis but was criticized by
tose who saw class collaboration in it. Tere was also, paradoxicall enough,
a difference in anarchist culture and not quite in the way one might have ex
pected: Ashinov and Makhno had been anarchists for more tan twenty years
and were conversant with all the classics -which they had studied, especially
while convcts -whereas Voline was Social Revolutonary in his provenance
and had swung around to libertan ideas only a short while before 1914, un
der Kropotin's infuence. In short, there were m sorts of likely reasons for
feuding between the erstwhile comrades in arms of te years 1919-1920. As is
ofen the case, life as exiles and its atendant diffculties added enormously to
their differences of opinion.
XV I . T H E C O N T R OV E R S Y A B O U T T H E P L A T F O R M l J l
Te Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad thus published a statement in
Dyelo Truda in December 1926, to expose te mischief-making of a certain
Maisk, whom Voline had intoduced into the group in 1924, and who had since
been expelled for wecking and unethical actvit. Not that tat prevented Voline
fom providing a reference for this character, who had allegedly abused the
trust of his comrades. Te Group issued a public reprimand to Voline -which
did not setle accounts beteen the two sides: f fom it.
Te Reply ofSome Russian Anarchists to te Platorm, published in April
1927, was endorsed by seven names: Sobol, Fleshin, Schwartz, Mollie Steimer,
Voline, Iia, Roman, and Ervantian. But these multiple signatures fooled no one:
Voline was its author, as was obvious simply fom its persistent references to
Nabat and his characteristic style. It was a closely written 39-page pamphlet,
using lengthy exacts fom the Platorm and offering a painstaking criticism of
all of its essental points. Tere were fndamental diffrences of view, as over
the weakness of the anarchist movement, which could not be explained away,
the Reply argued, in terms of the absence of an organization or collective prac
tice, but rater was due to a number of other factors:
a) te haziness of several ideas fndamental to our outlook:
b) te contemporary world's diffculty in assimilating libertarian ideas:
c) the mind set of te contemporary masses who let themselves be
taken in by demogogues of every hue:
d) te widespread repression of the movement as soon as it begins to
show signs of real progress:
e) anarchists' irratonal reluctance to resort to demagoguery:
f anarchists' repudiation of all artifcialy constructed organization,
as well as all artifcial discipline.
One crucial source of discord was te refsal of fe Platrm' s authors to
take the Synthesis under their notice. Anoter source of fiction: the notion of
an Anarchist Party, which was promptly taken as synonymous with the idea of
the classical authoritarian political part. Te Reply next tackled the idea of
anarchism being a class concept, for it was, they maintained, also human and
indiidu
a
l. Direction of te masses and of events was suspected of disguising
an ambition to lord it over the masses, instead of "serving them, being their
collaborators and their aides. "
With regard to te transitional period, te Platorm, argued te Reply, re
jected it "platonically, phraseologically" while it "acknowledges it more tan
anyone on our ranks": it was alleged to be, in reality an "attempt to explain
away that idea and gra it onto anarchism. " Te constuctve portion of the
Plator was subjected to te same virulent criticism, wit everyting depicted
in a negative light. On the mater of the defense of the revolution, arming of the
workers and isolated local detachments, rather than an insurgent army with an
1 3 2 F A C I NG THE E NE MY
overal command stucture, was the recommendation. Te lesson of the Rus
sian revolution here was not heeded: the armed workers had quickly turned
into Red Guards, even against their will, and isolated armed detachments were
easily dispatched by regular armies. But the Reply had a different intenton in
mind: it aimed to demonstrate, at all costs, the anti-anarchist character of the
Platorm and no exaggeration was spared, not even the allegation tat the in
surgent army had almost natrally turned into the Red Army! Complete with
its political police, or Cheka, to which, it was alleged, the Platrm was lookng
forward. Te purpose of the Reply was to push the idea that the Platorm sought
"te creation of a directing political center, the organizaton of an army and a
police at the disposal of that center, meaning, essentially, the introduction of a
transitional political autort in the state mold. "
Te organizational portion of the Platorm was subjected to the same
pseudo-orthodox wrath: the Reply divined in it aspiration to a centralized
Anarchist Part that would leave the Bolshevks in the shade. In conclusion,
the Reply did not beat about the bush: "s, the ideological essence is te same
among the Bolshevks and platormists alike. " Tis Platorm was only a "dis
guised revisionist lurch towards Bolshevism and acceptance of a tansitional
period"; it was all "unacceptable: its underlying prnciples, its essence and its
very spirit. "
Tat over-the-top attack was too systematic and partisan to be taken seri
ously: it gave off the stench of a setting of personal scores. How could te
autors of te Platorm, especially Arshinov and Makhno, be painted as cryto
Bolsheviks? When they had fought the Bolsheviks wit guns in hands, and
seen their fnest colleagues murdered by Bolsheviks? Tere was a moat of
blood separating them. On the other hand, Voline had several times kept up
ambiguous contacts with the Bolshevik autorities. Not tat that was the most
important point. Te stiking thing about the Reply was the absence (eaving
aside the ide
a
lized Nabat) of any reference to the ideas and practices of te
anarchist movement. All te same, te authors of the Platorm themselves
stated tat they had invented nothing new, and merely taken on board the
movement's accumulated ideas and real-life experiences. We ourselves have
seen tat Bakunin had already dreamt of a specifc organization with "unit of
tought and action, " which is to say, a collective metod of action, and "ongo
ing faternal supervision of each by all," equivalent to the Platorm's noton of
"collective responsibility. " For anyone with sufficient knowledge of the
movement's history, the kinship between the Platorm and Bakunin's Brother
hoods ought to have been obvious and beyond discussion. Such discussion
was paying undue heed to the partisan criticism and denigratory intent char
acterizing the Reply
Te Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad did not go into these historical
or personal considerations: a few months later it published an Answer to
Anarchism's Confsionits. In tis, the acerbic crticisms of the Reply fom Voline
and company were refted item by item, the inconsistency between them ex
posed for all to see. (See te complete text in the appendices.) Te charge of
X V I . T H E C O N T R OV E R S Y A B O U T T H E | L ! / K N 1 3 3
"Bolshevizing anarchism" was slated as a base calumny. Now, that argument
was to be common currency among all fture detractors of the Platorm. How
ever, some common-sensical views were expressed at the time, like this by
L. G. which appeared in L Libertaire:
Te Platorm, as offered for discussion, is not presented as some un
assailable credo: I and many another fnd much in it that is very
debatable. Te Reply which I have just been reading contains just as
many points of error: let me quote just one, so as not to clutter up the
paper: the error of seeing dogs, cats, wolves and lambs lying down in
the same organization, the better to achieve the end, says the Reply. I
fnd that laughable, for, in that grouping, there would be nothing but
biter squabbles, backbiting and hatreds. I sense in this Reply a lot of
prickliness with no feeling for tolerance. I wish they would leave out of
all this a lite of all this long-winded peroration about what tomorrow
wlbring and be more down to earth in their propaganda right now.:
Two years later, Voline, Fleshin, Steimer, Sobol and Schwartz were to pub-
lish a tirade against Dyelo Truda which was accused this tme of waging a
campaign against the highbrow anarchists. Te worker-peasant anarchism of
the review was described as "real anarcho-hooliganism" (! ?) on a par with anti
Semitism! 4 Te jarring little detail is that, all this carping aside, they were
unable to come up with a single text fnally setting out their own views. Not
that tere was anything surprising in that, for such behaor was, all in all,
rather commonplace: incapable of coming up themselves with anything posi
tive or constructive, certain individuals, anarchists or otherwise, professing
to belong to te most radical tendency, on paper at least, were quick to light,
microscope at the reary, 1 I pon :my achievement, to prcncuncc it good or bad.
Tese unwelcome "busy bees," on the other hand, paid no heed to the fetid
stench in which they lived and disported themselves. Reality and the gusts of
history swept them aside never to return, but it is important to appreciate that
this phenomenon exists and crops up again fom time to time.
Meanwhile, the discussion-meetings organized by Dyelo Truda on the
theme of te Platorm continued at regular intervals. Militants fom all parts of
the globe attended the one on February 12, 1927: Arshinov, Makhno, and four
other members representing the Russian Group; Pierre Odeon fom te anar
chist youth of France; Ranko was delegated by te Polish group; there were
several Spaniards, including Orobon Fernandez, Carbe and Gibanel; and a num
ber of exiles attended in an individual capacit, like Ugo Fedeli, Pavel (a Bul
garian) , Chen (a Chinese) , Dauphin-Meunier (a Frenchman) , etc. Te meet
ing was held in the back room of a Paris cafe: several languages were used . . .
Russian, German and, of course, French.
Ashinov gave te frst address, as usual, rehearsing te theses of his group
and adding that implementation of them was of equal concern to France and
the international movement. Being, for the most part, refgees, it was hard for
them to act on French soil, as they lacked a social base and it was desirable that
1 34 F A CI NG THE E NE M Y
some French-language international organ be set up which would tackle te
essental questions of the movement. A Spaniard spoke next and intmated that
the Spanish movement had similar preoccupatons. Odeon announced his back
ing for te Platorm and asked i those present had a mandate to arrive at deci
sions. Ranko came right out with a proposal that a provisional committee be set
up with an eye to the creaton of the Anarchist International. Several of tose
present expressed reservations; however, an acting commission, made up of
M
a
khno, Ranko, and Chen, was established. Tat commission issued a circu
lar to al interested parties on February 22, 1927, reviewing the steps taken on
te basis of te Russian Group's Platorm. Tere followed an invitation to an
International Conference in a cinema in Bourg-la-Reine on March 20.
Before a sizable turnout, Makhno spelled out all te key points contained
in te Platorm by way of a program. His listeners reacted in a variet of ways.
Luigi Fabbri suggested a minor amendment and was backed by the French and
Spaniards. Areement was reached upon the principle of te anticipated inter
national organization, on the basis of the following points, i. e. recognition that:
1) the struggle of all the downtrodden and oppressed against the
authorty of state and Capital, as the most importat factor in the anar
chist system;
2) the labor and trade union stuggle as one of the most important of
anarchists' methods or revolutionary action;
3) the necessit in every country of a possible General Union of Anar
chists sharing the same ultimate aim and the same practical tactcs,
resting upon collective responsibility;
4) necessit of anarchists having a positive acton and construction
program for the social revolution. 5
Just as they were setting down to discuss this motion fom the It
a
lians,
te room was invaded by French police who arested everybody. Some informer
or opponent of the Platorm had tipped off te police tat some conspiracy was
aoot. Te scheme was not completely aborted, though, for the acting secre
tariat, made up of Makhno, Rnko and Chen issued a letter on April 1, 1927
which took it as read that an Internation
a
l Lbertarian Communist Federation
was now in existence, and espousing unadulterated the points put forward by
the Russian Group, prior to their amendment by te Italians. Tis was rushing
things a little and was especially clumsy in its handling of the Italians, who
wasted no time in making it known that they could not associate themselves
with the project "for the time being. " Others who had taken part in the confer
ence expressed similar views. Tus, undue haste (or, i one prefers, zeal) on
the part of Makhno and Rnko styied the plan.
At the autmn 1927 congress in Paris of the (French) Anarchist Union, sup
porters of the Platorm defeated the advocates of the Synthesis and oter recalci
trants. Te supporters of the Synthesis, led by Sebastien Faure, broke away to
XV I . THE CONT R O VER S Y ABO U T THE P L A T F O R M 1 3 5
set up te Federa Associaton of Aachists (ssociation Federle des Anarchistes) .
Faure, that old tribune, was not against organization as such, nor was he one to
rest on his laurels, but he wanted a "solid, powerful organization, capable of
binding together, at a time determined by the gravity of the circumstances, all
tose forces of revolt represented by numerous, energetic groupings" and a "pro
letariat swept into decisive action by a succession of disturbances, agitations,
strikes, riots, insurrections."6 Tus, Faure had nothing in common with the dil
ettntsm of a Voline and, for some time, he had been paying a heavy personal
price. He rejected the arguments of the Platform because he found them unduly
sectaran and preferred a certainly sentimental "happy family" singlemindedness,
or, as he himself jokingly termed it a "general festival of hugging and kissing":
he was quite a likable fellow and fll of goodwill. Te old anarchist sensed that
anarchists would soon be in sore need of goodwill and mutual assistance, for the
prospects of social and military confontation were plentiful. 7
In Italy, Mussolini's fascism had been ensconced in power for some years
already and reaction ruled the roost. Errico Malatesta was under house arrest,
his correspondence censored. Even so, he managed to get wind of the Plat
form and he drew up a critical review that appeared in Le Reveil anarchiste in
Geneva, frst of all, before being issued in pamphlet form in Paris. Athough he
too was an advocate of organization, he would countenance neither the notion
of collective responsibility nor te existence of an Executive Committee. By
his reckoning, the authors of the Platorm were "obsessed with the Bolsheviks'
success in their homeland: they sought, aer the manner of Bolsheviks, to
bring anarchists together into a sort of disciplined army which, under the ideo
logical and practical direction of a few leaders, might march in step against
existing regimes and which, having secured material victory. might direct thp
consttution ot the new society. " In Dyelo Truda, Arshinov published Te Old
and the New in Anarchism, wherein he replied to Malatesta's objections and
reiterated with innite patience the main features of the approach of the Rus
sian Group (see the complete text in the appendices) . Makhno also sent a long
letter to Bakunin's old comrade, putting their disagreements down to a misun
derstanding. It was nearly a year before Malatesta learned of it (on account of
the censor) , and he promptly replied to it. Maybe translation had obscured the
meaning of the words, but he was still hostile to collective responsibility, sug
gesting moral responsibility instead, and against the existence of an Executive
Committee which he likened to a "government good and proper" with its atten
dant police and bureaucratic powers! Aain, Makhno answered him:
1 3 6
It is my belief tat a properly social movement, such as I hold the
anarchist movement to be, cannot have any positive policy until such
time as it has discovered more or less stable forms of organization
which wll frnish it with the wherewital it needs for struggle against
te varous autoran socia systems. It is the absence of such where
withal that has ensured that anarchist action, during time of revolu
tion especially, has degenerated into a sort of localized individualism,
F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
all because te anarchists, in declaring themselves foes of "all and
every constitution" have seen te masses dri away fom tem, for
they inspire no hope in the prospect of any practical achievement.
In order to fght and to w, we need a tctc te character of which
ought to be set out in a program of practical action . . . . In te rea of
practical achievement, autonomous anarchist groups should be ca
pable, in the face of each new sitation as it presents itself, to sete
upon the problems to be resolved and te answers to devise to tese,
without hesitation and witout amendment to anarchist aims and an
archist mentalit.8
Maatesta later shifed a litte on "collectve responsibilit," which stuck
him as "better suited to some barracks, " for he understood it to imply "te blind
submission of all to the wishes of a few. " He conceded that it was, perhaps, a
matter of semantcs, but that i it was a question of "te agreement and fellow
ship that should obtain beteen the members of an associaton . . . we would be
close to agreeing. " 9 It was assuredly his isolaton and a semantic problem tat
must have led the movement's grand old man into tis misapprehension.
Pierre Besnard, the leader of the CGT-SR and theoretician of anarcho-sy
dicalism, had no such misgivings about collectve responsibilit: in the enty
he wrote for the EncyclopUie anarchiste under responsibilit, he made it the
fndamental organizationa prnciple of libertarian communism. It did noting
to banish the indidual responsibility of all the group's members: tere was no
contadicton between tese. Tey were complementary and overlapped:
Individual responsibilit is te orginal form of responsibilit: it springs
fom consciousness. Colectve responsibilit is its social and fnal form.
It broadens te responsibilit of te indivdua to te collectvt: in ex
tending it tus, according to the principle of natral solidarity which is,
at te same time, a physical law as applicable to the component parts of
societ as to te component parts of any body, animate or inanimate, it
makes each individual answerable to te colectvty as a whole, for his
actions. Ad trough reciprocity, through supervision, it makes the col
lectvit accountable before all its individual members. Lke federalism
itself, of which it is indeed one of te prime elements, collective respon
sibility operates in to directons: ascending and descending. It makes
it an obligation upon te individua to answer for his actons to te group,
and te latter answerable to te indidual for its own.
Tus, it can be said tat te to forms of responsibilit are mu
tal determinants. Collective responsibilit is the consecration and re
fnement 0/ individual responsibility. lO
Besnard saw it as something positve, something tat made the organizaton
bot metodical and supple, wit optmum powers of contraction and relaxation.
Marie Isidine also published a critique of her own of collective responsibil
ity (which she rejected in favor of moral responsibility) in Organization and
X V I . T H E C O N T R O V E R S Y A B O U T T H E P L A T F O R M 1 3 7
Party. She was primarily taking issue with the principle of the majority deci
sions which te minority would have to apply without jibbing. Arshinov pro
vided her with a reply a litle later. (See the to texts in the appendices.)
Makhno rounded upon te criticisms that sought to play up the allegedly
anti-anarchistic character of the Platorm. In particular, he rounded on
Malatesta's criticisms regarding tactcal unity, and he made a stand against the
Use of just any tactic by just about any member of an anarchist organization, a
stance that he ascribed to the old Italian agitator. Such a dispersion of effort
could not produce anything and, in time of revolution, it was scarcely the way
to link up with the masses, he noted.
I I
Te very same edition of the review carried a piece by Kudoley, a Rus
sian anarchist who had stayed behind in the USSR and was an entusiastic
supporter ofDyelo Truda. Kudoley emphasized te innovation in te Platorm's
having aforded priorit to the political over te economic, that is, to te ideo
logical grouping united around the tade union. Tus, the Lbertarian Commu
nist Part was, as he saw it, "the conscious minorit steering the revolutionary
movement towards libertarian objectives through its example. " Te workers'
and peasants' organizatons, te unions and cooperatives were the "active mi
norit carrying out the revolution. " He invoked Bakunin as the forerunner of
this idea. Te name "General Union of Anarchists" created the belief that all
anarchists should feel obliged to belong to it, when this was not the case.
Kudoley's own preference was for the term "party," it being more precise, for
it embraced only some of te anarchists, on the basis of teoretical affnities
and a common desire to affliate to it: this did not at all imply a breach wit the
other anarchists in the movement. In short, those who supported a homoge
neous theory were fee to organize themselves as a part. In the last analysis,
Kudoley was startled to fnd so much hr01 1haha about : scheme that every
indivdual was fee to accept or reject.
Also in the same edition, Ashinov published a summary overview of the
debate provoked by the Platorm. He listed the four tpes of reaction to it: hostil
it, incomprehension, deliberate or involuntary ignorance, and sympathy or even
enthusiasm. In te light of the intended aims, he found the results to be meager,
but the low ebb of anarchism in many countries could be one explanation of that.
Tat being the case, the Platorm had been the only attempt made in ten years to
make some practcal and positive progress towards developing the movement.
However he did quote a very critcal letter fom a comrade inside Russia:
1 38
In my opinion, you have overstepped the mark by pushing for the
organization of a part. As I see it, your tinking goes like this: te
Bolsheviks have won, thanks to teir organization, which means tat
we too should have one. Of course, our army will be, not red, but black,
our CPU will not be stst but something else, our part will be, not
cent
a
list, but federalist. With a number of comrades here, I a not at
all in agreement with you. Your efforts to lif the movement out of te
swamp of cant, by making use of te experience of recent years are
F A C I NG THE E NE MY
very praiseworthy . . . . But by my reckoning, you have succumbed to
te Bolshevk temptation.
Tat correspondent nonetheless had to stress te value of the review, its seri
ous approach and its levelheadedness in tackling issues; for him and for his
fiends, this was a sign that anarchism was alive and well.
Arshinov mentioned oter disagreements over several points in the Plat
form: producton, defense of the revolution or indeed the use of certain termi
nology. However, he noted that thus far the hostile reactions had missed this
essential point "appreciaton of our approach to te question of organization
and the method espoused to resolve it." Above all, the Platorm was an atempt
to fnd a solution to a specifc practical problem. Anybody not afaid to look the
current state of the movement in the face would grasp that witout any diff
cult. In the Russian anarchist movement, for instance, there were two tenden
cies in existence at the time: te confsionist tendency in the United States
with te revew Rassvyet (Dawn) which had ambiguous dealings wit reacton
ary Russian emigres; and there was another -mystical -tendency in Mos
cow. A whole range of other tendencies or nuances still coexisted within te
movement and had noting to do with revolutionary working-class anarchism.
Tis was nothing new and had always been the case and it was the reason why
the movement had never been able to act in a united and concerted fashion. Its
actons had been contradictory and even antagonistic, nullifing all practical
endeavor. Te milieu was so awash in such contadictions, tere was no point
tying to unif or "syntesize. " Te only way to leave this chaos behind and
restore te movement's health was to select a core of active milita
n
ts on the
basis of a homogeneous and defnite theoretical and practical program, and
thereby effect an ideological and organizational differentiation. Tat was what
the Platorm was about. A organization united on its theory and tactics (a
party) would deliver our movement fom all glarng contradictions, (internal
and external alike) , which put the workers off, demonstrate the potency of
libertarian communism's ideas and tactcs and, witout question, rally around
itsel the revolutionary element of the peasantry and working class. Finally,
tose who did not see eye to eye wit this approach and thinking could come
up with teir ow, so that the alternatve might be made known.
In the second part of his text, Arshinov replied to te objectons voiced on
several points. With regard to production, some had found the proposed unit
to be at odds with decentralization, and that te peasant and worker soviets,
and te factory and workshop commitees beter suited to a regime of fee sovi
ets than to the idea of the anarchist commune. Unit of producton meant tat
that whole process was communistic, te property of all and not of individuals
or private groups, for tat would mean te restoraton of capitalism. Such unit
did not at all involve centalism: quite the opposite in fact. I we had been against
decentalization, tat was simply lest it mean the welfare of specifc groups com
peting with that of oters. As for the soviets' role, that was executive and
technical, wheter in relaton to producton or to consumpton. Tey had noting
XV I . THE C ONT R O V E RSY A B O U T THE P L A T F O R M 1 39
in common with political soviets, whose members played no part in production.
In the Platorm, there was only an outine of te frst stage of the journey along
the road to achieving the anarchist commune: i there were mistakes or inex
actitudes there, the collective intelligence of the movement would spot them
and set them right. Te authors were the frst to look for them, for they were
concerned not to conceal problems but to resolve them, and in the most au
thentic anarchist spirit at tat. Moreover, they would be resolved by means of
the collective thinking and practice of the movement.
As for organization, the most criticized thing was the "party" format, be
cause it appeared to fly in the face of anarchist principles. Tat allegation was
ill-founded, for it was wrong and absurd to think that a party must, of necessity,
be an authoritarian organization with designs on power. It was merely a getting
together of persons sharing the same specifc beliefs and pursuing the same
specifc ends, which need not necessarily mean the conquest of power. Te
much anathematized Executive Committee was, as its title implied, merely ex
ecutive, that is, it carried out the technical tasks entrusted to it by congress;
also, it had always existed among anarchist organizations -the anarchist trade
union international, for example, had an equivalent in the shape of its secre
tariat. In conclusion, Arshinov noted that most objections rested either upon a
misapprehesion or some deliberate misrepresentation: as a result, he recom
mended the former to read the Platorm more attentively, and the later to ad
mit their impotence. At which point he closed his audit of the three years of
sundry discussions and controversies.
Tat edition of the review carried a group letter fom the Moscow anar
chists, signed by Borovoy, Barmash and Rogdaiev, saluting the endeavors of
Dyelo Truda as noting more than was to be expected of revolutionary anar
chists. Tat may have been the signal for it. but the GPI T mOl. llted a swoop
upon anarchist circles in the USSR, hiterto very grudgingly tolerated by the
regime. Te signatories to the letter to Dyelo Truda, Kudoley and dozens of
others, were rounded up, jailed or deported. Natrally, all Iinks with the West
were severed and forbidden. Curiously and in an associated way, Ashinov was
arrested by the French police who charged him with engaging in political ac
tivities incompatble with his political refgee status: he was expelled to Bel
gium in January 1930. Under te concerted blows of the Stalinist and French
republican repression, Dyelo Truda' s work of clarifcation and liaison was
fnished in Europe. Aer a few months delay, the review re-emerged, this tme
in Chicago in the USA Arshinov continued to contibute to its columns, albeit
ftlly. Al of a sudden, there came a bombshell: he brought out a pamphlet
where, referring to the Lnin of The State and Revolution, he conceded te
necessit of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the only way out of the
movement's historical and teoretcal impasse. In the wake of the Spanish revo
lutonary upheaval in 1931, he envisaged only one option for the Spanish anar
chists: the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat or evolution in te
direction of reformism and opportunism. Tat starting analysis was matched
140 FACING THE ENE MY
by an even more dismaying piece of advice: that contact should be established
with the embassy of the USSR and with communist parties around the wo
r
ld!
Tat backsliding, though, was counterbalanced by some virulent artcles
against Bolshevism and against Stalin which came out at te same tme. How
can we explain away tis glarng paradox? Te testmony of Nikola Thorbadiieff,
close fend of Mahno and Arshinov, wit whom he shared lodgings in Vincennes
for several years, frnishes us with the only logical solution. Following his de
portation, which had been put back for a time, thanks to lobbying fom several
French VPs, Arshinov found himself in dire materi
a
l and personal staits wth
his wife who was weary of life in exle. Disheartened by the continual contro
versies and depressing vista of the anarchist movement, Arshinov had con
tacted Sergo Ordzhonikidze, who was at that time close to Stain, and whom
Arshinov had known 20 years before when they were cellmates in prison.
Ordzhonikidze had undertaken to help him get back to his homeland, but natu
rally tere were specifc conditions upon that: he would have to abjure all his
critcisms of Bolshevism and sever all ties wit the anarchist movement. Tis
is what Arshinov had made up his mind to do, not wthout some headaches, for
he found it hard to turn his back on all his activities, not just the twent-fve
years as a militant anarchist, but also the fve years of constructve endeavors
through Dyelo Truda. Also, in the two pamphlets he issued acknowledging the
existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat and a "workers'" state in the
USSR, there was no self-criticism of his activities, merely a detailed audit of the
negative picture of anarchism in various countries around the wo
r
ld, to the
extent tat in nearly 50 pages of text there were only three or four genuinely
politically compromising phrases, like that recommendation to make contact
with the Soviet embassy and defend the workers' state against the rising dan
ger fom the worldwide reaction. Before he retrned to the USSR in 1933, Nikola
Tchorbadiieff put to him this queston: "Have you become a Bolshevik?, " to
which Arshinov replied: "Do you think I could?" and explained away his return
in terms of the lack of prospects for militant activit in France and Europe,
whereas in the USSR he was ready to join even the Communist Party in order
to be able to carry on working on anachism's behalf. 12
Tus, it had more to do with an act of personal despair than any real politi
cal conversion. In any event, Arshinov was to be shot in Moscow in 1937 on
charges of having sought "to rebuild anarchism in Soviet Russia. " As a result, it
would appear that he had put his clandestine action plan into effect, which we
regard as rather in keeping wt his fanatical working class anarchism, his
militancy and his strong personal determination, qualities tat he had previ
ously demonstrated time and time again.
Wat a gi to the opponents of te Platorm! By his actions, teir worst
enemy was confrming their accusatons beyond anying tey could have hoped
for. And tey made a real meal of the fact. It was Ma N ettlauwho perhaps went
the frthest. Athough he had never met him personally, Netau coolly asserted
that Arshinov had never been an anarchist: he allegedly had clung to his Bol
shevik beliefs since 1904 and had been attracted to anarchism only on account
X V I . T H E C O N T R OV E R S Y A B O U T T H E P L A T F O R M 1 4 1
of its radical and terrorist aspects. For one reason or another, he was supposed
to have forgoten to return to the fold in IUI1, but he was now putting that
omission straight and Nettlau wished him "bon voyage, " while wishing good
riddance to this obstacle to going around in circles.
1 :1
As we see it, this was jumping the gun a little, for, although he had indeed
been offcial spokesman for the Platarm, Arshinov was not the sole author of it
and so a cause-and-effect relationship needed to be established between that
text -whose underlying theme was a relentless condemnation of Bolshevism
-and his return to the USSR. In fact, there is something that should be kept in
mind all the time if one truly wants to understand the Dyelo Truda approach:
the fact that fom IU0bto IUI, for more than Ibyears, Makhno and Arshinov
had been operating inside the anarchist movement, frst by means of direct
action, then in prison and fnally in the revolution and that extraordinar y Ukrai
nian insurgent movement known as the Makhnovist movement. So it was the
lessons and insights of all their militant and fghting activity that they had set
down on paper in the Platorm. If one wanted to reject that document, then one
also had to throw out "the baby with the bathwater," that is, repudiate what
was, along with Spain in IUJbIUJU, the most radical revolutionary experiment
of the century. On those grounds we regard all the nit-pickng of the Platarm' s
critics as out of place and above all inconsequential: calling its authors to "ac
count," overemphasizing the merest hints and doggedly sniffng out the "evil"
-the celebrated Bolshevization of anarchism -fom between the lines of a
text as limpid as any rock pool. P attitude that does not look beyond a relative
or absolute "negativism, " the crippling bane of a certain anarchist tradition.
What then was so extraordinary about this famous Platarm? In order to
banish the continual confusion and dispersion of anarchist ideas and anarchist
efforts, it argued for the elabo
ration of : oh^r-n!!!cur JudrcsuLiwl1:
sion in action: that necessarily involved the devising of a libertarian communist
program and a consistent policy line. All of that should have been a collective
undertaking and not the handiwork of a few recognized leaders or chiefs. In
ac,|amounted to a reversion to the Bakuninist traditions of the Aliance and
the Brotherhoods, illuminated by the frst hand militant historical experiences
of the document's authors. Wo could challenge that? Always the same old fg
ures, the usual ditherers, the incorrigible blatherers, all those who in the end
had someting to lose, be it their pet vanit, or ultimately coz positon in
established societ. Tat said, the loudest opposition came fom the Russian
emigre communit -which had nothing in common with the Makhnovist Ukrai
nian peasantry -and a handfl of anarchist elders. Here the Marx syndrome
which had done such damage before IU11, was replaced to advantage by the
obsession with Lnin and his monolithic part, so much so that te mere men
tion of "party" was like mentioning the rope in the home of a hanging victim!
Perhaps Ashinov, Makhno and their colleagues ought t have been more cir
cumspect, used euphemisms, scattered question marks all around and "walked
on eggshells" when, like "good Cossacks" they had in fact become obsteper
ous and given the harebrained dreamers of anarchy a taste of the saber!
l +2 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
Ashinov's defection did not stop Makhno trying to spread the keynote ideas
of the Platarm. He made a ringing appeal to the congress of the Revolutionary
Anarchist Communist Union (UACR) in Paris in 1930. 1 4 To no avail: the
platormists found themselves in a minority of seven groups to fourteen. It is
true that Arshinov had found tem prone to a centralist deviation, a sort of literal
application of organizaton
a
l principles wthout regard for their spirit. Al the
same, it was not untl 1934 that a "sacred union" was estblished wthin the Anar
chist Union (te adjectves "communisf' and "revolutonary" having been dropped
in the interim) in view of an increasingly worrying international sitation and
the atempted coup de force by the far right in France on February 6, 1934. At
that point, a homogeneous platormist tendency was set up under the name of
the lbertarian Communist Federation (FCL) . Lter, the Popular Front and de
velopments in Spain were to polarize atention and efforts in such a way that
practical unity would override theoretical dissensions.
Endnotes to Chapter Siteen
1. I Libertaire, Nos. 103, (March 25, 1927) 106, 107 and 112 (May 27, 1927) .
2. See my book, Nestor Makhno, Ie cosaque de l'anarchie, pp. 323-326 and Nestor Mahno, L
lutte contre ['etat, op. cit. , pp. 136143.
3. Le Libertaire, No. 133, (October 21, 1927) .
4. Golos Truda (oice of Lbor) , (November 1, 1928) .
5. According to the account by Ugo Fedeli in Volonta No. 6-7, Gauary 15, 1949) .
6. S. Faure, Les anarchites, qui nous sommes, ce que nous voulons, notre revolution, (Paris 1925?) ,
p. 15.
7. See "L synthese anarchists" in Le Trait d'union libertaire the AFA bulletin, No. 3, (March 15,
1928) . For an examination of the synthesist press of the time and of the discussion of the Plat
form in Le Libertaire, see the master's thesis by Elisabeth Burello, Le probleme de ['organization
dans Ie mouvement anarchits de l'entre-eux-guerres (1926-1930): Le debat sur la Plate-orme
Paris, Center d'histoire du Syndicalisme, (1972: tpescript 155 pages.
8. Errco Malatesta, Anarchie et organization (paris, 1927) , reprinted several tmes since ten,
and see especially E. Malatesta, Articles politiques, (Pars, October 18, 1979) , which also contains
the correspondence wt Makhno, exceptng the second letter, which appeared in Le Libertaire
No. 269, (August 16, 1930) .
9. I Libertaire, No. 252, (April 1, 1930) .
10. P Besnard, L responsabilite L brochure mensuelle, (September 1933) and in L'encyclopMie
anarchiste edited by S. Faure.
11. Dyelo Truda, No. 48-49, 1929.
12. P Ashinov, Anarchism and Dictatorhip ofthe Proletarat (in Russian) , (October 1931) , 16 pages
and Anarchism and Our Times (in Russian) , Ganuary 1933) , 30 pages. See Nikola Tchorbadiieff's
testimony in the video f we made with Marie Chever: Nestor Makhno raconte par son ami
Nikola (Paris, 1987) , 36 ff.
13. Max Nettlau, "From the 'Platorm' to 'close contact' wt the proletarian state in the USSR" (in
Russian) , in Notes on the Htory ofAnarchit Ideas (Detroit, US, 1951) , pp. 37(379.
14. Reproduced by Jean Maitron in Le mouvement social, No. 83, (1973) , pp. 62-64. As for te
review Dyelo Truda it was to continue publicaton for nearly another 30 years in the United States.
X V I . T H E C O N T R O V E R S Y A B O U T T H E P L A T F O R M 1 43
XVI I . THE CNT- FAI I N S PAI N I N 1 9 3 6- 1 9 3 9
I France was the homeland of anarchy, Spain was its "promised land"
even in the days of Bakunin it had been held up as an example to be followed.
Libertarian collectivism had been around there for decades of indefatigable ac
tivity. Te National Confederation of Lbor (CNn, an openly anarchist tade
union, founded on November 1, 1910, and modeled on the French libertaian
CGT had had designs on hegemony: in 1919, it had given all Spanish workers
three monts to affliate to it, on pain of being declared traitors and suffering the
consequences. Having reteated a lite while later fom that overbearing pos
ture, it had nonetheless attracted increasingly overwhelming masses of work
ers: by 1936, their number was reckoned at around two million. As for the Ibe
rian Anarchist Federation (FAI) , it had come into existence in July 1927, on the
initiative of groups living as refgees in France. Forced underground untl 1931,
i t operated as a specifc organization watching over the CNT's doctrinal ortho
doxy. Relying upon grassroots af fnity groups, it bore a closer resemblance to a
conspiratorial organization along the lines of Bakunin's Alliance than to the Gen
eral Union of Anarchists advocated in the Platorm. It was only latPf ann espe
cially during the years 1937-1939 that dual CNT-FA membership was made
vrtually oblgatory upon militants. Here we may cite the incident tat befell
Pierre Besnad, the French anarcho-syndicaist leader. Invted to an internatonal
anarchist congress in Barcelona in 1937, he found himsel asked whether he
was in fact a member of te French Anarchist Federation (F A) -set up in 1936
but in competton wth the Anarchist Union (UA) -before he could take part in
te congress witout creating "diffculties with certain anarchist comrades."1
Unable and refsing to fll that condition, he declined to attend the congress.
I the Platarm project was of interest to anyone, ten i was the Spanish
movement: alof the issues spelled out or broached in writng in Dyelo Truda
lay at the heart of te preoccupations which exercised te Spanish comrades.
In late 1927 or early 1928, a Spanish translation of the Platarm was issued in
pamphlet form by the Prma group fom Beziers. Tat tanslation was based
on te French tex, tat is, retained the terminology and passages queried by
Delo Trud. We learned of tis text fom Frank Mintz and he has indicated
that anoter partal translation appeared, along with unfavorable commentary,
in L Protesta in Buenos Aires. 2 He adds that:
144 FACING THE ENEMY
the partcular circumstances of the Iberian movement made discus
sion very diffcult, if not nonexistent, In exile, following the involve
ment of certain anarchists in a coup de main alongside some Catanists
on the Spanish border in 1926, ten the mobilizaton on behaf of Sacco
and Vanzetti, and the campaign to release Ascaso and Durruti, not to
mention actiities on behalf of Spain itself, one fnds no hints of a de
bate on the Platorm.
However, at the request of several regional committees in Spain, it had
found its way on to the agenda of the foundation conference of the FA. As a
Spanish translaton was not yet available, it could not be debated and te mat
ter was put back untl the follow-up meeting. Te testimony of an FA member
bears out this impression of ignorance:
Te Platorm had litle impact on te movement, in exile or in the inte
rior. Advocates, very few. You know how we were all "radicalized" at
that time and how reserved we were about any amendment or revision.
Te Platorm was an atempted overhaul designed to invest the interna
tional anarchist movement with coherence, breadth and a realistic out
look, in te light of the experiences of the Russian revolution and, above
all, of the Ukraine. Today, in te wae of our ow experiences, it seems
to me tat that attempt did not receive its proper appreciation.4
Several Spaniards had, as we have seen, partcipated in the discussion meet
ings organized by Dyelo Truda. In 1927, as tey emerged fom French jails, Acaso
and Durruti had had lengthy talks wth Nestor Makno about his experiences in
the Ukraine. Te exiled Makhno had passed on the lessons he had derived fom
all his activt, and he had probably spelled out the sense and contents of the
Platorm. Aso, he was to keep abreast of te situation inside Spain, and in 1931
there was even a possibility of his going off to lead a guerrilla campaign in the
nort of te country. Athough know in broad outline, it would thus appear tat
the Platorm had not been read and above all not been debated. Here we should
te account of another factor: a certain "isolationism" in te Spaniards. In view
of teir long lineage, and teir ow weath of experience, they must have felt
disinclined to take "lessons" fom outsiders, and tey displayed great confdence
in their own capabilities, not to say a superiority complex vs a vs the interna
tional workers' movement tat had caved in so pitiflly in 1914.
To complete this cursory survey of the possible infuence of te Platorm
over te Spanish libertarian movement, let us quote fom Cesar M. Lorenzo,
author of a standard reference volume on the period: he writes that Los
Solidaros, a famous group of actvsts like Durruti, Ascaso, Garcia Oliver, J over,
Vivancos and oters "merely noted tat te Platorm squared wit teir ow
views."5 We have our reservatons for, tanks to an input of Garcia Oliver, we
can see how these comrades deviated somewhat fom te noton of te role
ascribed to the anarchists' specifc organization, inclining instead towards a
tyically vanguardist strategy; they openly advocated its designs:
X V I I . T H E C N T- F A I I N S P A I N I N | J ~ | J 1 45
upon the seizure of political, administrative and economic power, with
the aid of its own trade unions once the old state with organizing pro
duction and distribution in the new libertarian society, would there
fore be an insurgent non-statist power of the trade union type, operat
ing fom the periphery towards the center and comprising of a range
of federated revolutionary commitees, in a sort of democratic "dicta
torship of the proletariat, " silencing the forces of the right, the former
proprietors, the Church, etc. As a transitional authorit guaranteeing
revolutionary order, it would not imply a dictatorship in the ordinary
sense of the word: guided by libertarian ideology (and not by Marx
ism, a dogmatic teaching devoid of humanistic content) it would el
evate popular libert, the initiative of te masses, and would invite oter
lefist organizations to cooperate in its work of regeneration. 0
But how was this "seizure of power" to be accomplished? Not by means of
the specic organization or even the trade union organization, but rather by a
"revolutionary army, " a "centralized trade union militia, endowed with a re
spected national command. "
Tus, the divergences fom the Platorm were great, and the role that the
latter ascribed to the specifc organization was purely political with regard to
the proletariat's grassroots agencies, while this "revolutionary army" supplanted
it entirely. It was, to paraphrase Charles Rappoport's defnition of Leninism,
"Blanquism in Catalan sauce! " But it was this that was strictly put into effect in
July 1936, as we shall see.
Meanwhile, Los Solidaros were to be labeled as "anarcho-Bolsheviks" by
their adversaries inside the CNT Not tat that stopped them fom taking a
crucial hani in the June 1931 congress of the CNT in the elimination of the
Marxists, Freemasons and reformists fom te leadership bodies of the CNT
then afliatng to te FA and helping shape its outlook. Tey were to call for
"unfagging class warfare, a tough line on te Communist Part and reform
ism, Social Democratic or libertarian alike. " Aong the supporters of the lat
ter, we might mention te ''irty'' (reinta) , headed by Peir6, who sought to
take a more constructive line, but were labeled as "reformists. " According to
tem, the libertarian ideal:
1 46
retained its fndamental vaidit but certain prejudices and wong-headed
tactics which had been eulogized up until then had to be jetsoned. In
particular intellectals and technicians had to be attacted, production
and consumer cooperatives created, their revenues being used on pro
paganda, te taining of educated militants and the constuction of work
ers' cultral centers. A solid and disciplined organization also had to be
founded and the ignorance and fanaticism of the bulk of anarchist mili
tants tacked: he deplored their ignorance of Marxism and of anarchism
itself, which was, above all else, tolerance, anti-dogmatism and nobility,
and whose premier interest lay in morals and philosophy.7
F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876)
Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921)
Louise Michel (1835-1905)
ILLUSTRATIONS
James Guillaume (1844-1916)
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865)
Elisee Reclus (1830-1905)
147
148
Militants fom L Gue"e Sociale
(hoto fom the archives of Emile Pataud)
Peter Kropotkin
at the trial of
the anarchists
of Lyon,
January 1883
FACING THE ENEMY
Te offce of Endehors newpaper. Engraving published Bmustration, No. 659,
(February 10, 1894) . Clockse fom lef: Tabarat, Zo d'Aa, A Hamon, Jean
Grave, Bernard Lare, Octave Mirbeau, Mata (?) , Maato.
1" ' '
L
OUHHlbH 8GlAt UU APUlUNB AB|N8NW88
=-
mmKDL
1'.'lht. ~ , W 4ll - r
MlE0
; . , ... .. . . . . , . . , . .

esmam w
" "
R M R
=
`t ~=

.
t w mm
om.=.\
( ~-
WPM
e
;
;MI,i,,,
P M
1 a |_ ~ :.t
B 8 _

.,
..I
`

. .. d "_., .! -
t mm+
M 9 MW
! ut!n'm Wi-e-. > | .+,
_ \I,4IW"I ." f' Id, ;. h ' il" ._
. . ".
I L L U S T R AT I O N S
Te newspaper,
L Dynamite, edited
by Rvachol, did not hide
its program: "Dynaite
is te language of
French. "
1 49
Pierre Rmus (1882-1942)
Fernand Pelloutier (1867-1901)
150 FACING THE ENEMY
sebastien Faure (1858-1942)
ILLUSTRATIONS
Drawing of Emile Pouget by A
Delannoy published in
Men o/the Moment, No. 27
(no date)
Drawing of Emile Pataud
by A Delannoy published in
te Men a/the Moment, No. 67,
(May 1, 1909)
151
152
BOUCHDON
Book cover for Ravachol
French songsheet cover
celebratng the bomb
which Vailliant threw into the
Chamber of Deputies.
and Company
(lllustration by Renouard)
FACING THE ENEMY
Nestor Makhno and Aexander Berkman, Paris, around 1927
Ernest Armand (1872-1962)
ILLUSTRATIONS
Aexander Berkman and Rudol
Rocker, Paris, France, in 1920s
153
Gaston Lva (1895-1978)
Mollie Steimer (1897-1980)
154
Daniel Guerin (1904-1988)
Senya Feshin (1894-1981)
Senya Fleshin,
Voline,and
Mollie Steimer
FACING THE ENEMY
Te vast majority of the CNTs anarchists were somewhere between these
two competing tendencies. However, it is to the activist tendency tat we have
to chalk up the uprisings of 1932 and the ensuing years, which culminated in
te Astrias Commune (in concert with the UGT and te socialists) , all of tem
ruthlessly and bloodily repressed by the authorities, right-wng and lef-wing
alike. In fact. let us note the libertarians' decisive involvement in the Spanish
legislative electons: in 1931, castng teir votes for the lef, they brought down
te monarchy; in 1933, disappointed wt the lef in power, tey tpped te scaes
in te other direction and, by abstaining, smooted the way for the right; fnally,
spoiling for a fght, in order to secure an amnesty for 30,000 political prisoners
(arrested aer the uprisings) they cast their votes to bring te Popular Front
success in February 1936. And, to cap all those uprisings in which tey had
been engaging for years past, on July 19, 1936, they found themselves faced
with a rising by rebel Nationaists! -and were obliged to stand by "republican
legalit"! Driven by their heady ardor and madcap heroics, they outdid them
selves by securing victory in Barcelona and Catalonia, where they assumed
fll contol. Elsewhere in the county, te outcome was less clear cut. and a
good hal of the country fell to Franco and his Moorish troops. Even so, the
anti-fascists and the CNT held te wealtier half of te county. Tat was when
their problems started and teir teoretcal defciencies became fagranty ob
vous: how were they going to set about assuming effective power without es
tablishing a state, in the "bourgeois" sense of the word, tat is, what were they
to put in place of the government, its ministers, its civil service, the police, the
army and al the other accoutrements of the state? Hitherto, it had been merely
a question of intoducing a libertarian communist republic, of replacing "gov
ernment of men by administration of things," establishing a fee federation of
communes, with te producers and consumers getting themselves organized
wth one anoter, and now they had to tackle, in addition, the defense of the
revoluton, without alienating potential allies such as the socialists, Catalan re
publicans and POUMists (dissident communists) prevously their bitterest foes
- and also without infuencing, i n an internatonal context, the British and
French "democracies. " In short, every one of the pressing and essential points
that te recent CNT congress in Zaragosa on May 1-10, 1936, had been carefl
to side-step, preoccupied as it had been wit defning te "confederal concep
ton of libertarian communism." Ascaso and Garcia Oliver had tried to suggest
to that congress that confederal militias be established which would be capable
of breaing any army revolt, only to hear Cipriano Mera taunt tem: "Maybe
comrades Ascaso and Gacia Oliver could let us know what color of genera's
braid tey would like?"8
By a twist of fate, it was Mera himself who was to wind up as a real genera,
as commader of te Fourt Amy Corps, and he was to brook no depature
fom discipline nor fom respect for rak. Te former members of the Los
Solidaros group, now banded togeter as Nosotros, had intended to lay te
foundations of an insurgent army by unifing te CNT-FA defense commit
tees which had been around since 1931 but which had no coordinating agency
X V I I . T H E C N T- F A I I N S P A I N I N 1 9 3 6 - 1 9 3 9 1 5 5
or command. Tat point, with which the Platorm and Nestor Makhno had dealt
ought to have been under consideration by the ordinary membership for some
years.
As soon as its victory in battle had been secured, the CNT in Barcelona
came together in plenary assembly on July 20 and 21, 1936, and came up wit a
halfay house solution: the regional government or Generalitat, was retained
as a shop window for diplomatic purposes, while a real revolutionary authority
was established in the shape of a Cental Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias.
Comprising, to begin with, feen members drawn equally fom the three pre
dominant lefist factions: the CNT-FA, the Marxists (te Stalinists of the PSUC
were lumped against their wishes with the POUM) and the Catalan republi
cans. Te Cental Committee soon subdivded into several committees and
commissions, with responsibility for: provisions, education, investigation (se
curity) , and justice, and there was an Economic Council which played a fnda
mental role in production and administatve organizaton. Contol patols moni
tored public order, and these were made up of 700 men (325 of them anar
chists) , run by an eleven-member (four of them anarchists) central committee.
All the key positions in these committees were held by anarchists. Garcia Oliver
was the "soul and indefatigable driving force" of the Central Militas Commit
tee, and appeared as "the very essence of the unchallenged revolutionary
leader"; in fact he carried out what he had been preaching along with Ls
Solidaros ten years earlier.
Te Central Militas Committee was a face-saver for al of the member
organizations of te antifascist camp, while it cemented their unity. Tat said,
each organization also had its own armed groups, its columns serving on the
font and even its own police and prison. Troughout Catalonia, revolutionary
commitees organized along roughly te same lines took their disticts and
their economic and social lives in hand.
Prompted however by urgent concerns, such as the procurement of arms
fom the national government in Madrid as well as fom abroad, te CNT lead
ership called tese revolutonary structures into question and sided wit a clas
sical government, frst in Catalonia and ten in Madrid.
Wat aternative was there and how was it posed? Te answer to tat ques
ton is crucial, for collaboration wth the "bourgeois" government was to be
come the Achilles heel of the Spanish libertarian movement. It was
a
ll thrashed
out at a plenum of local and comarcal federations of the libertarian movement
in Catalonia at te end of August 1936. Unconventionally, that plenum which
was atended by all responsible militants not away at the font, met in camera.
Remember tat the founding of the Cental Militas Committee was already a
tespass against the doctrine that called for immediate implementation of liber
tan communism, but it was a lesser evil for the anarchists were masters of
te sitation. Yet te grassroots organs of the CNT-FA had yet to have their
say. Now, aer protacted discussions, it was Garcia Oliver who formulated the
choice facing tem: "Either we collaborate, or we impose a dictatorship. " His-
1 5 6 F A C I NG THE ENEMY
torian Cesar Lorenzo, reporting tis episode, comments with the asserton tat
"in fact, tere was no question of a reversion to the old apolitcal taditon and
the 'a-cratic' ideas that had been completely overwhelmed and overtaen by
events, but which certain folk doggedly championed against Hell and high
water. "9 Tat latter comment indicates that some found te "medicine" hard to
swallow. All the same, it had to be done, and they could not glibly walk away
fom what had been the raison d'etre and motivating force of several genera
tions of militants. Nor was the alternative mentioned by Garcia Oliver very
precise either: how could the label "dictatorship" be hung on power assumed
by anarchists -who were in a position of hegemony at that point -wth te
complaisance of virtualy the entire working population? Plainly, tat was a mis
applicaton of the term. Nevertheless, Garcia Oliver, with te backing of his old
colleagues fom Los Solidarios and Nosotros, was in favor of the CNTs tking
power, with "all of the risks and dangers that that implied. " He "hoped to see
te political parties ousted, te UGT (the socialist tade union) humbled, te
Generalitat abolished and te Cental Committee of Militias, afer a reshuffe,
strengthened in its remit, emerging as te supreme authorit. " Consequenty,
it would have been something beteen te Commitee of Public Saet, in te
tradition of Bakunin the insurgent, and te Bolshevik Soviet of People's Com
missars of October 1917. Take your pick. Most of the CNT leaders opted for
collaboration, tat is, partcipation in the autonomous Catalan government.
Diego Abad de Santllan, the main advocate of that opton, was to explain later
that his main consideration had been to procure ams, hard currency and raw
materials for industry and, in order to do tat, they had to wtdraw teir "back
ing for people' s power. "
Tis decision to participate in te Generalitat government was rated by
the regional congress of CNT unions on September 24-26, 1936, in te pres
ence of 505 delegates representng 327 unions, in te course of a closed "se
cret" sitting. On September 27th the "news burst like a bombshell" (Lorenzo) .
Te one difference was that hencefort the Catalan government would be
termed the "Generalitat Council." Tere were three CNT "councilors" on it.
N ow that tey had bitten the bulet, it only remained to do likewse in oter
regions of the country and indeed, at national level. Wit the notable excepton
of Aragon, which was in the fring line. Zaragoza, a stonghold of anarcho-syn
dicalism, had been lost to te enemy through te fault of a CNT leader, Abos,
who had chosen to place his tust in te civil governor, Vera Coronel, and te
military governor General Cabanellas, on the basis tat tey were fellow-ma
sons of his, and he had managed to "sell" the lies of his "lodge"IO fends to te
majorit of his comrades. Te upshot was a disaster: handed over, unarmed, to
the rebels' repression, somewhere beteen 15,000 and 30,000 revolutonaries
paid wit their lives for the nonchalance ad ingenuousness of a few "offcials. "
In response, the Aragonese anarchists became more radica and unbending.
Tey had no hesitaton in forming a Council of Aragon, made up exclusively of
anarchists, with Joaquin Ascaso, Francisco Ascaso's younger broter, as its
president. What the Catalan anarchists had not dared do was done by the
X V I I . T H E C N T- F A I I N S PA I N I N 1 9 3 6 - 1 9 3 9 1 5 7
Aragonese. However, these would later be obliged to pass through the Caudine
Forks* of the central state and adulterate their actions.
Aer the September 15, 1936, national Plenum, the CNT requested the
establishment of a National Defense Council, comprising fve CNT delegates,
fve VCT delegates and four republicans. Tis was a logical follow-up to the
policy of anti-fascist unity that had been adopted and it took into account the
true balance of economic and social forces, on a federalist basis comparatively
consonant with anarchist principles, for the state was no longer made up of
ministies, army, police and offcers: everything had had its name changed and
now they were "departments, war militias and popular militias and military
technicias. " Te CNTs general secretary, Horacio M. Prieto, doggedly op
posed this scheme because of its "uter lack of realism, given the foreign pow
ers and the internatonal aspect to the war" He managed to talk the national
Plenum of the regional federations on October 18th into open and direct col
laboraton with the government as it stood. Te organizational corollary to that
reformist option was a strengthening of the powers of the CNT national com
mittee which, "ceasing to be appointed by the local federation of its place of
residence, was thereaer made up of permanent delegates fom the regional
federations and by a larger number of specialist administative members. " Cesar
Lorenzo, who is, by the way, the son of Horacio M. Prieto, notes that "the CNT
was thereafer equipped with a central, complex and effective agency feed
fom pressures fom local militants. " Indeed, a royal road was opened up for
te bureaucratizaton of the CNT.
Lke the fog who jumped into the water to escape fom the rain, the CNT
F A leaders, or at least most of tem, were afaid to make the revolution, argu
ing that thty were more concerned "ith winning the war frst, and moved fom
reteat to evasion, fom compromise to capitulaton. Te slippery slope came
to its ineitable end: dissoluton of te Barcelona-based Central Militias Com
mitee, militarizaton of te militas, growing Stali ni st infuence, elimination of
te POVM, dissolution of te Council of Aragon , destruction of the collectives,
te May Events of 1937 in Barcelona (when the CNT leadership robbed the
insurgents of teir vctory over the Stalinist provocateurs) .
Te CNT-FAI's stuctres mirrored and followed tis politic
a
l reteat: the
National Defense Committee lost its autonomy to wind up as merely the mili
tary brach of the Confederation's natonal committee. On April 2, 1938, a re
gional assembly of the CNT, the F and the FUL (Iberian Federation of Lber
taran Youth) was held in Barcelona. Garcia Oliver was critical of the disorder
and lack of discipline obtaining witin the movement and proposed te estab
lishment of an Executive Committee which "would wield fll authorit, over
seeing and directing everying: the press, the confederation's toops, the
* Two mountain passes in soutern Italy in the Apennines between Benevento ad Capua
trough which Spanish refugees taveled.
1 5 8 F A C I NG THE ENEMY
economy. " Tis was unanimously endorsed. Tat Executive Commitee of the
Libertarian Movement of Cat
a
lonia, made up of just ten members, was "en
titled to expel individuals, committees, unions and federatons which refsed
to abide by its decisions. Its executive powers applied to font and rear ake. It
intended to press on relentlessly wit militarization, to step up producton by
al means and to facilitate the entry of the CNT into the centa government,
te Generalitat and every one of the administratve ramifcatons of the state.
To assist it in its fnctions, the Commitee appointed a military commission
and a politcal commission. "ll Tis was out and out Bolshevism, or te word
has no meaning. Tis was a heresy that the CNT national committee could not
countenance. Although himself a "great bureaucratizer," Horacio M. Preto let
it be known that te Cataan regional committee alone counted for nothing and
this Executive Committee, which had the endorsement of no congress, could
not have any independent existence of its own. In the light of that opposition,
the plan was in fact withdrawn.
In August 1938, Horacio Prieto published a series of articles making pub
lic certain ideas of his which had been peddled a year before to a narrower
circle. According to him:
Libertarian communism could not be aing oter than a distant ob
jective, an aspiration, and anarchism a moral code and a philosophy. In
order to arrive at that communism, a lengthy period of transiton was
necessary, during which libertarian achievements were possible,
though not in any systematic way. We had to display opportunism,
suppleness and have no hesitation about participatng in government,
in all high offces of state and even in Parliament wit the intention of
taking power. We had to engage permanently in politics rather tan
circumsttaly as hitherto: revolutonary apolitcism was a dead duck. 12
Te die was cast and libertarian communism postoned until the kaends*,
i not relegated to the museum of antiquities and utopia. Apparenty, the F A was
to turn itself into an electioneering political party and see to it that the CNs
interests were represented. Lter on, Prieto was to dub this "possibilism, " reach
ing across te Prenees and the decades to link hands with Paul Brousse's policy.
However, he failed to carry with him the majorit of the nationa plenum of re
gional federations of the Lbertarian Movement, held in Barcelona on October
630, 1938: it had been summoned to consider this scheme and determine the
strategy to be adopted. We might also note the existence of the Auxiliary Policy
Committees (CAs) , bodies launched in June and July of 1937, whose mission it
was to brief "militants on almatters tat overspiled te sticty tade union fame
work and advise them on as to the best way to operate politically"13 (our empha
sis) . Made up of the best known militants, tese CAs became the "re
a
l leader
ship organs of the CNT' (Lorenzo) . As we can see, the CNTs federalism was
*
Te frst day of the ancient Roman month fom which days were counted backward to the
ides.
XVII. THE CNT- F AI IN S P AIN IN 1 9 3 6 - 1 9 3 9 1 59
only a smoke-screen and there was a real Jacobin-style democratic centralism
that increasingly prevailed in its organizational practice.
Te "offcers" decided everyhing and did so alone. Once the mistake that
had given rise to all the rest, the entry into the Generalitat government, had
been made, complications had eaten away at doctine, good intentions ad revo
lutionary determination. Defeat had become inescapable, because it already
had a foothold inside te revolutionary camp. Yet again, the lessons of previ
ous experence were not heeded: the most radical revolutionaries -the anar
chists or teir like -stand alone against everybody and it is only by fghting
against all sides a once, that is, by carrying out the most comprehensive social
revolution, that victory is made possible. Stopping in midstream amounts to
digging one's own grave, as was said long ago by Saint-Just.
Needless to say this appetite for "politicking" was not appreciated by all of
the CNT-FAI's members and militants. Tere were te Friends of Durruti Group
(denounced as "provocateurs" by the CNT leadership) , and the Iron Column
(prevented by the regional committee in Valencia fom giving the St
a
linists
what they had coming to them) which resisted militarization for a long time.
When, beset fom all sides, it was forced to give in on March 1937, only 3000 to
4000 out of its roughly 20,000 men stayed behind "all the rest having chosen to
desert rather tan become soldier-robots. " Te same was true of other col
umns too, but not on the same scale. 1 4
Be tat as it may, it has to be placed on record that the vast majorit of
grassroots militants passively countenanced the zigzag tactcs of their leaders.
How are we to account for tat? First, there was the need to attend to the most
pressing business, namely, the war against fascism and the defense of a mini
mum of the revolution's gains, in addition to undue confdence in their leaders.
Such charisma that dulls the critical facultes is the enemy of the revolutonary.
Banin said as much, and once again we see the results of it. Among the
leadership, tose who had teir misgivings -like Durruti -opted to go off
ad fght instead of bandying words. We wll never be able to gauge the mea
sure of te loss suffered in the death of Francisco Ascaso, who was a perfect
pater to Buenaventra Durrut. Had Ascaso survived July 19, 1936, te like
lihood is that trough his daring, his recklessness and his ingenuit he might
have changed te face of the military situation, by, say, quickly taing Zaragoza.
Durruti's deat was a catastrophe, militarily as well as politically. As Abel Paz
has wten, he was klled a second tme when he was credited with a con
cocted phrase tat could be turned to anyone's service: "Renounce everything,
save vctory! " We might quote te episode, related by Paz, of te Bank of Spain's
gold: Pierre Besnard had insistently cautioned against a repetition of the error
made by the Pars Communards of 1871 who had not dared to mae use of the
gold in te Bank of France. Better still, te Frenchman had located a consor
tum of arms dealers who undertook to supply all te modern weaponry needed,
upon receipt of negotiable cash, of course. Durrut devised a plan to raid the
bak holding te gold in Madrid, with the 3000 men fom the anarchist Tierra
1 60 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
y Lbertad column, to ship it to Barcelona and then proceed with te dea. It
was Diego Abad de Santillan who carelessly leaked it to the CNT naonal com
mittee which, fightened by te tension that it would create beteen Madrid
and Barcelona, aborted the plan by publicly exposing it. Durrut gave Santllan
a real tongue-lashing but the game was up. Tat is the sort of thing tat can
determine the fate of a revolution: the lack of resolution ad above all lack of
daring of a handfl of "leaders. "
15
However, it was the rank and fle, the rabble, te people, the humble folk,
the dregs, whatever one prefers to c
a
ll the peasants and workers of Catalonia,
Lvante, Aragon, Andalusia, Castile and elsewhere, that saved anarchism's
honor by taking their fate into their own hads, by organizing fantastic collec
tives, when even those who had never heard tell of, or were hostle to libertar
ian communism, put it entusiastically into effect here and tere. According to
Gaston Leval, there were around 1600 collectves, more or less. Each one, like
each one of the little townships organized along communal lines, would de
serve a book to itsel, again according to Lva! (the son of a Pars Communard
who died in te USSR) . All these creative activities, tese ventures, te changes
to human relationships amounted to a "miraculous blossoming. " It is "flly cog
nizant of the meaning of words, without hyperbole, and wit no demagogic
intent that I say again: 'Never in the history of the world as we know it to date
was a comparable social undert
a
king ever carried out.' And in a few monts at
that, i not a few weeks or even a few days, depending upon the example.
"16
We
should correct the old propagandist (te CNT's delegate to te Profntern Con
gress in Moscow in 1921) by reminding ourselves of te similar achievements
of the Makhnovist insurgents in the Ukraine in 1917-1921. We might also give
a menton to the extraordinary militans fom the anarchist columns, who, in
sandals and overals, amed wit a few poor qualit res and aboard rashacke
tucks, set off to conquer a brave new world. Tere is no queston here of
lumping tese fghters and agents of social revolution wit the category of
leaders who "played at politcs. " While not seekng to diminish the responsibil
it of the latter, we should bear in mind te wdespread hostilit that greeted
the revolution of July 19, 1936, on the international stage, the ongoing arms
blockade enforced by te Western powers and Stain, and especially te shame
fl conduct of te French Popula Front government of Lon Blum, who "backed
down" in the face of Hitler and Mussolini by agreeing to nonintervention, when
the merest effort on his part would have guaranteed a rapid victory for te
republican camp in Spain. As for the French workers, they were reveling in
"holidays wit pay," the mess of potage bought with teir lack of solidarity, at
a time when -for want of arms -teir bretren across te Prenees were
being slaughtered.
Might a more daring policy on the anarchists' pat have changed that hos
tlit? Here let us quote fom Victor Aba, autor of a history of te POUM:
Had te CNT embarked upon the conquest of power in Catalonia -
and it could have taken it in under twent-four hours, had it so de-
X V I I . T H E C N T- F A I I N S PA I N I N 1 9 3 6 - 1 9 3 9 1 6 1
sired - the situaton would have changed in the remainder of the
republican zone. Political elimination of the communists might have
been bartered for British, Czech and French arms (by way of an an
swer to the Sovet arms blackmail) , or Moscow could have been forced
to choose between abandoning the Spanish revolution or helping it,
even if the communists were not in control of it, in exchange for te
political existence of the latter being preserved, albeit properly
monitored. 1 7
Nothing i s that certain, but it was worth a try. But let us not get into rewrit
ing history; let us derive this conclusion fom it: that every single instance of
alliance between anarchists and lefist or Stalino-Leninist politicians -like in
the Ukraine and in China in 1925-1930 -ended in political and physical defeat
for the anarchists. In any event, the defeat of 1939 signaled the long eclipse of
libertarian ideas, and it was only afer nigh on thirt years in the wilderness
that they were to explode back on to the scene in May 1968.
Despite their slight numbers, French anarchists did their best to help their
Spanish comrades. A Sebastien Faure centuria went off to fght alongside the
Durruti Column, a small quantit of provisions and arms (two truckloads each
week) were regularly dispatched across the Pyrenees, and an intensive propa
ganda campaign mounted on the Spanish revolution's behalf. A wholly libertar
ian Commitee for Free Spain was replaced, at the urging of Spanish comrades,
by a French section of International Anti-Fascist Solidarit (SIA) with compre
hensive support ranging fom lef-wing personalities and CGT unionists like
Jouhaux, Dumoulin and Rene Belin. Te SIA had up to 15,000 members, pub
lished a weekly paper, which had 5, 500 subscribers by February 1939 and or
ganized mass rallies. It was above al around this latter date. corresponci ng to
the end oi the Spanish Civil War, that solidarit was needed to overcome the
hostility of the French government and the apaty of a large faction of the
population. Of the 500,000 Spanish refgees, the anarchists were te most un
protected: republicas and socialists found it easier to secure asylum in Mexico
and South America. Dumped in horrifing conditions on the coast and in the
hinterland of Roussillon, they paid an additional penalt (160,000 deaths fom
disease, malnutition or cold) for their social revolution and general indiffer
ence. Aid fom French comrades ad a part of the local populace eased their
circumstances a little.
Te Hiter-Stalin Pact and te outbreak of hostilities in September 1939
once again exposed the organizational and practical failty of the anarchists.
Despite te publication in large numbers of pacifst appe
a
ls and tracts by Luis
Lecoin and Nicolas Faucier, who were prompty jailed, comrades were forced
to fend for themselves in order to "save their skns" in a confict that was none
of their doing. Some went into exile in Switzerland or elsewhere, as best tey
could; oters went underground with all of the attendant risks; Maurce J oyeux,
for all his resourceflness, was jailed yet again and by 1945, when he was tirt
fve years old, he had spent nearly ten years in military prisons.18 Oters, who
1 62 F A C I NG THE ENEMY
were conscripted, agreed to serve and perished in the fghting, like Fremont,
the secretary of the French Anarchist Union.
Caught in the crossfre, Spanish anarchists trew themselves into the fght
against the German occupier and his Vichy accomplices. Some of tem -like
Juan Peir6, te ideologue of the Tirty (reinta in 1931 -were handed over
to Franco and, having declined to compromise, were shot (as was Companys,
the erstwhile president of the Generalitat in Barcelona) . Some were deported
to German concentraton camps. Signifcant numbers of Spaish libertarans
joined the Maquis in the southwest and played a crucial part in te liberaton of
that region. Others, having fed to Nort Aica, joined General Lclerc's Sec
ond (Free French) Armored Division and entered Paris as liberators, aboard
tanks daubed with names like "Durruti" and "Ascaso. " Tey all had justied
expectations of being rewarded upon their return wit an opportnity to liber
ate teir native land next, but to no avail, for the reckonings of the western
Allies had determined otherwise.
Endnotes to Chapter Seventeen
1. Pierre Besnard's report as secretary of te IWA to the International Anarchist Congress,
Anarchosyndicalisme et anarchime, (undated) , 16 pages.
2. In its literary supplement of January 1927, plus te four succeeding issues.
3. Frank Mint's text, sent to the writer: ''e infuence of the Arshlnov Platorm on te
Spanish language libertarian movement," three typewritten pages.
4. Ibid.
5. Cesar M. Lorenzo, L anarchists espagnois et Ie pouvoir 1868-1969, (Paris: Le Seuil,
1969) , pp. 6061. Tis book has been depicted several times as te author's apologia for the
stance taken by his father, Horacio M. Prieto, an enthusiastc revisionist and advocate of
political collaboraton by the CNT As for ourselves, we regard it as a relentless arraignment
of tat same "collaboration," by dint of the detail and comprehensiveness of its information,
and especially the objectivit of the author.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid. , p, 6.
8. Ibid. , p. 94.
9. Ibid. , p. 121-125. All of the quotations and references below refer to this book.
10. Ibid. , p. 140-141.
11. Ibid. , p. 292-293.
12, Ibid. , p. 294.
13. Ibid. , p. 294-300.
14. Ibid. , p. 188. A column was made up of centuries, themselves divided into ten groups of
ten militians, who appointed their delegates, who, together, made up the column's War
Committee.
15. Abel Paz Durruti, Ie peuple en armes, (aris: L Tete de Feuilles, 1972) , pp. 384388.
16. Gaston Leval, L'anarchime et la revolution espagnole in Anarchici e anarchia nel mondo
contemporaneo, (urin: Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, 1971) , pp. 11123.
X VII. THE CNT- FAI IN S PAIN IN 1 9 3 6 - 1 9 3 9 1 6 3
17. Victor Alba, Histoire du POUM, (Paris: Champ Lbre, 1975) , pp. 266267. We ought to
point out that CNT-FA mistrust of the POUM could be justifed in terms of the intentions
and severe criticisms leveled against anarchism by the PO UM leader Joaquin Maurin, such
as: 'Te fnal elimination of anarchism is a .diffcult task in a country where the workers'
movement has been carrying a half-century of anarchist propaganda around wt it. But we
wll have them . . . . " in Joaquin Maurin, L'anarcho-syndicalisme en Espagne (Paris: Lbrairie
du travail, 1924) , p. 47, and "A anarchist who manages to see clearly, to stand up straight,
to lean, automatically ceases to be an anarchist, " in J. Maurin, Revolution et contre-revolution
en Espagne, Paris: Editions Rieder, 1937) , p. 124.
18. See M. Joyeux, Memoires d'un anarchists, Volume I (up to 1945) , (Editions du Monde
Lbertaire, 1986) , 442 pages.
164 FACING THE ENEMY
XVIII. THE OP B AND TH E F CL (LI BERTARIAN
COM MUNIST FEDERATION)
Te French anarchist movement was re-formed amid the euphoria of te
Lberation in 1945. An Anarchist Federaton was established under good aus
pices: it was a matter of "wiping the slate clean of te methods of acton fom
aother age, te filure of these being beyond dispute. " In spite of some hesita
tion, more rigorous organizatonal principles were adopted, leaving "far behind
tem m past errors in relation to libertarian organization." Aong te deci
sions made then, we might note the revival fom 1913, 1927 and te FCL (Lb
ertarian Communist Federation) of 1935, of the obligaton upon members to
possess membership cards and subscripton stamps, afer the practce of te
trade unions. Majority rule was formally intoduced into the operation of the
organization and its groups, as well as at congresses. Tree committees came
into exstence: a National Committee, the body for coordinatng groups and
members (it had a general secretary) : a Propaganda Committee, in charge of
bringing out the federation's newspaper: and a Yout Commitee, designed to
induct sympathizers and new recruits. Te Federaton had tree offcers: two
administators and one at the newspaper (Georges Brassens, not yet faous
as a singer, would be one) . Aongside it, a anarcho-syndicaist trade union
confederaton, te French CNT (CNTF) , was to be launched aong te lines of
te Spanish CNT (indeed, many, unot most, of te CNTF members were drawn
fom the Spanish CNT. Te two organizations would work hand-in-hand. Teir
newspapers had print runs in the tens of tousands: the weekly L Libertaire
printed an average of neary 50,000 copies (and one of its editons, coverng te
Renault stike in 1947, prnted 100,000) . However, both organizaons were to
shrink, drif apart and dwindle to tny cliques within just a few years. Lt us
look at the reasons for tis.
Te national and international context played a crucial part in it. Te heady
unanimit of the Resistance and the dream of a new Popular Front gave way to
open hostlites between socialists and communists: the stikes of the miners
and at Renault, which bordered on insurrection, were frmly defsed by te
French sociaists in power. Te "Prague Coup" during which te Sists seized
tot power witout a shot being fred, when, under te Yata agreements, tey
had only observer status in the county, opened the eyes of many to Stainist
designs. All of these events of necessit had a demobilizing effect and led, on te
XV I I I . T H E O P S A N D T H E F C L | 65
one hand, to a evaporation of goodwill, and, on the other, to a climate of great
tension, due to the risk of the "cold war" heating up.
However, to put things in their historical context, Stalinism was then "in
control and sure of itsel' inside te workers' movement. It was also in the
ascendant among intellectuals and made the running for its regiment of "fellow
tavelers," the most famous of whom was the Existentialist Jean-"Baptiste" (as
Celine dubbed him during one diatribe) Sartre, who saw nothing wrong with
covering up the facts about the totalitarian regime existing in the USSR, lest
tose facts "sow despair in Boulogne-Billancourt, (the site of the Rnault plant) ! "
True, the author of Te Flies was also keen to draw a veil over hi s dramatic
actvities under the Occupation when he staged his plays in font of stalls flled
wit German offcers.
Te atmosphere, then. was one of confontation. Te Anarchist Federa
ton set up a "self-defense group, " under the supervision of its general secre
try, Georges Fontenis. To begin with, this was a core of experienced and
reliable militants, whose task it was to ensure that provocateurs found no ac
cess to the organization. Its exstence was common knowledge, although its
operation and composition were kept secret. On this score, there was com
plete confdence in the general secretary, who was elected and re-elected in
1946, 1947, 1948 and 1950. From 1950 on, a faction of te sel-defense group
began to hold separate meetings, turning its attention to internal matters and
resolving to fght back against certain Anarchist Federation members. Its aim
developed into elimination of individualists, Freemasons and other opponents
of class stuggle and social anarchism. endowed itself with a structure, es
poused a sttement of principles, collected its own dues and adopted the name
OPB (ought-Batle Organizaton) by way of a tibute to Camillo Berneri,
te Itan aachist mttrdcrdby Ihcagents of Mussolini oiSLtituBarcelona
in May 1937. At its outset, te OPB comprised feen Parisian members and
to correspondents in the provinces. Signifcantly, its existence was kept a
sworn secret inside the FA Some of its members subsequently IcPit and in
1954 they published a document disclosing its ins and outs: tis document
came to be known as te Kronstadt Group Memorandum. Let us examine its
analysis:
l 66
At its head te OPB had a three-member bureau. Compulsory sub
scriptions frnish it wth solid fnding, used for example to cover PB
members' taveling expenses. Admission to the OPB is by means of
co-optaton aer the would-be militant's past has been investigated and
on the recommendation of to sponsors. Plenary assemblies of the
OPB take place every feen days, sometimes weekly. Atendance at
tese is obligatory upon everyone. Te decisions reached there are
binding upon everyone, including those who voted against them . . . In
the groups, OPB militants should hold te secretaryships: encourage,
by example, the fy-posting and street sale of L Lib (ertaire) , and seek
out lkely persons for acceptance into the OPB. Also in the groups,
F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
OPB militants push through motons all carrying the same sense in
the run-up to Congresses. l
Lte by little the orginal commission to spread social anarchism and stand
apart fom the "individualists" and "liberas" in te organizaton, was extended
to cover also those who were described as "woolly, " "deadweight" and even "ta
ditona anarchists. " Tanks to its tactic of entyism into the groups and posi
tions of responsibilit, the OPB had, by 1952, captred most of the Pars region
(te most important one in the country) and provoked a inital w of defec
tions at te Bordeaux congress tat year: the defectors included notables like
Maurice Joyeu, te Lpeyres, Maurice Fayolle, Aru, Vincey, etc. , and hostle
groups. On the occasion of the congess, in a new departure, te principle of
voting by mandate was carried by a large majorit. Te OPB was victorious al
along te line. Let us look at how te Memorandum accounts for tis phenom
enon, which is tere described as "bureaucratic centaism":
Tus, making capital out of the passivity of the mass of militants and
methodical noyautage, one faction managed to contol and direct te
Federation as a whole. Lt us summarze te process that culminated
in the establishment wtin the Federation of a power concentated in
a graduated pyramid, which directed the most important cogs of the
organization.
Tis procedure is oddly reminiscent of the "holding" system tat
allows a tny number of share-holders to "hold" a wider and wder circle
of companies, in which they hold a minimal, but actve number of votes.
A. Te chief Paris groups "hold" the 2nd Region (Paris) and the Fed
eration by taking over te vast majorit of positons of responsibilit
(te National Committee, etc.) and commission seats.
B. Te OPB "holds" te main groups in the Paris region by monopo
lizing group offces.
C. Te OPB Bureau "holds" te OPB whose members are reduced to
te role of compliant henchmen.
D. Fontenis "holds" the OPB through his predominant position as Sec
retary in the organization. It will be readily understood how the prior
ity of te Fontenis faction has come about. Its monolitic tinking and
disciplined cohesion have made it capable of a stategy and tactic eas
ily overruling scattered militants tusting to te orgaization's feder
alism. Te OPB alone had the capacit to operate simultaneousl in
side numerous groups in order to nudge tem fom within in a spe
cic direction. Te OPB alone has been in a positon t monopolize
initatves and actvit inside te groups, ten in te name of te groups.
Te OPB alone was able to guarantee itself a de facto monopoly over
the Federation's administatve and ideological activites. Te OPB
aone was that redoubtable instument capable of putng a seeming
XVII I. THE O P B AND THE FCL 167
democracy to use in service of the needs of a hidden dictatorship.
Tus the Federation, instead of being the expression of the grassroots
militants as a whole through democratically elected bodies, became
the creature of just one man, supported and abetted by bodies stand
ing by to act fom center to periphery. Tat is the very inverse of the
federalist, or even of te democratic, process and Stalinism was one of
te fnest examples of that. 2
According to te Memorandum, this precise mechanism explained how one
"single, determined" individual could, thanks to cunning and chicanery, take
over a revolutonary organization. Going into a more detiled description, the
Memorandum compared the OPB to a political bureau (politburo) and its secre
tary, Georges Fontenis, to a "guide," setting the seal upon the internal dichotomy
within the organization between the leader, with his claim to patent rights over
the devising of te policy line, and te membership, mere enactors of his wishes.
To make tis ascendancy comprehensible, the Memorandum stressed the "par
tcularly dangerous assets" of G. Fontenis, namely his "personal worth, " his pro
fession (teacher) , his capacit for atending the local on a fequent basis and his
abilit to make lots of trips around te county, in short, his omnipresence, avail
ability and gif for making himsel indispensable. In addition, his charisma en
sured that he had te unfailing support of the faithfl. According to the Memo
randum, the success of Fontenis's designs was attributable primarily to the "mili
tnts" lack of revolutonary vigilance and to the passive failure of many of them
to exercise their right to criticize with regard to actions that may have seemed
dubious to tem."
A second wave of expellees -including Prudhommeaux, Louvet, Fernand
Robert and Beaulaton regrouped into an Anarchist Entente, on an i nci vrualit
basis. Ater a referendum, the . changed its name to the FCL (Lbertarian
Communist Federaton) . It fted itsel out with new commissions: Studies, La
bor, Contol and Disputes. It was before the latter that the squabble beteen
Fontenis, the National Committee and the Konstadt Group was settled on Janu
ary 1, 1954. Serge Ninn chose the very same day to reveal the existence of the
OPB, regardless of his undertaking upon entry never to make tat public.
Fontenis, who was there at the time, declared:
168
At te end of 1950, there was indeed, a secret organization, the OPB.
Had tere not been an OPB, tere would not be any FCL today. Tre
mendous efforts were made in 1950. We kept L Libertaire aoat. Never
mind te FA Te Tird Front policy was frst devised in the OPB. I
regret noting of te work achieved. Tose who have lef did not leave
on my account. Anyway, the OPB was wound up afer the Paris con
gress in 1953. I await the cataloging of that organization's misdeeds,
even with regard to old militants. Accused, let me now act as the ac
cuser. Te OPB survived up to and including the most recent congress.
Insofar as Ninn and Blanchard [a member of the Kronstadt Group
author's note] were in opposition, the OPB was dissolved as soon as
FACING THE ENEMY
the FCL was established. Te OPB, as understood up to tat point, no
longer had any raion d'etre.
Te OPB was necessary and I am not in the least embarrassed.
Did we dictate decisions to the commissions? No. Broad lines, broad
decisions, yes. Proof tat te OPB had no intention of taing te orga
nization over at the Paris congress, is te fact that it appointed not one
of its ow members to te Disputes Commission. Te OPB did exist,
and its handiwork is laudable. I formally deny that the OPB wields a
dictatorial inuence over the life of the organization. I deny tat within
the OPB, there was any Fontenis dictatorship. Who, other tan I, had
te contacts and capacit for work?3
He went on to say tat the OPB had been wound up because te danger it
posed outeighed the advantages it offered. Why ''was it not disclosed? Tat
must be obvious. Te OPB was not in crisis and did not systematically whitte
away at the numbers of FA militants." In conclusion, the Disputes Commission
"reprmands comrade Fontenis for his atttude, which consisted of factiona
work in the run-up to the congress. It expresses the formal desire that tere
will be no repetition of such conduct."4
What are we to think about such a phenomenon, strtling in an anarchist
movement? Have the annals anything similar to offer? Can an aalogy be traced
wit Bakunin's secret societies, especialy the Aliance? Te historical context
was very different: these were forced into cladestinity and were targetd on
outsiders or against political adversaries rather tan against like-minded fellow
stugglers. Te anaogy wt Blanquist secret societes stes us as plainer. Tere
is also some similarity with the Pact agreed between Pierre Besnard and seven
teen oter revolutonary syndicalist militants in February 1921, wit an eye to
combatng the increasing hold of Moscow and the Tird International upon the
CGT A
n
0ng the articles of that Pact there was a pledge "to disclose the
committee's existence to none" and "to stive by every means in our power to
see tat at te head ad i al the essental ramifcaons of te Revolutionar y
Syndicalist Commitee (CSR), and chiefy at te head of the CGT, once it is in
our power and under our contol, we ensure te election to the highest profle
positions of responsibilit, whether theoretica or concerned wit practic
a
l ac
ton, of purely revolutionary syndicalist personnel, autonomists and federalists."5
Its existence was made public on June 15, 1922, and Pierre Besnard had to ex
plain himself over it. Te most tgible result ofit was te elimination of M onatte,
but it failed utterly in the atempt to conquer frst te CGT and then the CGT,
where te communists ended up supplantng it. Tat example aside, we canot
discover anyting comparable wit te existence of a secret internal organiza
tiona facton, like te OPB, other ta bodies of te same sort current i Bol
shevik circles, especialy among te Trotskysts, tose great adepts of "entysm."
To just his approach and also perhaps to excuse the methods used,
Fontnis published a series of artcles in L Libertaire under the rubric Esential
Problems. Some of tese were reprinted as a pamphlet entitled A Maniesto of
XV I I I . THE O P B AND THE F C l 1 69
Libertarian Communism. It was issued by L Libertaire and prefaced by an "In
troduction" fom the Publications Commission. We should note that the circum
stances of its publication were queried by Roland Breton, a member of the
Konstadt Group. He had draed a motion expressing the view tat the pam
phlet was merely the personal views of a comrade and not the view of the Fed
eration: he even queried the existence of the Publications Commission and in
deed the publication by L Libertaire, as no decision had ever been taken w
regard to te matter. In his view the most signifcant point was that this "pam
phlet had never been submitted for discussion by the organization, much less
adopted as the opinion of the movement."
Even so, let us proceed to examine this document which the FCL would
adopt at its 1953 congress as its fndamental text. Te Publications Commis
sion in its "Intoduction" explains tat the "capitalist system has passed its peak
and tat all cosmetic solutions and pseudo- [ state communist] solutions" had
failed, and thus it seemed "necessary and urgent that the libertarian commu
nist analysis and solution be set out in a manifesto. " Tat assertion is as rel
evant today as ever, but the "urgency" seems a lot less, as the sitation depicted
goes right back to the 1920s, and for a sick man, capitalism is in rather splendid
health, thank you very much, in spite of all its crises and fevers: the revolution
ary workers' movement, on the other hand, has been in declining healt. Be
that as it may, te "Introduction" goes on to say that the Maniesto was draed
by G. Fontenis "at te request of virtually the totality" of militants, tat he had
no tought of "devising a new doctrne, " nor of being "original at acosts, " but
rather aspired only to pen a "modest antology. " For such a fndament text, it
is unusual that it should have come fom the pen of a single militant, capable
though he may be, even uit had been "retouched, corrected, revised in the
light of observations, endorsements, and criticisms uHcrcuby militants and te
readership of L Libertaire. " Tis unusual circumstance would endorse wat
the Memorandum had to say about G. Fontenis's predominance inside the FCL
in matters of policy making.
Despite the professed reluctance to break new ground, this Manifesto of
fers what is in many respects a revisionist an
a
lysis compared with anarchist
teaching as know up to that time. Carefl to diffrentiate himself at a costs
fom taditonal anarchism, the autor uses notions and expressions that are,
on occasion, ambiguous. Mer having repeated several times over tat, say, an
archism is not
"
a philosophy of the individual, or of man in general," he asserts
that anarchism is precisely that, but "in a particular sense, " for it is, in its aspira
tons and go
a
ls "human, or, uyou will, humanist. " 6 In tis way he contrasts te
philosophic
a
l tendency against the social teaching, when, as we have seen am
ply demonstrated, the later is an historica advance upon the former, without
doing away with it, tough. His defnition of social classes and of te proletariat
seems somewhat contradictory. Te proletariat is frst very properly described
as te "range of indivduals who have only an executive role to play in produc
tion and in politcal terms", then it boils down to its "most determined, most
active faction, the working class properly so called," then goes on to talk about
| F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
something "broader than te proletariat and embracing oter social stata which
have to be committed to action: te popular masses which include te small
peasats, the poor artsans, etc. " Finally, he mentons the ''working class's su
premac over oter exploited strata, " touching upon a possible interpretaton of
the "dictatorship of te proletariat," for which he substitutes "direct worker
power. " Aong the tasks facing te later is te defense of te revolution against
the "fnteated, tat is, against te backward exploited social stata (certain
categories of peasants, for instance) . " Al of it very vague and liable to con
sion, especially wit these categories of "faintearts" ad "backward tpes, " all
very subjectve and liable to spread ever outwards: this was the way, for ex
ample, tat te Bolshevks were able to shif revolutonary consciousness away
fom te class to te part and to te part's leadership orgas.
Te rebuttal of Bolshevism's keynote ideas, such as "dictatorship of the
proletariat," or te so-called "workers' or proletarian" state and the "tansitonal
period," is not really convincing. Te frst of these was rejected as te rule of a
minority over the majorit and te opposite advocatd, but Fontenis deemed
te expression "improper, imprecise, open to misunderstandings. " He saw te
"proletarian" state exercising "organized constaint, made necessary by te in
adequacy of economic development, the underdevelopment of human capabili
ties and initially at least waging a stuggle against te vestges of the formerly
ruling classes defeated by the revolution or to be more exact defense of the
revolutonary territory witin and witout. " Tis explanation is highly ques
tonable: we have seen how tat "worker" state was te chief obstacle to genu
ine economic development and, even more so, of "human capabilities," which it
squanders senselessly. As for te batte against te "vestiges" of te late system
of exploitation, tat boiled dow to relentless police repression that did not stop
at the physical elimination of entre classes Oike te poor peasants who resisted
collectivization in 1930-1940) and all sorts of recalcitants. Apropos of te tan
sitonal period, Fontenis maes a distncton between te higher and lower stges
of communism: the former, otherwise known as socialism, is characterized by a
certain povert that "means the ascendancy of the economic over the human,
and tus some lingering limitation," which translates as "egalitian ratoning
or redistributon trough te agency of monetary bills of limited validit. " Such
a setp would stll be marked by "notons or rank" and "wage differentials,"
albeit minimal, for it "would incline towards te greatest possible equalization,
equivalence of circumstances. " Pipe dreams! Punctured by all historical experi
ence, in Russia and elsewhere. On the contary, wage differentals or even gra
datons of redistbuton have been the source fom which a new class of ex
ploiters has sprouted. Bakunin predicted as much wt stnning clarit, as did
oters aer him, and it seems astonishing tat Fontenis should not have been
aware of tat. Te inconsistency arses out of Fontenis's refsal to describe tis
"lower communism, " leading on to "perfect communism, " as a "tansitona pe
riod, " his view being tat tis term is inaccurate.
As regards organizatonal practice, the Manifesto's autor borrows willy
nilly fom te Patorm of Dyelo Truda, while playing up te vanguardist aspect.
X V I I I . T H E O P B A N D T H E F C L 1 7 1
Tere is a telling change in tte between te artcle that appeared i L Libertaire
and the corresponding chapter in the pamphlet: "relations between the masses
and the revolutionary organization" becomes "relations between the masses
and the revolutionary vanguard." Yet the vanguard is described in exactly the
same terms as in te Platorm. It is neither ahead of, nor outside of te class or
the masses, it "aims only to develop their capacity for self-organization" and
deliberately takes up its position in their midst, for if it foats fee of them, it
"becomes a clique or a class." Be that as it may, the revolutonary anarchist
specic organization becomes te "knowng, active vanguard of te popular
masses. " We might add tat this latter expression is also loaded wit all sorts
of potential confsions, and conclude fom that that a "revolutonary organiza
tion or part" so conceived was an attempt to embody the hegemonic revolu
tionary consciousness of the active anarchist minority, and set up shop in di
. rect competition with the "phony" French Communist Part (pC F) .
Tus far, te Maniesto and Fontenis's plan have been constued as an at
tempt to "Bolshevize" anarchism, for te belief was that they were bot ad
dressed to anarchists. On the other hand, if we were to take them as specially
geared towards the labor militants of the day who were under the sway of
Stlinism-Leninism, or even towards te sympathizers and dissidents of the PCF,
then it is possible to decode the Maniesto in the opposite sense: as an attempt
to "anarchize" these. In which case the consions, contadictons or, if one pre
fers, the "obscurties" in the text suddenly become clear, when viewed through
the lenses of such a readership. Subsequent events -the unbridled workerism,
the outbidding of CGT and PCF slogans, the actve commitment to te anti
colonialist struggle (the Algerian war) , to begin with, and then the running in
te legislative elections of 1956 and the comeback by Andre Marty, excluded
fom the PCF -appear to valicatp Ih sconstruction.
It is plain tat te mimicry of the Communist Part was part and parcel of
an intenton to overtake it on its lef and on its stamping ground, te workng
class: but the FCL had neither the stomach nor te werewital for that tsk.
Tat said, we cannot agree with Jean Maitron when he wrtes tat it was a
"syntesis beteen anarchism and a measure of Lninism," and "consonat
wit a platormist line but going frter tan Ashinov's theses."7 In our vew, it
was raer an exteme attempt to promote social anarchism on the back of
labor disputes, wt the obsession wth "impact" overtaking respect for a cer
tain libertaria tadition. And this was not te only such instance tat history
has to show us; we have seen Emile Pouget's rejection of democratsm witin
te CGT and te attempts at dictatorship with tying to convert te FA into a
politcal part during the Spanish Revolution. As we see it, te ancesty of tis,
in teoretical terms, can be traced to a certain anarchistic Blanquism (and let's
not forget that Blanqui, towards the end of his life cae up wit te device
"Neither God nor Master," making it te ttle of one of his publications) . In
support of this argument we should note tat neither Pouget, nor Besnard,
Garcia Oliver nor Horacio M. Prieto nor Fontenis ever, so far as we are awae,
| F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
joined a Bolshevik organization. Which would necessaily have been their fate
had they been drawn towards that teaching by teir deepest convictions.
As regards the affnities between Fontenis's Maniesto and the Platorm of
te Dyelo Truda group and Arshinov's positions, tey ae unquestonably tere,
in te espousal of te class struggle as the drivng force behind social stuggles,
as well as organizational principles. However, we have seen how Fontenis and
his fiends put them into effect through the OPB. Aso, the Platorm does not
credit the working class wit te same signifcance as Fontenis does: te former
sees it only as a component part of the proletariat consisting essentally of te
poor peasantry. Which may be explicable in terms of different historica m
a
ke
ups of Russian and French society. Te essential point on which tey part com
pany remains the option they chose to exercise: te Platorm invited public
debate inside the anarchist movement and relied upon collective deliberaton
and consciousness to move things forward; whereas Fontenis and his disciples
resorted to underhand and bureaucratc ploys to impose their views.
Te FCLs activities against te Agerian war resulted in te censoring and
confscation of L Libertaire: heavy fnes swallowed up its fnds, leading in
short order to the demise of the paper and the loss of its premises. In addition,
its increasingly "heretical" policy choices led to disafection among those mili
tants who had remained faithfl to libertarian communism. While there was no
formal "deat" certifcate, it vanished fom te politca scene during the years
1957-1958.
We have quizzed ourselves as to te why and the wherefore of this extaor
dinary experiment in the anarchist movement's history, and we also approached
Georges Fontenis for some basis on which to answer these questions. He very
kindly replied to our inquiries and spelled out wit concision te raison d'ete
of the OPB. His letter to us is reprinted as an appendi to this book. Lt it be
noted that he stands by and claims responsibility for matters concerning the
OPB but appears to have his reservatons about the evoluton of the FCL in the
1954-1956 period. He has promised a detailed book in which he will "go over it
all in detail and in a spirit of self-criticism. " We will wager that that book will be
very usefl in arrvng at a better understanding of certain aspects of this period
which remain in obscurity.
Endnotes to Chapter Eighteen
1. Memorandum fom the Krnstadt Group, a 67-page pamphlet, (paris, 1954) , pp. 9-10.
2. Ibid. , p. 20.
3. Ibid. , p. 47-48.
4. Ibid. , p. 52.
5. Quoted by Jean Maitron, op. cit. , Tome II, p. 62.
6. G. Fontenis, Mani/este du communime libertaire, (Editions L Lbertaire, 1953) , 32 pages
reissued in 1985 by Editions L.
7. ]. Maitron, op. cit. , p. 92.
XV I I I . T H E O P B A N D T H E F C L 1 73
XIX. LIG HT AT T H E END OF TH E TUNNEL:
P3 1 9 6 8
Al the people who had either been expelled fom the FAF while it was
under the control of the Fontenists or who had walked out of it under their own
steam came together towards the end of 1953 to relaunch te FAF, the Fontenist
organization having taken the name FCL. Traumatized by their singular expe
rience, they adopted very loose organizational ties, allowing a variet of stands
and tendencies all professing to be anarchist to coexist with one another:
a) te possibilit and necessit of al tendencies working in concert;
b) autonomy (i. e. absence of authority) for each group; c) abolition of
all centralizing (National Committee-type) agencies; d) personal re
sponsibilit (never collective) ; e) the movement's organ to be above
tendencies, wt everybody at libert to bring out his own organs . . .
as well as to engage in any activity in the context of culture, research,
acton or anarchist propaganda; f cordia and open relatons with mov
ments moving in an anarchist directon on a particular point. !
Sucial classes no longer played the same role in te stuggle: their place
was taken by "mind-sets." In the end, detailed stattes were drawn up and a
Protective Associaton set up to fend off any new coup de force against the
organization. Te Louise Michel group UOmUcMontarte district of Paris.
and te sebasten Faure group fom Bordeaux were the mainstas of the new
FA and of its mouthpiece L Monde Libertaire.
Following a atempt in 1949 to have it made a ward of the F AF, the CNTF
recovered its fll feedom of action, but the fact that most of its membership
was made up of Spaniards, hobbled politcall by their refgee stats, led it to
witdraw into itsel and focus upon the Iberian queston. Its newspaper, L Com
bat Syndicaliste, increasingly served as a vehicle for te Spanish CNT until
eventaly it came to be published in the Spanish language (sae for te font
and back pages) .
Several dissentng groups fom te FCL, the Kronstadt Group for one, came
together under te name of te CAA (Anarchist Revolutonary Action Groups)
and published an irregular magazine Noir et Rouge.
In their 1957 Statement of Principles, they also took on board the experi
ence of the FCL, while coming out clearly for the platormist approach:
l 7+ F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
In the realm of direct action, the anarchist-communist organization is
agreeable to alliance with proletarian militants or groups of militants
in joint activites, for short-term or limited objectives, provided that
the object of the struggle represents a step forward in the directon of
workers' emancipation. In any event, it reserves the right to put for
ward its ow positons.
Participation in our organization's work must be voluntary. It
should, though, involve suffcient sense of responsibilit for the incli
nations and aversions of each individual to be feely and volunt
subordinated to the interests of an adequate organization so that the
coordinating of groups' activities may be handled effectely.
Te anarchist communist specic organization comprises of a fed
eration of afnity groups which have come to an agreement upon te
principle of ideologica unit, with an eye to presenting a united font
of anarchists commited to te social stuggle. Ideological unity is not
made up of rigid principles, but will be susceptible to revision by way
of necessary adaptation to an economic and social situation.
Unity of ideology implies unity of tactics. As we see it, tactical
unit is recognition by the movement as a whole of the success of
such and such a method in the hands of such and such a group, and a
voluntary commitment fom te rest to espouse it as their own. It is
the acknowledgment by all groups that there is a need to use a com
mon tactic with regard to such and such a specifc problem which
everybody recognizes they face in common. Moreover, it is conso
nant with federalism that each group should operate as it sees ft.
In this way, we wl devse the basis upon which fee indivduals
may organize themselves for effective action, while remaining fee. In
tat spirit, with the ideals and in pursuit of te goal set dow in this
statement, let us press forwards, feely and in solidait, in broterhood.2
Meanwhile, the war in Algeria was raging, May 1958 had come and gone
and General De Gaulle had been hoisted into power. Most anarchists did what
they could, ad teir efforts were not negligible, for their solidarity with dra
evaders and deserters was roundly affrmed (an underground railroad was to
smuggle nearly 600 of tese out to Switzerland) . Aarchists also had a pres
ence in all the street demonstrations, especially in 1961 and 1962. Some were
involved in support netorks for the Algerian FLN (this was by no means a
unanimous choice, and, with the beneft of hindsight, we might query te point
of it) . Te movement slowly clawed its way back. Some of the CAA decided to
retrn to the FAF and set up shop as the UGAC (Union of Anarchist Commu
nist Groups) ; anoter faction carried on with the task of "clearng the ground"
which had begun wit the review Noir et Rouge, and published studies of the
class stuggle, revolutonary anti-clericalism, Freemasonry, nationalism, Marx
ism and the experiments in self-management in Spain, Israel (the kibbutzim) ,
etc.
X I X . L I G H T AT T H E E N D O F T H E T U N N E L : M AY 1 9 6 8 1 75
Following the deat of Paul Zorkine, (a Montenegrin by birth and one-time
member of the Yugoslav maquis) , who was its leading light, as well as the retire
ment of his close colleague Henri Keber, the DGAC went into a spectacular D
turn. Taking te line that no wortwhile actvit was feasible inside the FA, the
DGAC reasserted its autonomy and espoused a somewhat bizarre stategy. For
swearing all autonomous activit, it presented itself as a component part of an
"International Revolutionary Front" embracing oter "revolutonaries," such as
the Trotskists of the Fourth International revolutionary Marxist school of
thought (the Pabloists) and some pro-Chinese Swiss! In its Letter to the Interna
tional Anarchist Movement published in 1966, it noted that that the revolution's
center of gravit had shifed towards the Tird World nations (colonial or colo
nized countries) and tat it "would be dangerous for anachists not to have a
presence there. " It also wondered i the "peoples achieving feedom are not also
feeing the whole human race toO. "3 In a way, it detected the new world prole
tariat in the Tird World and turned Western workers into "bourgeois. " Self
management, in existence in Algeria and in Yugoslavia (?!) (and later they would
even detect te germ of it among the Vietnamese NLF!) was, in teir vew, the
example to follow. Te Letter concluded that "should our appeal, alas, go un
heeded, we say plainly that anarchism will slide into reformism, in the most
sordid complicit, and that, in any event, it would perish historically. Who would
claim our inheritance?"4 Instead, it was the members of the DGAC who were to
slide more and more into absurdit and renegadism: clinging to teir firtation
with "revolutonaries" in te name of a myic, much touted self-management,
tey were, fom 1968 on, to fnd a niche in associatons made up of dissident
Stalinists and a few bureaucrats hard up for fellow tavelers. We might quote the
opinion of some ex-members who abandoned it to its unenvable fate: "it locks
anarchists into te caboose of a Lninist-powered revolutionary movement. That
sort of thinking is either astoundingly naive or an addle-minded partisanship. "
Tat same year, te historian Daniel Guerin attempted to marry anarchism
ad Marxism (ch
a
lk and cheese) : "By taing a bat in anarchism; today's Max
ism can emerge cured of its pustles and regenerated. "6 To this end, he de
vised a "libertarian Marxism," praising it to te skes. And Maurice Fayole
came up wit a real innovaton by going into a scrupulous analysis of some of
the key points of anachism. We might dwell especialy upon te distincton he
draws beteen decision-making power and executive power in organizational
matters. It is tis distincton that sets the anarchist representative apart fom a
bureaucrat, for his mandate enttles him merely to carry out te directives or
specifc mandate entusted to him by his organization. Fayolle also has an in
teresting, i taditonal, approach to the role and behavor of te minority:
1 76
First in no event may te minority, in te name of a false (barrack
stle) discipline, be obliged to implement the decisions reached by the
majort: te later and te later alone bears te responsibilit for imple
mentng those. On te oter hand, the minorit refains (and this is
where te real discipline comes into it) fom obstuctng te decisions
F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
reached by a majorit at congress. It simply reserves its ow right and
chance of overturning tat majorit to its ow advantage.
Second: for tis propositon to be a practical realit, the minority
(even should it amount only to a single individual) must be able to
express itself feely at every level and in every organ of the move
ment, wthout te majorit's being able to veto that on any pretext
whatsoever.7
At about tat time, the student world was in trmoil over al sorts of pett
problems (vsiting rights to the female quarters in te university residences,
polemics wit a few outmoded mandarins, etc.) . On te Nanterre campus,
members ofthe "non-group group" -an outgrowth of te review Noir et Rouge
-and of the Enrages (Angries) , close to the Situationists, provoked incidents
which, spilling over into the Lt Quarter, in Paris, degenerated into violent
clashes wit te forces of law and order. All so-called lefist and revolutionary
organizations were caught unprepared, sometmes absurdly so: on May 6, 1968,
in the Rue Souffot, as a peacefl demonstraton was drawing to an end tere,
we heard a bespectacled character (probably a trainee teacher) calling upon
everyone to "come and draw up leafets under the workers' supervision at the
Ecole Normale Superieure, right around the corner!" Ten came May 10th
and the night of the barricades, crucial in the course of events. We ca speak
as an eyewitess in saying tat no member of any of the Trotskist, Maoist or
Stalinist PCF grouplets (te UEC -Union of Communist Stdents) had any
hand in it. Quite te contary. Al of tose who were tere to begin with at
tempted -before cowardice made tem withdraw -as "heaveight, respon
sible revolutionaries" to stop "provocateurs" fom digging up the cobblestones
and getng on with an entusiastc and well worked out occupation of te place.
Needless to say they were unceremoniously bundled aside. Not that that stops
tem fom claiming all the credit for May 1968 for themselves these days. Te
protagonists of tat watershed event were for te most part young people -
most of tem students or former students -reverting instinctively to te old
revolutionary taditions of Paris cobblestones.
Tose anarchists present on te spot tat night did their duty as revolu
tionaries: they threw up several barricades and manned them into the eary
hours, especially te barricades contolling access to te Rue Mouffetard, te
Rue Blanvlle, Rue Touin, Rue de l'Estapade, Rue du Pot de Fer, Rue lomond,
and Rue Tournefort. Tey received welcome reinforcement fom members of
the FAF and the crowd coming fom te Mutuaite hall, where tere had been a
gaa night on behalf of Le Monde Libertaire, wt Leo Ferre at te top of te bill.
Lter, some of tem took an actve part in te Student-Worker Committees based
at te Censier campus -te Commitees fom Citoen, Renault, and Tomson
Houston and oters, when it was necessary to make a move right fom te frst
to get te occupations and strikes rolling. Tis was a hard thing to do, for these
factories were controlled by tade union pickets; even so, the results were ex
temely heartening. Tere were commitees of all sorts; we recall one "sham"
X I X . L I G H T AT T H E E N D O F T H E T U N N E L : M AY 1 9 6 8 1 77
one at Renault, one evening to young Renault workers were brought before it,
and it tanspired that there was nobody of it except about thirt students or
intellectals, probably pro-Maoist, dreaming about the "workers' citadel," but
devoid of any real connection with it. So it became necessary to vet and authen
ticate the identtes of people and indeed to proceed wit the bodily removal of
Trotskists fom the FER (Federation of Revolutionary Students) and of PCF
members who had had the effontery to try to set up shop in Censier. Te
commitees there occupied te third and fourth foors and they worked more
effectively than at the Sorbonne, which had trned into an oriental bazaar of
lefism. We should mention the launching by one comrade of a Paris-Provnce
Committee, which dispathed agitrop teams and materials in every direction,
including handbills and posters fom the fne arts facult, whose workshops
had been made available right fom the start at the request of tat commitee. 8
Stewards, in the shape of about ten members, were placed in charge of monitor
ing the comings and goings inside the Censier site. Tis had its uses in deter
ring "suspect" elements. Other comrades mounted a wall-newspaper and a stand
ing discussion group at the Gobelins crossroads. All of tis carried on for three
weeks, day and night, wit bed and board provided on the spot (throughout
this time there was a canteen, known as te CLEOPS, and a Student-Peasant
Commitee organized by stdents fom the Aricultural Institute, assisted by
sympathetic truckers, saw to it that it was kept supplied regulary. Tat was
only one of the examples to which we could testif personally, but tere were
other libertarians as well who gave unstintingly of themselves during May and
whom it might be interesting to publicize some day.
Te presence of anarchists was very notceable during te May 13th and
Charlety stadium marches, on account of the large number of black fags on dis
play. Te many libertian slogans and subversive grafti on the walls, te "adap
tation" of advertising hoardings and other areas rehabilitated revolutionary lyri
cism. Subjectivt bounced back with a bang and all things became possible. How
ever, despite some attempts tu cuurdinate te Action Commitees and at paraliel
economic organizaton, tere was not suffcient collective determination to come
up wt a soluton capable of replacing te eroding power of the stt. Te Ststs
of the CGT in keeping wit their counterrevolutionary vocation, did what te
Gaullist government could not quite manage: by faudulent votes, tey forced a
return to work at te RTP (Paris Autonomous Transport Authort) , and over
night te system was placed back on its feet. Yet, for those who had been caught
up as participats in te events, tere could be no turning back te clock and the
libertarian ethos of May restored teir vgor and enthusiasm.
Wtten off as being on its deatbed, i not consigned already to te grave
yard of history, anachism became exraordinar relevant again and aroused
equally widespread curiosit, Tis fact made it possible to publish books on that
topic and in comparatvely signifcant numbers: of course, these were not all of
te same qualit, but it helped rescue a few famous writers fom oblivion (writers
like Dejacques, Coeuderoy, Proudhon, Bakunin, etc.) and above alto vindicate
1 78 F AC I N G T H E E N E M Y
te tue vue of anarchism's historical experiences. Te movement bookshops
were inundated by a swarm of bulletins, pamphlets, handbills and posters.
In organizatonal terms, initialy the stess was upon spontaneit, but as
that retreated into limbo, it gave way to attempts at more enduring organiza
tions. Lt us allow Maurice Fayolle to draw the lessons fom the events:
In May-June 1968, we paid a high price for our 15 years of absenteeism
and organizatonal vacuum. Te ceaseless activities of a few comrades
and a few groups could not make good that defcit And, at a tme when
Paris was bedecked with black fags, we glided trough these events
like ectoplasm through a mist, tat is, without reaping al of the ben
efts which other lefist formations drained fom tem. Had we, at that
point, had a worthwhile organizaton, like the FA of the years following
the 1939-5 war, wit its stuctres and its weeky newspaper, France
today would have over two hundred organized groups and a press with
a huge print run, in short, a numerous and very coherent anarchist
movement which might make its voice heard in this country. 9
We would not have posed the question in just those terms . . . of competing
wit the lef, and of numerical terms stength . . . but would have focused more
broadly upon the measure of the impact of libertarian ideas, tough tere were
not enough militants to take them on board, but that boils down t essentially
te same thing, for Maurice Fayolle reckons that the "infantile malady" of anar
chism -its disorganizaion -proved a handicap to te movement when emi
nenty favorable circumstances "the likes of which happen only rarely in a hun
dred years" came to pass. Te "praiseworty eforts of a few comrades and a
few groups wl have done little but rescue other people's chestnuts fom te
fre. " Fayolle's analysis was to prove his testament, for he passed away a short
time later. So let us focus alof our attention upon it. It regards organization as
an instrument and not, of course as an end in itself. However, it is not an indis
pensable instrument. Te essential points about it are that decisions should be
made at a collective level, by the body of the membership. Tey must be made
"not at te top, but at the bottom, not at te center but at te perphery. " Gien
the geographical size and te diffcult of bringing groups together on a con
sistent basis, tere must, necessarily, be delegates to take decisions at con
gresses, these later being the seat of the organizaton' s sovereignt. Tere
must be no confsion between congress and "colloquium, " an opportunit to
exchange ideas. In order to guard against te accountability of coordinating or
executive bodies turning into leadership powers or some immovable bureau
cracy, there would have "t be constant monitoring by the grassroots and a
fequent rotaton of offcers. "
At te same tme, one autonomous group, the Kronstadt Group (nothing to
do wit te group of te same name that issued te Memorandum) brought out
a Draf of Organization Prnciples 10 for a libertarian communist organiation.
Tis was te product of around a decade of experience and as such atempted to
X I x . L I G H T AT T H E E N D 0 F T H E T U N N E L : M AY I 9 6 8 I 79
derive lessons fom that. Following an outline declaration regarding the nature
and role of a revolutionary organization, II it went on to assert that there should
be many such organizations, that is, that tere may be several of them styling
temselves revolutionary, but that "none may claim a monopoly": all of them
"should aim towards unifcation in the act of revolution, thereby basing them
selves upon comprehensive grassroots struggle bodies, embryonic Workers'
Councils. " Tis meant a break with te organizational chauvinism that had been
so widespread hitherto, as well as a repudiation of all vanguardism. It was then
specifed that such an organization "as a means, ought to be matched wth a
fxed goal, which is to say that fom its inception and as it develops, it must do
away with the mental and social separations and divisions between the givers
and the followers of orders, and not permit the reproduction of the pyramidal
relationships existing in established society. And not fght alienation through for
mats that alienate. "
Tis Draf stipulated that it "goes without saying that affliation to a revolu
tionary organization is incompatible with membership of any other organiza
tion whose nature and methods would not suit revolutionary aims. " Organiza
tional practice was directly inspired by the Platorm, with its phrasing brought
up to date. Tere was mention of a policy line underpinning the organization's
collective approach. By policy line we should understand a range of general
and particular standpoints on basic relevant issues: this would not be set in
concrete because it would be subject to "permanent exchange of the analyses
and experiences of the membership as a body. " Tere was a basic underlying
point in that decisions arrived at collectively would be binding upon all mem
bers. Te organizational operation was highly detailed: in fact, it reiterated all
of the essentials of earlier organizatonal practices: the Statutes of Bakunin's
Alliance, the (l i ntessenre of pl atormi st documents and the experiences of thc
1960s (see especialy te text party reprnted as an appendix) . Tat Draf formed
the basis for the creation of the Lbertarian Communist Movement (MCL) , an
assemblage of about a hundred militants, Georges Fontenis among them. He
had surfaced again in May 1968 on the Action Committee in Tours: in fact, he
was commissioned to draw up the organization's basic charter. A little later,
negotiations were entered into with the Revolutionary Aarchist Organization
(OR) which had been formed on the basis of Maurice Fayolle' s thinking. Te
OR at frst was afliated to te FAF and then, following a falling-out over te
organization of the International Aarchist Congress scheduled to be held in
Paris in 1971, became autonomous.
Te organizational creeds of the to organizations were close (see te
appendices for the ORAs organizaional compact) , but personal differences
and spliter maneuvers ruled out amalgamaton. Te ORA carried on with its
theoretical deliberations, which it offered in te form of reports to the Paris
Internatonal Congress in August 1971, without any positive response, for that
congress spent its time settling political and personal scores (Augustn Souchy
the aged, German anarchist acting as the delegate for the Cuban Aarchist
Federaton, was shameflly expelled, accused of being in cahoots wit the CIA!) .
1 80 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
We should note that te ORs organizational practice met wth some measure
of success, especialy i te creaon of about a hundred Frnt Libertaire circles,
up untl this expansion was compromised and halted by a whole furry of politi
cal and police provocatons,12 on the one hand, and by a somewhat zombie-like
vision of militant actvity, due to an exaggerated lefism, on the other. We might
note as well te predominant role played by a "historic core" of OR founders,
which operated as a hidden policy leadership, even though they were weIl
known to and above all tolerated by most of the organization.
Te years 197 1976 were, as a result, racked by numerous splits or staight
forward disappearances (such as te demise of the review Noir et Rouge) Y In
te fnal analysis, the OR and the OCL (formery te MCL) ended up being
supplanted by two more enduring organizations: te OCL (eir to te OR)
and te mCL (nion of Uertara Communist Workers, tnged wit councilism
and Marxism) which, to tis day, profess to be of the libertarian communist
persuasion. Tis reversal fom te thousands of militats who hae made that
clam since 1968 is stiking. How come? It may perhaps be attibutable to a
period of digestion of ideas, needed i confsionism was to be aoided, and aso
to te overall context of the county, with lots of people reteatng into teir
persona concerns, and most of all to te absence of a credible libertarian
alternative to the established system.
For te past decade or so, the French anarchist movement has been more
sober and there have not been any more of these upheavals. Te most impor
tant organizaton, the F A, has rounded the horn by endowing itself with good
propaganda resources: a radio staton, a weekly paper and a superb bookshop.
In addition, it has overhauled its basic prnciples, acknowledging the existence
of the class stuggle, of which "the object ought to be the establishment of an
anarchist societ": it "urges workers and the exploited as a whole to fght the
mediaion tat runs counter to teir class interests, and to opt for direct acton
(tat is, for actions determined and carried out wthout intervention of inter
mediaries) and coordinaton along federalist lines." While linking up wit so
cia anarchism, it nevertheless retains te organizational chaacter of a synthe
sis, repudiating collectve responsibilit and advocating that responsibilit be
personal. It depends upon several dozen groups, some of which are very frmly
established local ad which ofen publish superbly produced periodicals.
Alongside tese, tere are te anacho-sndicaists - scatered around
te various tade unions -and a number of groups connected wt the publi
cation of reviews, magazines and quaity newspapers. To which we might add
several libertaran cooperatves: bookshops, restaurats, prntingorks (eight
of them in France at one point and even self-managing farms. I is to be regret
ted that informaton about all tese ventures does not circulate more feely: we
hope tat tis oversight may be repaired so that this libertaran cooperatve
tend can fourish.
For anyone who experienced the years in the wilderness between 1958
and 1968, all such signs and ventures -indicative of the movement's l -
are gratifing, and so let us not be too persnicket and regret tat tere is not
X I X . L I G H T AT T H E E N D O F T H E T U N N E L : M AY 1 9 6 8 1 8 1
more intervention in social struggles. We just hope that there can be level
headed and positive collaboration by all who subscribe to anarchism in every
sphere.
Endnotes to Chapter Nineteen
1. Quoted by Roland Biard, Histoire du mouvement anarchits JV4b~JV/b, (Paris: Editions
Galilee, 1976) , pp. 1 12-1 13.
2. Quoted in Noir et Rouge: Anthologie, (Paris: Spartacus and Acratie, 1 982) , pp. 28-29.
3. Lettre au mouvement anarchists international published by the UGAC, (Montreux, Switzer
land, 1966) , pp. 2627. Te UCAC later trned into the TAC (narchist Communist Tendency) .
4. Ibid. , p. 69.
5. Continuons Ie d
e
bat, bulletin anarchiste-communiste, No. 1 , (November 1 970) , p. 3.
6. Daniel Guerin, Pour un Marxisme libertaire, (Paris: Robert Lfont, 1969) , p. 17.
7. Maurice Fayolle, Rejexions sur l'anarchisme, (Paris: Publico, 1965) pp. 26 and 42.
8. Te frst poster, a oneoff, showed a chicken with Pompidou's head, complete with a
worm in its mouth, and was sent anonymously to the provinces, despite the repeated reo
quests fom some necrophiliac collectors of revolutionary ephemera.
9. Maurice Fayolle, Contribution a ('elaboration d'un manieste anarchists r
e
volutionnaire in
['organization libertaire, No. 6, aune 1970) , pp. 32-33.
10. Six page text, published at the beginning of 1971. Te Kronstadt Group had been in
existence fom 1969 to 1971 and numbered about ten members, including, at one time or
another, Daniel Guerin, Roland Biard and the present author, who was in fact chiefly re
sponsible for drawing up the Drf.
1 1 . Reprinted at the opening to this book.
12. We might mention the case of a certain Marco, a Spaniard who had fled to France as a
draf dodger: hc was exposed old Pari: gathering of the OR for haVng thnce had criminal
charges against him dropped: the majorit of those present, "Christian-minded" folk as Jean
Grave might have described them, refsed to expel him. They had cause to regret this, for
this Marco suddenly "discovered" Marxism <nd the Lenin 0! Jh0 /0/0 08J0l0/k/l0B and
managed to take a dozen followers with him when he went over to the Trotskyist JCR (which
went on to become the Lgue Communiste we know today) . A little later, he was behind the
authorites' banning of that organization when he brought a rifle into its premises on the
very morning of the search that drew the thunderbolt from the courts! Tis tme he was
denounced on an international scale! Te OR was also lacking in vigilance in several other
"shady" affairs, which resulted in a rush of defectons from it.
13. Which Christian Lgant, another who perished tragically, explained away in terms
of "our own disorganiation (theoretical problems; lack of common analyses; inabil
it to tke May 1968 on board and draw the necessary political conclusions fom it;
practcal diffculties; also our inability to overcome our division into manual- and
brain-workers, which did exist despite our being "thinkers," and thus our failure to
ensure proper rotation of material tasks) was to steer us into failure," in Notes sur la
composition sociale, ['evolution du mouvement libertaire de 1950 a nosjour (undated)
p. 8.
1 82 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
xx. MATC H I N G E N DS AND M E ANS
In the course of our look at anarchist thinking and anarchist organiza
tional and social practce, we have chosen to focus upon tree countes -
France, Russia and Spain -which have stuck us as being, historically, fertle
ground for anarchism. In addition, tese are relatvely well-known examples.
Now, in order to get a more comprehensive view of our teme, we would also
have had to tackle the anarchist movement, which has occasionaly been very
powerfl at certain points in history, in countries like Bulgaria, Italy, Portuga,
China, Korea, Japan, Mexico, Agentina wit its FOR. not to menton te
United States. Tis was not feasible, due to lack of space and time. (V e would
have had to write a book ten times the length of tis one.) Furtermore, we
have refained fom commentng overmuch upon te writngs and attitdes
we have cited -most of tem little know and not readily accessible -for
the very same reasons, and we leave it to the reader to arrive unaided at the
critical opinions that are needed. Al because of te limitations we have im
posed upon ourselves.
One considerable problem to be resolved relates to the usage of an elastc
terminology which is occasionaly dated in historical terms and occasionally
mutlated in tanslation, for precise equivalents ae not readily available. Purely
anarchist j argon also creates problems. "Anarchist" ad "libertaran, " two syn
onyms of roughly the same vntage -fom 18401850 -are in common cur
rency: on the other hand, wit regard to "anarchist communist" and "libertar
ian communist" -likewise contemporary terms, fom 1876 and 1881 -we
have chosen to favor the latter, meaning both "common ownership and the fee
commune, " over the former, which has become vaguely equivalent to "anarcho
Bolshevk. " Plainly, the term "communism" has been perverted by the Bolshe
viks, who, however, did not adopt it until very late on, in 1918, but the same
could be sad of "revoluton, " the meaning of which has been comprehensively
mauled. Optimum precision is to be desired, for mix-ups or misunderstandings
can give rise to real tragedies, i one tinks of the example of the "soviet, " let
alone "soviet power," sweeteners tat Lnin used i order to establish his to
taltarian dictatorship. One should not toy wit words for tey can kill: that is
one of the lessons to be leaned there. Tey should be invested or reinvested
with their original import.
XX. M AT CHI NG E ND S AND M E ANS 1 83
For anarchists, certain words are taboo, and rightly so: words like "chief,"
"party," "center" and "state. " Others are, in our estimation, misapplied: "Marx
ism" especially, which is systematically equated wit Leninism-Stalinism, when
it is mainly applicable to economic analyses and, strictly speaking, to the pre-
1914 German Social Democracy. "Bolshevik" is regularly used instead of
"Jacobin" or "Blanquist. " "Politcs" is taken in its politicking sense, when ofen
it ought to be read in its Aristotelian sense of "civc l. " "Power" has become
synonymous wit cental power and the state, when the making and imple
mentation of any decision is an act of power: there is power over the self, over
one's l, and power over others, rule over others. As we have seen, Fayolle
thus draws a distinction between powers of decision-making and executive
powers. In short, we need to ko what we are talking about, and a regularly
updated dictionary might be very usefl. Lt us, then, bear such nuances in
mind before we tackle any text, and our reading and understanding of it will be
all the better for that.
lkewise it should be obvous by now that a libertarian organization is not
some tool acting in obedience to orders emanating fom on high or fom some
central point, but rather a theater for the implementation of mutual aid and a
way of blending individual endeavors, so as to bestow upon them, in so doing,
greater social impact. Should that organization be permanent, ad hoc, specifc
or broadly-based? Let us answer with a statement of the obvious: it all depends
on the aim. Here, we reckon we must not forget to distinguish between variet
ies: there are propaganda-type organizations, affinity organizations, social
stuggle organizations or armed stuggle organizations, depending on whether
the point is to publicize libertarian ideas, bring out some magazine or newspa
per, orgaize some trades or trade union group, or mount a popular uprising. It
all dfpfnns, too, upon the conditons in which one fnds unelel: whether one is
in one of te couple of dozen nations in te world where formal feedoms exist
that "genuinely" permit propaganda, or elsewhere in the vast majority of the
planet, where the mere words anarchy and feedom are bannec fom everyday
usage. Tus there is an adjustment to be made between the organization's open
or clandestine natre and a strategy and tactics adapted to the local reality. We
should specif, though, that violent activites -armed, or terrorist activities
we regard as not merely uncalled for, but indeed worthy of condemnation in
counties where there is toleration of te fee spread of ideas.
Tat said, as we have seen, organization adds up to more than a sum of
individuals: it represents a stength of numbers -a synergy -that can get a
real purchase on reality. Should it lack suppleness, mobility or dynamism, it
inescapably turns into a lumbering machine, i not open bureaucracy. How can
we strike a harmonious balance beteen the conscious, autonomous individual
and the organizational approach? Te individual is at one and te same time the
steng and the weakness of aarchism: like Aesop's language, it can be bot
the best and the worst of things. Wen it comes down to a solution, we confess
our ow preference for Bakunin's: "ongoing faternal monitoring of each by
all. " Tat, it seems to us, is the only antidote to any descent into bureaucracy. At
1 84 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
tat stage, an organizaton is only as good as its indivdual members: i tese
abjure all critc
a
l faculties and are lacking in vigilance, even the best of organi
zatonal statutes avail nothing. Leaders, chiefs and guides are made by the pas
sive, te inert, the "meamouthed. " Let us not deceive ourselves: organiza
tona and social practce is not for angels and many ofen fall for the easy way
out. We might add te inevtable gap between tought, te spoken word, the
printed word and the deed, to underline the vital necessity for clarit on
everyone's part, tat being te sole guaratee of te degree of consistency be
tween those four levels of expression and action. Here we must be plain and
categorical: a promise made and an undertaing given should be honored; ot
erwse, noting can be achieved. Actng upon them is an absolute necessity i
te wastng of time and energy is to be avoided.
Practcal operatonal structures are a lesser evl in mediation between indi
vduals: their implications cannot in any way be kept check by te acceptance of
te rules of te organizatonal game; votng, delegation, specic and imperative
mandates. Te right attude and faternal intent should antedate the internal
relations. Tus, majort and minorit should be capable, should the need arise,
of making the requisite concessions: otherwse al concerted actvt remains
impossible. Tere should be a greater sensitivit to what unites rater tha to
tat which divides. In any event, tings would be same in the yeaned for fee
society. I te common denominator among anarchists is the refsal to kowtow
to systems of oppression, a negatve atttude, this ought to be counterbalaced
by te wll to unit, a positve atttude. Obviously, spirt and letter are not te
sae ting, altough te one inspires te oter. All organizatonal fetshes -
card-carrying, subscriptons stamps, meeting-mania, etc. , -stike us as obso
lete and dangerous, and therefore to be avoided: tey could proftably be re
placed by te intensive ad consistent communication of informaton.
As a sometimes minuscule minority in mass societ, revolutionaries fght
for temselves as much as for everyone. Being an anarchist is not just a matter
of stking rebellious poses aganst every trespass against one's autonomy -
every healthy indivdu
a
l is perfecty capable of that -but, in terms of behav
ior, which is its ethic acted out, is a matter of being true to oneself and oters.
Tis is how the rebel breaks fee of the ruler fruled schizophrenia of contem
porary societ. Lbertarian communism, the most rounded form of direct de
mocrac, is a collectve asserton of his determinaton to exist.
X X . M AT C H I N G E N D S A N D M E A N S 1 85
TEXTS AND DOCUMENTS
I NTRODUCTI ON
Our interest i n the Platorm dates fom 1964, when we embarked upon our
investgation of the Makhnovist movement. Tat document struck us as the
condensation of the experiences accumulated within that movement by its two
main authors -Arshinov and Makhno -although, to judge by the testimony
(collected during 19701971) of Ida Mett, a member of the Dyelo Truda group,
there were many involved in the discussion of it. As early as 1967, we came up
with a translaton of these basic libertarian communist texts. It was also neces
sary to tace its theoretical ancestry, its posterity and its relevancy, and above
al to make kown te Ukrainian insurgent movement tat was teir inspiration.
Tis we have now done with our book Te Cossack of Freedom and the
anthology of Nestor Makhno's Political Writings. Te Platorm and the conto
versy it tiggered are thus part and parcel of that extraordinary historical expe
rience and they help focus attention upon the crucial issue in anarchism: its
organized practice.
We ought to remember tat the original translaton by Voline was called
into queston as "bad and clumsy, " the tanslator having failed to "boter to
adapt his terminology and vocabulary to the mentalit of the French move
ment." We h
a
ve seached for what could have prompted such critcisms and
we discovered in fact tat tere are several terms that have deliberately been
travestied: napravieniye, which means bot "direction" and "orentaton" has
been systematcally tanslated as the former: likewise te word rukovodtvo,
meaning "conduct," and its dervative "guidance, leadership, direction, admin
istation" have been systematically rendered as "leadership. " A even more
blatant instance is the closing expression of the Platorm, zastreihchik, mean
ing "instgator," which has been rendered as ''vanguard. '' In this manner, by
def touches, te document's underlying meaning has been tampered with. All
of which is annoying, for the translator, Voline, then went on to become the
main detactor of te Platorm. For our own part, we have adhered as closely as
possible to the literal meaning and we hope we have been faithfl to its spirit.
We have added a number of other texts and articles in chronological or
der, to aford a better picture of the debate initiated. We should have liked to
1 86 F A C I NG THE E NE MY
add the Reply fom Voline and his fiends but its extreme length and the pros
pect of having to contend wit possible copyright difculties deterred us fom
doing so. Maybe somebody else will have more success there? Te beter to
convey the relevance of the issue, we tought of reprinting the Kronstadt
Group's Organizational Prnciples and the Organizational Contract of te Revo
lutionary Anarchist Organization (OR) , bot of tem dating fom 1971. Tey
could give some idea of the practicalities of the operations of a libertaian com
munist organizaton in the Platorm tradition. Finally, untl such time as his
book becomes available, the letter fom Georges Fontenis offers an outine
explanation of that exraordinary phenomenon, the OPE.
-Alexandre Skirda
Endnote t te Intoducton to Texs and Documents
1. Le Libertaire, No. 106, (Aprl 15, 1927) .
T E XT S & D O C U M E NT S : I NT R O D U C T I ON 1 87
DO C U M E N T No . I
TH E P R O B L E M O F OR G A N I ZAT I O N A N D
T H E N OT I O N O F SY N T H E S I S
Several comrades have had teir say in the columns of Dyelo Truda regard
ing the question of anarchist principles and organizational format.
Not that they all approached the problem fom the same angle. Te es
sence of tis matter, as spelled out by te editoral staf of Dyelo Truda, con
sists of the following:
We anarchists who agitate and fght for te emancipaton of te proletiat,
must, at all costs, have an end of te dissipaton and disorganizaton prevg in
our ranks, for these are destoyng our steng and our libertian endeavors.
Te way to go about this is to create an orgaizaton that might not perhaps
enfold all of aachism's active militts, but assuredly the majorit of tem, on
the basis of specic theoretcal and tactcal positons and would bring us to a frm
understding as to how these might be applied in practce.
It goes without saying tat te tacking of tis issue should go hand in
hand with the elaboraton of teoretical and tactical positions tat would fr
nish te basis, te platorm for tis organization. For we should be wastng our
tme taking about the need to organize our forces and noting would come of
it, were we not to associate te idea of such organizaton with well-defned teo
retca and tactc
a
l positons.
Te Group of Russian Aarchists Abroad has never lost sight of tis later
queston. In a series of artcles caried in Dyelo Trud its viewoint has been
spelled out in part on the important particulars of the program: anarchism's
relatonship to the toilers' class stuggle, revolutionary syndicalism, te trasi
ton
a
l perod, etc.
Our nex task will be to arrive at a clear formulaton of altese positons of
prnciple, ten to set them alout in some more or less rounded orgaizatonal
platorm which will serve as the basis for uniting a fair number of militants ad
groups into one ad te same organization. Te later will in trn serve as a
springboard to a more complete fsion of the anarchist movement's forces.
Tat ten is te route we have chosen to a resoluton of te organizational
problem. It is not our intention to proceed on this occasion with a total
188 FACIN G THE ENEMY
re-examination of values or elaboration of any new positions. Our view is that
everyting necessary for the constuction of an organization founded upon a
given platorm can be found in lbertarian Communism which espouses the
class struggle, the equalit and libert of every worker, and is reaized in te
anarchist Commune.
Tose comrades who champion the notion of a theoretca syntesis of
anarchism's various currents have quite anoter approach to the organizaiona
question. It is a pit that their view is so feebly spelled out and elaborated and
tat it is thus hard to devise a thoroughgoing critique of it. Essentally, their
notion is as follows: Anarchism is divded into three stands: communist anar
chism, anacho-syndicalism and individualist anarchism. Altough each of tese
stands has features particular to itself, all three are so ain and so close to one
another tat it is only thanks to an artifcia misconception tat tey enjoy sepa
rate existences.
In order to give rise to a strong, powerfl anarchist movement, it is neces
sary that they should fse completely. Tat fsion, in trn, implies a theoretical
and philosophical synthesis of the teachings upon which each of te stands is
founded. It is only aer theoretcal synthesis of these teachings tat we can
tackle the stucture and format of an organizaton representing all three ten
dencies. Such then is te content of the syntesis thus conceived, as set out in
te "Declaraton on anarchists' working together, " and in a few articles by com
rade Voline carried by Te Anarchist Messenger and Dyelo Truda (os. 8 and
9) . We are in total disagreement with this idea. Its inadequacy is glarngly obvi
ous. For a start, why tis arbitary division of anarchism into three stands?
Tere are others as well . We might mention, say, Christian anarchism,
associatonism, which, be it said in passing, is closer to communist anarchism
tan to individualist anarchism. Ten again, what precisely is the consistenc
of te "teoretcal and phiosophical" discrepancies between te aorementoned
tree tendencies, if a synthesis between tem is to be devised?
For one ting, before we t about a teoretc
a
l syntesis of comunism,
syndicaism and individualism, we would need to aae tese currents. Teoret
ca aasis would quicky show te exnt to which te wish to synthesize tese
currents is harebrained and absurd. Indeed, does not t of a "sytesis beteen
comunism and syndicaism" signif some sort of contast between tem? Many
aachists have aways regarded syndicism as one of te forms of the proletan
revolutonary movement, as one of te fghtng metods espoused by te working
class in fghtng for its emancipaton.
We regad Communism as te goal of the laboring classes' liberaton
movement.
So, can te end be in contradicton wit the means? Only the wobbly rea
soning of some dilettante intellectal ignorant of te history of libertrian com
munist tought could place tem side by side and seek to arrive at a syntesis of
tem. [Tat is, Voline -AS. ] For our own part, we ae well aware that libert
ia communism has aways been syndicalist in that it regards the existence and
D O C U M E N T N O. I T H E P RO B L E M O F O R G A N I Z AT I O N 1 89
expansion of independent professional organizations as a necessity for the so
cial victory of the toilers.
So it could only be, and was in reality only a matter, not of a theoretcal
synthesis of communism and syndicalism, but rather of the role that syndical
ism should be assigned in communist anarchism's tactics and in the social revo
lution of the toilers.
Te theoretical inadequacies of the supporters of the synthesis is even
more striking when they seek to arrive at a synthesis between communism
and individualism.
In fact, what does the anarchism of individualists consist ot? Te notion of
te feedom of the individual?
But what is this "indivduality"? Is it the individuality of the individual in
general or the oppressed "individuality" of the toiler?
Tere is no such thing as "individualit in general, " because, one way or
another, every individual fnds himself objectively or subjectively in the realm
of labor or else in the realm of capital. But isn't that idea implicit in libertarian
communism? We might even say that the feedom of the individual qua toiler is
realizable only in te context of a libertarian communist society that will take a
scrupulous interest in social solidarit as well as in respect for the rights of the
individual.
Te anarchist commune is the model of social and economic relations best
suited to fostering the development of the feedom of the individual. Anarchist
communism is not some rigid, unbending social famework which, once
achieved, is set and sets a term to the development of the individual. On the
contay: its supple, elastic social organization will develop by growing in com
plexit and constanty seeking improvements, so that the feedom of the indi
vdual may expand without hindrance.
Similarly, ant-Statism seems to be one of the fndamental principles of
communist anarchism. In addition, it has a real content and a real expression.
Communist anarchism rejects statism i. 1 the name of social independence
and te self-management of the laboring classes. As for individualism, on what
basis does it refte the state? Assuming that it does! Certain individualist theo
retcians champion the right to private ownership in personal relatons and in
economic relatons alike. But wheresoever the principles of private propert
and personal fortunes exist, a stuggle of economic interests inevitably comes
into being, a statist structure created by the economically more powerfl.
So what remains of individualist anachism? Negation of te class struggle,
of te principle of an anarchist organizaton having as its object te fee societ
of equa workers: and, moreover, empt babble encouraging workers unhappy
wt teir lot to look to teir defenses by means of recourse to te personal
solutons alegedly open to them as liberated individuas.
But what is there in all this that can be described as anarchist? Where are we
to fnd the featres in need of synthesis with communism? Tat whole philoso
phy has noting to do with anarchist theory or anarchist practce: and it is un
likely that an anachist worker would be inclined to conorm to this "philosophy."
1 90 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
So, as we have seen, an anaysis of the theoretical tasks of the syntesis
leads into a dead end steet. And we fnd te same again when we examine te
practical aspect of te issue. We have to choose between two optons:
Either te tendencies named remain independent tendencies, in which case,
how are tey going to prosecute their activties in some common organization,
the very purpose of which is precisely to attune anarchists' actiites to a spe
cic agreement?
Or these tendencies should lose their distinguishing features and, by amal
gamating, give rise to a new tendency that will be neither communist, syndical
ist nor indivdu
a
list. . . . But in that case, what are its fndamenta positons and
featres to be?
By our reckoning the notion of syntesis is founded upon a total aberra
ton, a shoddy grasp of te basics of the three tendencies, which the support
ers of syntesis seek to amalgamate into one.
Te central tendency, the spinal column of anarchism is represented by
communist anarchism. Aarcho-individualism is at best only a philosophical/
literary phenomenon and not a social movement. It ofen happens tat te lat
ter is drawn into politcs and ends up as a bourgeois fad Oike Tucker and oter
individualists) .
Te above does not at
a
ll mean that we are against concerted endeavor by
anarchists of varying persuasions. Quite the opposite: we can only salute any
thing that brings revolutionary anarchists closer togeter in practice.
However, that can be achieved practcally, concretely, by means of te es
tablishment ofliaison beteen ready made, stengtened organizatons, In which
case, we would be dealing only with specic practical tasks, requirng no syn
thesis and indeed precluding one. But we think tat, the more that anarchists
clari te basics -the essence of libertarian communism -te more they
wll come to agreement on these principles and erect upon tat basis a broad
organization tat will provde a lead in socia-political maters as well as in te
realm of trade union/professional maters.
As a result, we do not in any way see a link beteen the organizatonal
problem and the notion of synthesis. I it is to be resolved, there is no need to
get carried away by vague theorizations and expect results fom that. Te bag
gage that anarchism has amassed over te years of its life process and socia
stuggle is more than suffcient. We need only take proper account of it, apply
ing it to the conditions and exigencies of life, in order to build up a account
able organization.
Te Group of Russia Aarchists Abroad.
Te Staf of Dyelo Truda. From Dyelo Truda No. 10, (arch 1926) .
D O CU MENT NO. I THE P R OBLEM O F O R G ANI ZAT I ON 1 9 1
DO C U M E N T No . 2 :
TH E GR O U P O F RU S S I A N AN AR C H I S T S AB R OAD
TH E OR GAN I ZAT I O N A L P L AT F O R M OF T H E GE N E RAL
UN I O N O F AN AR C H I S TS ( DRA F T) J U N E 2 0 , 1 9 2 6
I NTRODUC TI ON
Anarchists!
For all of te cogency and unquestionably positive character of libertarian
ideas, of the claty and integrity of anarchist positions wit regard to the social
revolution, and fnaly the heroism and countess sacrices contributed by an
archists in the stuggle for libertarian communism, it is very telling that the
anarchist movement has, in spite of al tis, always stayed wea and most ofen
featured in the history of workers' stuggles, not as a determining factor, but
rater as a finge phenomenon.
Tis contast between the positve basis and incontrovertible vaidit of
libertarian ideas and te wetched condition in which the anarchist movement
is forever mired, is explicable in terms of a range of factors, the chief one being
te absence of hard and fast principles and of a consistent organizationa prais.
In every county, the anarchist movement is represented by some loca
organizatons, ofen espousing a contadictory theory and tactcs, wt no for
ward planning, nor contnuit O! militant endeaor, habitlally evaporang al
most without leaving any tace behind them.
Such a conditon in revolutonary anarchism, uwe tae it as a whole, can
not be descrbed as anything oter than a "chronic genera disorganizaton. "
lke te yelow fever, this disease of disorganizaton has invaded te or
ganism of te anarchist movement and has had it on te rack for some decades.
It is not in doubt, however, tat tis disorganization has its roots in a
number of shortcomings of a teoretical order: notably in a mistaen inter
pretaton of te principle of individuait in anachism: tat principle being
too ofen mistaen for te absence of a accountabilit Tose enamored of
assertng teir "ego" solely wt an eye to persona pleasure cling stubbornly
to te chaotc conditon of the anarchist movement and, in defense tereof,
invoke te immutable prnciples of Anarchy and its teoreticians.
N ow, the immutable principles and te theoretcians demonstate the very
opposite.
| F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
Dispersion and dissipation spell ruination. Close union is te guarantor of
life and of development. Tat law of social struggle is equaly applicable to
classes and to parties.
Anarchism is not some beautl dream, nor some abstract noton of phi
losophy: it is a social movement of te toiling masses. For that reason alone, it
must gather its forces into one umbrella organization, forever acting as the real
ity and the strateg of the social strugle that the classes require of it.
Kropotin said: "We are convinced that the formation of an anarchit party
in Rusia, far fom doing prejudice to the common revolutionary endeavor is in
stead desirable and usefl in the highest degree." (Foreword to Bakunin's Paris
Commune, 1892 editon)
Baunin too never opposed the idea of an anarchist umbrella organization.
On te contrary: his aspiratons with regard to organizaton, as well as his ac
tvities within the First WorkingMen's Internatonal, entte us to look upon
him as an actie advocate, indeed, of such an organization.
Broadly speaing, nearly alof te actve mitats of anachism were against
aldissipated acton and dreamed of an anarchist movement bound togeter by
a commonality of end and meas.
It was during the Russian revoluton of 1917 tat te need for an umbrella
organizaton made itself felt most plainly and most imperously. It was during
te course of tat revoluton that the libertarian movement displayed the great
est degree of dismemberment and consion, Te absence of an umbrella orga
nizaton induced many of anarchism's actve militants to defect to te ranks of
te Bolsheviks. It is
a
lso te reason why many other militants fnd temselves
today in a conditon of passivit that tarts any utlizaton of teir resources,
which are moreover ofen of great importance.
We have a vital need of an organization which, having attacted most of te
paticipants in the anarchist movement, might prescribe for anarchism a gen
eral tactcal and policy line and might tereby serve as a guide for the whole
movement.
It is high tme that anachism emerged fom te swamps of disorganiza
ton to put paid to te interminable ditering i the most important theoretical
and tactical maters, and set off in search of a clearly conceived goal and pur
sued an organized collective practce.
It is not enough, tough, to register the vital necessit of such an organiza
ton: it is also necessay to sete upon a means of establishing it.
We repudiate as theoretically ad praccally inept the idea of creating an
organization using the recipe of te "syntesis," tat is to say, bringing togeter
representatives of the various strands of anachism. Such an organizaton, having
embraced motley elements (in terms of teir teory ad practice) would be noth
ing more than a mechanical assemblage of persons wth varying views on al
issues afectng te anarchist movement: tat assemblage would inevitably break
up on impact with life.
D O C U M E N T N O . 2 O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P L AT F O R M 1 93
Te anarcho-syndicalist approach does not resolve anarchism's organiza
tional diffcult, for it fails to give priority to it and is interested only in penetrat
ing and making headway into workers' circles.
However, even with a footold there, tere is nothing much to be accom
plished there, i we do not have an anarchist umbrella organization.
Te only approach leading to a solution of te problem of an umbrella organi
zation is, as we see it, recruitent of anarchism's actve militants on the basis of
hard and fast positons: teoretca, tactca and organizatonal, which is to say on
te more or less rounded basis of a homogeneous program.
Te drafing of such a program is one of the chief tasks with which the
social struggle in recent years has confonted anarchists. It is to that task tat
te Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad has dedicated a signifcant faction of
its efforts.
Te Platorm o/Organization published below, represents, in outline, te
skeleton of j ust such a program. It should serve as a frst step towards the
gaering of libertarian forces into a single, active revolutonary grouping poised
for action: the General Union of Anarchists.
We have no illusions about this or that defciency in this present Platorm.
Beyond all doubt, defciencies it does possess, as i n fact does any practical new
departure of note. It may be tat certain essential positions have been lef out,
or that certain others have not been dealt with adequately, or that still others
may be there, but in too much detail or wit undue repetition. Al of which is
possible. But that is not te most important point.
Wat maters is that the groundwork be laid for a general organization.
Ad that is the aim achieved, to a requisite extent, by the present Platorm.
It is up to te whole collectivity -the General Union of Anarchists -to
go on to cxand upon and explore it so as to turn it into a defnite program for
the whole anarchist movement.
On another score also we have no illusions. We anticipate that several rep
resentatives of individualism, so-called; and of "chaotic" anarchism are going
to attack us, foaming at the mouth and charge us with havng infinged anar
chist principles.
Yet we know that these individualist and chaotic elements t te phrase
"anarchist principles" to mean the cavalier attde, negligence and utter absence
of accountability, that have inficted all but incurable injuries upon our move
ment, and against which we stuggle with all our energy and enthusiasm. Tat is
why we can, with equanimit, ignore attacks emanating fom that quarter.
Our hopes are vested in other militants: in tose who have kept fait wit
anarchism, who have lived out the tagedy of the anarchist movement and are
painflly searching for an escape.
Finall we have high hopes of te anarchist youth, born in the shadow of
te Russian revolution and absorbed, fom the outset by the round of constuc
tve problems and who will assuredly insist upon the implementation of posi
tve organizational prnciples in anarchism.
1 94 F A CI NG THE ENEM Y
We invte althe Russian anarchist organizations scattered across the globe,
as well as isolated militants, to come togeter into a single revolutionary group
ing, on the basis of a common orgaizatona Platorm.
May this Platorm frnish all of the militants of te Russian anarchist move
ment with a revolutionary watchword and rallying point! May it lay the founda
tions of te General Union of Aarchists!
Long live te Social Revolution of the world's Toilers!
GENERAL PART
-Te Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad
For the Group, Secretary Piotr Arshinov, June 20, 1926
1 . Class Stugle, It Role and It Meaning
''ere is no ONE mankind. Tere is a mankind made up of
classes: slaves and masters. "
Lke all of its predecessors, te capitalist and bourgeois society of our day
is not "one. " It is split into two very distinct camps, differing socially in teir
positon ad functon: te proletariat (in the broadest sense of te word) and
the bourgeoisie.
Te lot of te proletariat has, for centries now, been to bea the brunt of
taing physical labor the fuits of which devolve, however, not to itself, but
rater to another, privileged class that enjoys propert, autorit and the prod
ucts of learning (science, education ad art) : the bourgeoisie. Te social en
slavement and exploitaton of te toiling masses form te basis upon which
modern societ stands and without which tat society could not exist. Tis fact
gave rise to a secular class stuggle sometmes assuming an open, volent form,
sometimes undetectable and slow, but always, essentaly, directed towards the
tansformation of te existing societ into a societ tat would satsf the toil
ers' needs, requirements and conception of justce.
In social terms, the whole of human history represents an unbroken se
ries of stuggles waged by the toiling masses in pursuit of teir rights, their
libert and a better life. At altimes in the history of human societes, that class
stuggle has been the prncipal factor determining the shape and stuctures of
those societies.
Te politcal and social system of any country is primarily the product of
the class stuggle. Te stucture assumed by any society shows us the posi
tion at which te class stuggle has fnished or presently stands. Te slightest
change in the tide of te batte between the classes ad the relative strengths
of the contending classes inevitably produces amendments to the fabric and
stuctures of the society.
Such are te general, global implications and import of the class struggle
in te l of class societies.
D O CU MEN T N O . 2 O R G ANI Z AT I O N A L P L AT F O R M 1 95
2. Te Necessit of a Violent Social Revoluton
Te principle of te enslavement and exploitaton of the masses through
volence lies at te root of modern societ. All of the manifestations of its exist
ence: economics, politics, social relations, repose upon class violence, whose
auxiliary agencies are te autorities, the police, the army, te courts. Every
ting in that society: every undertking considered separately, as well as the
whole state system, is noting but a bulwark of capitalism fom which the toil
ers are forever being monitored, and where forces designed for crushing any
movement by the workers that may threaten the foundatons or even the tran
quillit of te present societ, are on constant stand-by.
At the same time, the arrangement of that society deliberately keeps the
toiling masses in a conditon of ignorance and mental stagnation: it forcibly
prevents the raising of their moral and intellectual levels, the more readily to
lord it over tem.
Te advances of modern societ: te technological evolution of Capital and
te amelioration of its political system, reinforce te might of the ruling classes
and make the stuggle against tem increasingly diffcult, tereby postponing
te crucial moment when Lbor achieves emancipation.
Aalysis of modern societ leads us to the conclusion that violent social
revolution is the only route to transformation of capitalist societ into a society
of fee workers.
3. Anarchism and Lbertarian Communism
Among the oppressed, te class struggle spawed by the enslavement of
the toilers and their aspirations to feedom engender the idea of anarchism:
the idea oi the complete negation of te socia system based upon the class and
state principles, and of te replacement of these by a fee, stateless society of
self-governing toilers.
Tus anarchism was born, not of the abstract deiiberations of some sage
or philosopher, but out of the direct stuggle waged by the toilers against Capi
tal, out of te toilers' needs and requirements teir aspirations towards liberty
and equality, aspirations that become especially vivid in te most heroic stages
of the toiling masses' life and struggle.
Anarchism's leading tinkers: B
a
kunin, Kropotkin, and oters, did not in
vent te idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it among the masses, they
merely helped refne and propagate it trough the excellence of their thinking
and teir learning.
Aarchism is not the outcome of personal endeavor, nor the object of indi
vidual quests. Lkewise, anarchism is not at all te product of humanitarian
aspiratons, A "singular" humanit does not exist. Any atempt to make anar
chism an attribute of te whole of humanity, as it presently stands, or to credit
it with a generally humanitaian character, would be an historical and social
1 96 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
falsehood tat would inevitably result in justcation of the current order and
of fesh exploitaton.
Anachism is broadly humanitarian only in the sense tat te ideals of te
toiling masses tend to sanitze the lives of almen, and that te fate of humanit
today or tomorrow is bound up with that of enslaved Lbor. Should te toiling
masses prove victorious, the whole of humankind wll know a rebirt. I they
should fail, volence, exploitaton, slavery and oppression wl prevail in the
world like before.
Te incepton, unfolding and realization of aachist ideals have teir roots
in te l and stuggle of te toiling masses and are indissolubly bound up
wit the fate of te latter.
Anarchism aims to turn today's bourgeois capitaist societ into a societ
tat wl guarantee workers te product of teir labors, feedom, independence
and social and politcal equalit. Lbertarian communism will be tat oter so
ciet. It is in libertarian communism tat social solidarit and fee individualit
fnd their fllest expression, and tat tose to notions develop in perfect har
mony.
Lbertarian communism reckons tat te sole creator of socia assets is la
bor, physical and intellectual, and, as a result, tat labor alone has any entte
ment to govern te whole of economic and socia lfe, Tat is why it neiter ex
cuses nor countenances te existence of non-laboring classes in ay way.
As long as such classes survve contemporaneously wt libertarian com
munism, the latter will not own any obligations towards tem. Only when te
non-laborng classes make up their minds to become productve and wiling to
live in the communist societ on the same footng as everyone else, wl tey
take up a place comparable to everyone else's, tat is, resembling te positon
of fee members of societ, enjoying te same rights and the same dutes as
every oter laboring member of it.
Lbertarian communism seeks te eradicaton of all exploitation and vio
lence, wheter against te individual or against te masses. To tat end, it lays
down an economic and social groundwork tat knits all of te county's eco
nomic and socia life into a harmonious whole, guarantees every individua
pait wit every oter and afords te utost well-being to everyone. Tis
groundwork is the common ownership, in te form of socializaton, of all of te
means and instuments of producton (industy, tansport, land, raw materials,
etc.) and te constucton of economic agencies on te basis of equait ad
sel-governance of te laboring classes.
Within te parameters of tis self-governing toilers' society, libertarian
communism lays down te principle of every indivdua's (not of te individual
it "in general, " nor te "mystic individual" either or of te concept of individu
ality, but rater of te concrete individual instead) equait in wort and in
rights.
It is fom tis principle of equalit and also te fact that te labor value
supplied by each indivdual cannot be eiter measured or estated tat the
D O C U M E N T N O . 2 O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P L AT F O R M 1 97
underlying economic, social and juridical principle of libertarian communism
-"From each according to his means, to each according to his need" -follows.
4. Te Negaton of Democracy
Democracy is one of the forms of capitalist and bourgeois society.
Te basis of democracy is the retenton of the two antagonistic classes of
modern societ, the class of Lbor and that of Capital, and of their collaboration
on the basis 0/ capitalist private prperty. Te expression 0/ this collaboration is
parliament and representative national government.
Formally, democracy proclaims feedom of speech, of the press, of asso
ciation, as well as universal equality before the law.
In realit, all these feedoms are of a very relative nature: they are toler
ated as long as tey pose no challenge to the interests of the ruling class, that
is to say, of the bourgeoisie.
Democracy leaves the principle of capitalist private property untouched. In
so doing, it leaves the bourgeoisie its entitement to hold within its hands the
entire economy of te county, all of the press, education, science and art: which,
in fact, makes te bourgeoisie the absolute mistress of the country. Enjoying a
monopoly in the realm of economic affrs, the bourgeoisie is fee to estblish
its unbounded power in te politcal realm also. Indeed, parliament and repre
sentative government are, in democracies, merely executive organs of the bour
geoisie.
As a result, democracy is merely one of the facets of the bourgeois dicta
torship, concealed behind the camouflage of notional political feedoms and
democratic assurances.
5. Te Negaton of te Stte and Authorit
Te bourgeoisie's ideologues defne the state as te organ regulating the
complex political, civil and social relations between men witin modern soci
et, watching out for the latter's law and order. Aarchists are in perfect agree
ment with that defniton, but they look beyond it, asserting that underpinning
that order and those laws is the enslavement of the vast majority of the people
by an insignifcant minorit, and that that is the precise purpose of te state.
Te state is at one and the same time the organized violence o/the bourgeoisie
against the toiler and the arangement 0/ it executive organs.
Te lef-wing socialists and, in particular, the Bolsheviks also look upon
Autorit and the bourgeois state as te servants of Capita. But they take the
line tat Authorit and the state can, in the hands of the socialist parties, be
come a powerfl weapon in the struggle for te emancipation of the prole
tariat. On those grounds, these parties are for a socialist Authorit and a prole
tarian state. Some (the Social Democrats) seek to win power by peacefl, par-
1 98 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
liamentary means: oters (te Bolsheviks, te Lf Social Revolutionaries) by
way of revoluton.
Anarchism regards these two theses as profoundly i error and harmfl to
the drive to emancipate Lbor.
Authorit always goes hand in glove wit exploitaion and enslaement of
the masses of the people. It arises out of tat exploitation, or is created in the
latter's interests. Authorit witout violence and without exploitaton loses al
raison d' ete.
Te state and Authorit rob the masses of initiative, murder the creatve
spirit and the spirit of fee activity, nurturing in them te slavish mentalit of
submission, of patence, the hope of climbing up the ladder of society, of blind
faith in leaders, of the illusion of a share in authority. Now, emancipation of the
toilers is feasible only trough te process of direct revolutionary stuggle by
the laboring masses and teir class organizations against te capitaist system.
Te conquest of power by te social democratic parties, by parliamentary
methods, in te context of te present order, will not advance the task of eman
cipaton of Lbor by a single step, for the simple reason that te real power, and
thus te real autorit, will remain with te bourgeoisie which will have con
trol of the whole of the country's economy and politcs. Te role of te socialist
authorities will in that case be confned to reforms, to improvement ofthat same
bourgeois regime. (Examples: Mac Donald, te Social Democrat parties of Ger
many, Sweden and Belgium which have attained power in a capitalist society.)
Te taking of power through social upheaval ad the organization of an
aleged "proletarian state" cannot frther the cause of genuine emancipaton of
Lbor either. Te State, supposedly erected at frst for the purpose of defend
ing the revolution inevitably ends up by becoming swollen with those needs
and characteristics peculiar to itsel, and becomes an end in itsel, spawing
specifc privileged castes upon which it relies: it forcibly subjugates the masses
to its needs and those of the privleged castes and thus restores the ground
work of capitalist Authorit and the capitalist State: habitual enslavement and
exploitation of te masses by violence. (Example: te Bolshevks' ''workers'
and peasants'" State. )
6. Te Role of Anarchists and te Masses in te Social Stugle
and Social Revoluton
Te principal forces of social revolution are: the urban working class, the
peasant masses and a segment of te working intelligentsia.
Note: -While being, like the urban and rural proletariat, an oppressed
and exploited class, the working intelligentsia is comparatively less
united than the workers and the peasants, taks to te economic
privileges which the bourgeoisie awards to certan of its members.
Tat is why in te early days of the social revoluton, only the less
well-off stata of te intelligentsia will take an active part in it.
D O C U M E N T N O . 2 O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P L AT F O R M 1 99
Te anarchist conception of the role of te masses in the social revolution
and in the construction of socialism is tellingly different fom that of the statst
parties. While Bolshevism and its kindred currents take the line that the toil
ing mass is possessed only of destructive revolutionary instincts, and incapable
of creative and constructive revolutionary activity -the main reason why the
latter should be placed in te hands of the men making up the government or
te Part Cental Committee -anarchists think instead that the toiling mass
carries within itself vast creative and constructive potential, and they aspire to
sweep aside te obstacles preventing these fom showing themselves.
Anarchists in fact look upon the State as the chief obstacle, usurping all
the rights of the masses and divesting them of all their fnctions in economic
and social life. Te State must wither away, not "one day, " in the society of the
fture, but right away It has to be destroyed by the worker, on day one of their
victory, and must not be restored in any guise whatsoever It is to be replaced by
a federalist arrangement of toilers' production and consumption organizations,
federatvely connected and self-governing. Tat system rules out both Author
ity and the dictatorship of any party whatsoever.
Te Russian revolution of 1917 specifcally exemplifes this approach to
the process of social emacipation through the creation of the system of work
ers' and peasants' soviets and of factory committees. Its dismal error was not
to have liquidated the organization of State Power at the opportune moment:
the provisional government, to begin with, and then Bolshevik power. Te
Bolsheviks, capitalizing upon the tust of the workers and peasants, reshaped
the bourgeois state in accordance with the circumstances of the time and then,
with the aid of that State, killed of the creative activit of the masses: by stan
gling the fee system of soviets and factory committees that represented the
frst steps in the ri rection of constucton of a state-lt6, ucialist societ.
Anarchists' action may be viewed as failing into two phases: the one before
the revolution, ad the one durng the revolution. In both, only as an organized
force wit a clear-cut idea of the goals of their struggle and of the pathways
leading to accomplishment of those goals will anarchists be in a position to live
up to their role.
Te fndamental mission of the General Anarchist Union, in te pre
revolutonay era, must be to prepare the workers and peasants for the socia
revolution.
By denying forma (ourgeois) democracy, Authority and te state and pro
claming te fll emancipation of labor, aarchism places the utmost stess upon
the rigorous principles of the class stuggle, awaening and nurturing class con
sciousness and revolutionay class intansigence in the masses.
It is precisely along these lines of class intransigence, anti-democratism,
at-statsm and the ide
a
ls of anachist communism that the libertaian educa
tion of the masses should be conducted. But education on its own is not enough.
Wat is also needed, is a certain anarchist organization of the masses. I this is
to be accomplished, we have to operate along two lines: on the one hand, by
200 F A C I NG THE E NE M Y
selectng and ral ing revolutionary worker and peasant forces on a lbertarian
communist teoretcal basis (specifcal y libertaria organizations) , and on te
other, pursue te associaton of revolutonary workers and peasants on an eco
nomic footng of producton and consumpton (revolutonary worers' and peas
ants' producton organizatons, fee workers' and peasants' cooperatves, etc.) .
Te worker and peasant class, organized on te basis of producton and
consumpton and imbued wth te positons of revolutionary anarchism, will
be the social revoluton's premier flcrum. Te more such stata become con
sciously and in an organized way, anarchist, starting rght now, te more will
tey demonstate a determined libertarian intransigence and creatvit come
the revoluton.
As for the working class in Russia, it is plain tat aer eight years of Bol
shevik dictatorship, which has bridled te masses' natral appette for unfet
tered actvit, and te like, and demonstated bettr tan anyone te true na
tre of all autort, tat class harbors wthin itsel immeasurable potental for
the formaton of an anarchist mass movement. Te organized anarchist mili
tants must immediately and with all available resources set about cultivatng
that appetite and potenta, lest these be allowed to degenerate into reformism
(Menshevism) . Wit like urgenc, anarchists must dedicate all their efforts to
organizing te poor peasanty, ground down as it is by the statist authorites,
looking aound for some release and harboring within itself vast revolutionary
potent
a
l.
Te anarchists' role in tme or revolution cannot be confned to te mere
dissemination of libertaran slogans and ideas.
le can be seen as an arena not just for te disseminaton of tis or tat
idea, but also and equaly as an arena for te stuggle, stategy and aspiratons
of such ideas to the direction of socia and economic life.
More than any oter outook, anarchism should become the guiding light
of te soci
a
l revoluton, for it is only on te theoretical basis of anarchism tat
the socia revoluton will be able to encompass te complete emancipaton of
Lbor.
Te spearhead position of anarchist ideas in the revolution means anar
chit theoretical direction of event. However, tis teoretcal driving force should
not be confsed with politcal directon by statst parties, culminatng in State
Power.
Anachism aspires neither to winning of political power nor to dor
ship. Its chief aspiraton is to assist te masses to choose te genuine pat of
socia revoluton ad sociast constucton. But it is not enough tat te masses
should embak upon te socia revolutonary route. is necessary too that
that constrction upon the revolution and it objectives be sustained: wit te
eliminaton of capitst societ in te nae of the societ of fee toilers. Pte
experience of te 1917 Russian revoluton has show us, te later task is no
easy ting, principal y on account of te many pates seeking to steer te move
ment in a directon leading away fom social revoluton.
D O C U M E N T N O . 2 0 R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P L A T F O R M |
Although the masses in social upheavals are prompted deep-down by an
archist tendencies and watchwords, the later nevertheless remain diffse, not
being coordinated and as a result they do not lead on to the organization of te
driving force of libertarian ideas, needed if te social revolution is to retain its
anarchist oriention and objectives. Tis theoretical driving force can only fnd
expression in a collective especially established by the masses for that express
purose. It is te organized anarchist elements and te General Anarchist Union
that constitute tat collective.
Te theoretical and practical duties of that collective, in time of revolution,
are considerable.
It has to display initative and demonstrate complete commitment in every
aspect of social revolution, encompassing the orientation and general tenor of
the revolution, the civil war and defense of the revolution, the positive tasks of
the revoluton in te new production, consumption, the agrarian question, etc.
On al of these issues and on a number of others, the masses demand a
plain and precise answer of te anarchists. And, just as soon as anarchists peddle
a concept of revolution and of societ's structure, they are obliged to come up
with a plain answer to all such questions, and to link solution of those problems
to te over-arching concepton of libertarian communism and to commit
a
ll of
their resources to its effective realization.
Only tus do te General Aarchist Union and te aarchist movement per
form teir spearhead teoretca fncton in te social revoluton propery.
7. Te Transitonal Period
By te phrase "transitional period," the socialist political parties mean a
specic phase in the !fe ofa peo!c,the essental fcares uwhtci hasc are:
a brea with the old order and the introduction of a new economic and politcal
arrangement, an arrangement which, however, does not yet imply te fll eman
cipation of te toilers.
In this respect, all of the minimum programs of the socialist political par
ties, for instance the democratic program of the opportunist socialists, or te
communists' "dictatorship of the proletariat" program, are progras for the
tansitional period.
Te essential feature of these minimum programs is that, one and al, tey
regard te complete realization of te toilers' ideals - teir independence,
teir liberty, teir equalit -as, for the tme being, impracticable, and tat as
a result they retain a whole series of the capitalist system's instittions: te
principle of statist restraint, private ownership of the means and instuments of
production, wage-slavery, and severa
l others, according to te goals to which
one program or another relates.
Anarchists have always been opposed on principle to such programs, t
a
k
ing te view that the constructon of transitional arrangements tat sustain te
principles of exploitaton and constraint of te masses lead inescapably to re
growth of slavery.
F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
Instead of laying down minimum policy programs, anarchists have always
championed te noton of immediate social revoluton, tat would stip te capi
talist class of politica and economic privleges and restore te means and in
struments of producton, as well as every other fncton of economic and so
cial lie, to the care of te toilers.
Tat is a position that anarchists have retained to tis very day.
Te idea of te tansitional period, according to which te social revolu
tion should culminate not in a communist societ, but in a given system that
retains elements and relics fom the old capitaist system, is essentially ant
social. I treatens to result in the bolstering and expasion of such elements
to teir former proportions and sends events into reverse.
One sensatonal example of tis is te "dictatorship of te proletariat" re
gime established by te Bolsheviks in Russia.
According to them, this regime was to be only a transitional stage in te
march to total communism. In point of fact, tat stage has in realit resulted in
the restoration of class society, at the bottom of which, just like before, we fnd
the workers and the poor peasants.
Te center of gravity in the construction of the communist society does
not consist of te feasibilit of guaranteeing every indivdual, right fom the
ear days of te revoluton, boundless feedom to seek sasfacton of his needs,
but resides in the conquest of the social basis of that societ and the establish
ment of the principles of egaitarian relations beteen indivduals. A for the
matter of the greater or lesser abundance of resources, that is not a matter of
prnciple but aises as a technical problem.
Te underlying principle upon which te new societ will be erected, te
precept upon which tat society wl, so to speak, rest and which must not be
tampered wit even to the slightest degree is that ofthe toiler' parity in rela
tionships, libert and independence. Now that principle precisely encapsulates
te premier essentia requirement of the masses, in te name of which alone
they rose up for the social revoluton.
One has to choose: eiter the social revolution wlend in te defeat of the
toilers, in which case, we have to start all over again to prepare for another
stuggle, a fesh offensive against the capitalist system: or it will bring about
te victory of te toilers, in which case, the later, havng seized the where
wtal to fend for temselves -the land, producton and socia fnctons -
will set about the constucton of te fee societ.
Tat will be te characteristic of the launching of te constucton of te
communist societ which, once begun, will then proceed wit its develop
ment witout iterrupton, endlessly gathering stengt and working towards
perfection.
In that way, the toilers' takeover of productve ad socia fnctions wll
signal a plain dividing line between the statst era ad te non-statist one.
I it wishes to become te spokesman for te stuggling Masses, te em
blem of a whole era of social revoluton, anarchism must not accommodate its
program to vestiges of the outoded word, te opportunistc tendencies of
D O C U M E N T N O . 2 O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P L AT F O R M 203
transitional arrangements and periods, nor cover up its underlying prnciples,
but should instead build upon these and put them to maimum use.
8. Anarchism and Trade Unionism
Te tendency to contast libertarian communism wit syndicalism, and
vice versa, is one that we consider artifcial and bereft of all foundaton and
sense.
Te ideas of anarchism and of syndicalism occupy two different planes.
Whereas communism, which is to say the fee societ of equal toilers, is the
goal of the anarchist stuggle, syndicalism, which is to say the workers' revolu
tionary movement based on tades, is but one of the forms of te revolutionary
class struggle. In unitng the workers on the basis of production, revolutionary
syndic
a
lism, like every trades association indeed, has no specic teory: it has
no world-pictre embracing all of the complicated social and political issues of
the contemporary condition. It always mirrors the ideology of a range of politi
cal groupings, notably of tose most intensively at work witin its ranks.
Our stadpoint with regard to revolutionary syndicalism follows fom what
has just been said. Without getng bogged down here with resolving i ad
vance the matter of the revolutionary trades unions' role on te morrow of te
revolution, that is, wit knowing whether they are to be the organizers of al
the new production, or will yield tat role to workers' sovets, or indeed to
factory committees, it is our view that anarchists should be involved i revolu
tonary syndicalism as one of the forms of the revolutionary workers' move
ment.
However, the question, as posed today, is not wheter anarchists should
or should not play a part in revolutionary svndicalism, hut rather, how and to
what end they should play tat part.
We regard te whole foregoing period, right up to our own tmes -when
anarchists entered the revolutionary syndicalist movement as individua mili
tnts and propagandists -as a tme of artisanal relatons wit regad to te
trade union movement.
Anarcho-sydicalism, looking around for some way of injectng lbertan
ideas into the lef wing of revolutionary sndicalism, trough te creaton of
anarchist-tpe unions, represents, in tis respect, a step forward: but not quite,
as yet, an advance upon the empirical metod. For anarcho-sydicalism does
not necessarly link the drive to "anarchize" the syndicaist movement wit te
drive to organize the anarchist forces outside of that movement. Now,
"aarchizaton" of revolutonary syndicalism, and inoculaton against devaton
in te directon of opportunism and reformism only become feasible if just such
a linkage is established.
Regarding revolutionary syndicalism solely as a tades movement of te
toiers possessed of no specifc social ad politic
a
l theory, and tus, as inca
pable of itself resolvng the social queston, it is our estmaton tat te tsk of
the anarchists in te ranks of tat movement consists of developing libertrian
204 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
ideas there and of steering it in a libertarian direction, so as to turn it into an
army active in the service of te social revolution. It is important tat we never
forget that, u syndicalism fails to win the support of anarchist teory at te
right time, it then leans, willy-nilly upon the ideolog of some statist politcal
part.
French sydicaism, which once upon a tme shone on acount of its ana
chist watchwords and tctcs, before fl g under te sway of te Bolshevks and,
above a, of te opportunist socialists, is a telling example of tis.
But anarchists' task in the ranks of te revolutonary labor movement can
only be performed uteir efforts there are closely bound up and compatble
wit the activit of anarchist organization outside of te tade union. To put
that another way, we have to enter the revolutonary tades movement as an
organized force, answerable before te anarchist umbrella organization for our
work inside the trade unions, and receiving guidance fom that organization.
Without burdening ourselves with the establishment of anarchist trade
unions, we should seek to exercise our theoretica inuence over revolutonary
syndicalism as a whole, and in alits forms (te W ,te Russian tades unions,
etc.) . We can only accomplish this aim by settng to work as a rigorously orga
nized anarchist collective, ad certainly not as little empirical groups bereft of
organizational interconnection or theoretcal common gound.
Aarchist groupings inside frms and factories, preoccupied wit the cre
aton of anarchist tade unions, campaigning inside the revolutionary tade
unions so that libertaran ideas should prevail in syndicalism: groups receiving
guidance in their activities fom an overall anarchist organizaton -tese are
the forms and features of anarchists' attitude with regard to revolutonary syn
dicalism and its revolutonary tades movements.
CONSTRUCTI VE SECTI ON
Te Problem of Day One of te Social Revoluton
Te essenta objectve of te word of stuggl Lbor is te foundaton,
through revoluton, of a fee, egalitaan communist societ based upon te pre
cept: "From each according to his abites, to each accordig to his needs."
However, such a society wll not come about of itsel, but only by dint of a
social upheava. Te accomplishment of it will seem like a more or less pro
tracted social revolutonary process, steered by te organized forces of victori
ous Lbor down a partcular route.
Our task is to trace out that route right here and now, to fame te posite,
practical problems tat wll confont te workers right fom day one of te
social revolution. Te very fate of te latter will hinge upon proper resoluton
of them.
It goes wtout saying that te constucton of te new societ wll only be
practcable afer the toilers have tiumphed over the present bourgeois capit
a
list
system and its representatves. Tere is no way that the constuction of a new
D O C U M E N T N O . 2 O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P L AT F O R M 5
economy and new social relationships can be tackled until such time as te power
of te state defending the rule of slavery has been smashed, until such time as
te workers and peasants have assumed charge of the country's industrial and
agraria economy in a revolutionary arrangement.
As a result, the very frst task of the social revolution is to destroy the statist
edifce of capitalist societ, strip the bourgeoisie, and more generally, all socially
privleged elements, of the means of power, and establish throughout the will of
the rebellious proletariat as articulated in the underlying principles of the social
revolution. Tis destuctive and belligerent facet of the revolution will merely
clear the way for the positive challenges that make up the meaing and essence
of the social revolution.
Tose challenges are as follows:
1. To fnd a libertarian communist solution to the problem of the country's
industrial outut.
2. To resolve the agrarian problem in the same manner.
3. To resolve the problem of consumption (supply) .
Production
Bearing in mind that fact that the country's industry is the result of the
efforts of several generations of toilers, and that the various branches of indus
try are closely interconnected, we look upon the whole of current output as
one big workshop of toilers, wholly the propert of all the toilers as a whole,
and of no one in particular.
Te country's productive machinery is global and belongs to the entire
working class. Tis thesis determines the character and the form of the new
production. It too is to be global, common in the sense of the products trned
out by the toilers belonging to everybodv. TOSf prodnct, of whatever Slrt
they may be, will represent the general fnd for supplying te toilers, fom
which every participant in the new production will receive everyting that he
may need, on a footing of equality for everyone.
Te new production arrangement wll uterly dispense with wage slavery
and exploitation in all teir forms, and will in their place establish the principle
of faternal, solidarit collaboration of the toilers.
Te intermediary class which in modern capitalist society performs inter
mediary tasks - commerce and the like - as well as the bourgeoisie, will
have to play its part in the new production, on the very same basis as all other
toilers. Otherwise, these classes wll be placing temselves outside of laboring
societ of their own volition.
Tere wlbe no bosses, neither entrepreneur, proprietor nor proprietor
state (as one fnds today in te Bolsheviks' State) . In the new production, orga
nizing roles will devolve upon specialy created administrative agencies, pur
pose-built by the laboring masses: workers' soviets, factory commitees or
workers' administrations of frms and factories. Tese agencies, liaising with
one anoter at the level of the township, distrct and then nation, wlm
a
ke up
te township, district and thereafter overall federal instittons for the manage-
206 FACING THE ENEMY
ment of production. Appointed by the masses and continually subject to teir
supervision ad infuence, althese bodies are to be shuffed constanty, tereby
embodying the idea of genuine self-governance of the masses.
Production unied, its means and its outut the property of everyone, with
wage slavery replaced by the prnciple of faternal collaboraton and equality
of rights for all producers an established fact: production overseen by workers'
management bodies elected by the masses: such is the practcal frst step along
te road to the realization of libertarian communism.
Consumption
Tis problem will surface in the revolution in two guises:
1. Te principle of the demand for consumer goods.
2. Te principle of the distribution thereof.
As far as distribution of consumer goods is concerned, solutions will hinge
primarily upon the quantity of goods available and upon the principle of meet
ing targets, etc.
Te social revolution, in tackling the reconstructon of the entire estab
lished social order, thereby assumes an obligaton to look to everyone's essen
tial needs. Te sole exception being the group of non-producers -tose who
decline to play their part in the new production on counterrevolutionary
grounds. But, broadly speaking, and wit the exception of this last category of
people, al of the needs of te entire population of the territory of the social
revolution will be met out of the overall stock of consumer goods. Should the
quantit of goods prove insuffcient, they are to be allocated on the basis of
greater urgency of need, which is to say, with children, the infrm and workers'
families getting priorit.
A much more diffcult problem will be tat of organizing the stock of con
sumer goods itself.
Witout a doubt, in the early days of te revolution, te towns will not have
stocks of all the basic essentials required by the population. At te same tme,
the peasants wlhave an abundance of the produce in short supply in te towns.
Lbertarian communists cannot have any doubts as to the mutualit of re
lations between toilers in the tows and toilers in the countryside. Tey reckon
that te socia revoluton cannot be accomplished except through the concerted
efforts of the workers and the peasants. Consequenty, solution of the problem
of consumption in the revolution wll be feasible only trough close revoluton
ary collaboration between these two categories of toilers.
In order to establish such collaboration, the urban working class, once
having assumed contol of production, should immediately consider te basic
needs of te countyside and endeavor to supply te everyday consumer goods,
wherewital and tools for collective cultvation of the land. Gestres of solidar
it shown by workers towards te requirements of the peasants wil elicit a like
response fom the later who wl, in return, collectivel supply te tows with
the produce of rural production, wit pride of place going to foodstuffs.
D O C U MENT NO . 2 O RGANI ZAT I ONAL PLAT F O R M 207
Workers' and peasants' cooperatves will be the frst bodies to cater for the
food requirements and economic supplies of town and countryside. Commis
sioned later to handle more important, more ongoing tasks, notably that of
frnishing the necessary wherewit
a
l to guarantee and expand upon the eco
nomic and social lfe of te workers and peasants, tese cooperatves will tereby
be converted into standing agencies handling urban and rural provisions.
Tis solution to the provisions problem wenable te proletariat to estab
lish a standing fnd of provisions which will have a forable and crucia im
pact upon the fate of the whole of the new production.
The Land
In the solution of the agraran question, we consider the peasant toilers
those who exploit no one else's labor -and the wage-earning rural proletariat
as the main creative revolutionary forces. Teir mission will be to carry trough
the new allocation of lands, so that the land may be put to use and cultivated
along communist lines.
Just like industry, the land, exploited and cultivated by successive genera
tions of toilers, is the product of teir common endeavors. It also belongs to the
toiling populace in its entirety, and to no one in partcular. As te common and
inalienable property of the toilers, the land cannot be subject to purchase or
sale or leasing eiter: so it cannot frnish the means to exploit anoter man's
labor.
Te land is also a sort of common popular workshop where the commu
nity of toilers produces life's sustenance. But it is a tye of workshop wherein
every toiler (peasant) has, tanks to certin historical circumstances, fllen
into the habit of performing his labor for himsel, of workng independenty of
the oter producers. Witt, nindusty, the collectve modc ulabor is essen
tially necessary and the only feasible one, in agricultre it is not te only fea
sible metod in our day. Most peasants work the land self-relianty.
As a result, when the land and the wherewital to work it pass to te peas
ants, wit no possibilit of sale or lease, the issue of te patterns of usufuct
and of cultivaton (communally or on a family basis) will not be wholly and
defnitively resolved right away, as it will be in industy's case. To begin wit,
we will very probably resort to bot of these patterns.
It will be te revolutionary peasants themselves who will determine te
defnitive pattern ofland cultvaton and usufuct. Tere ca be no outside pres
sure in this matter.
However, since we consider that only a communist societ, in whose name
the social revoluton wll in fact have been made, can rescue the toilers fom
their condition as slaves and vctims of exploitation, and endow them wit a fll
measure of feedom and equalit: and since te peasants account for te over
whelming majorty of the populaton (nearl 85 percent in Russia [In 1926,
tat is. -P Skirda] and since, as a result te agrarian system adopted by the
peasants will be te crucial factor in determining te revolution's fate: and,
fn
a
lly, since private enterrise in agrculture leads, just like private enterprise
d F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
in industry, to commerce, accumulation, prvate ownership and the restoration
of capital -it wll be incumbent upon us as a dut to do all in our power rght
now to ensure that the agrarian question is resolved along collective lines.
To this end, we should, startng now, conduct forcefl propaganda among
the peasants on behal of a collective agrarian economy.
Te foundation of a specifc Peasant Union of libertaria outook will be of
considerable assistace in tis undertang.
In this regard, technica advances are going to have enormous signicance
in speeding the development of agriculture and likewise the achievement of
communism in the towns, above
a
ll in industy. If, in teir dealings with the
peasats, the workers will operate not as indivduals or as separate groups, but
rather as a huge communist collectve embracing whole branches of industy;
i they, frthermore, give consideration to the essential needs of te country
side and i tey supply each village, not just wth everyday necessities, but also
with tools and machinery for collective cultvation of te land, that will assur
edly nudge the peasants towards communism in agricultre.
Defense of the Revolution
Te question of defending te revolution also relates to the problem of
"day one. "
Essentially, the revolution's mightiest defense is a happy resolution of its
positve problems: the problems of producton, consumption ad te land. Once
tese matters have been fairly resolved, no counterrevolutonary force will be
able to induce change or hesitancy in te fee regime of the toilers. N everthe
less, the toilers will, in spite of everying, have to face a harsh struggle against
te revoluton's foes, in order to defend and cling to its actal existence.
Te social revoluton, which threatens the privleges and the very existence
of te non-toiler classes of te exsting society, will inevitably provoke fom these
a desperate resistance that will assume te guise of a vcious civil war.
As te Russian experience has shown, such a civl war will not be a matter
of a few months but rather of several years.
Happy tough the toilers' frst steps may be at the outset of te revoluton,
the ruling classes wl nonetheless retain a huge capacit for resistance for
quite some time to come.
Over several years, tey will unleash attacks on the revolution, trying to
snatch back the power and privileges of which tey have been stipped.
A sizable army, military expertise and military stategy, capital the vctori
ous toilers will have to face them all.
I they are to preserve the gains of te revoluton, the later wll have to set
up organs for defense of the revoluton, in order to feld a fghtng force, tat is
equal to te task, against te onslaught of te reaction. I te earliest days of
te revoluton, that fghtng force will be made up of all te workers and peas
ants in arms. But that makeshif armed force will only be viable in the earliest
days, when the civil war will not yet have reached its peak and te two opposing
sides will not yet have established regularly consttted military organizatons.
D O C U M EN T NO. 2 0 R G A N I Z A T I ON A L P L AT F O R M 209
In the social revolution, te most crtical junctre is not the one when Au
thority is cast aside, but the one that comes afer that, that is, the one when the
forces of the ousted regime unleash a general offensive against the toilers and
when the point is to safeguard the gains achieved.
Te very character of that offensive, as well as the technique and exten
sion of the civil war will compel the toilers to create specifcally military revolu
tionary units. Te nature and underlying principles of these units must be laid
down in advance. In rebutting statist and authoritarian methods of governing
the masses, we are ipso facto rebuting the statist manner of organizing the
toilers' military strength, or, to put that another way, the principle of a statist
army founded upon compulsory military service. It is the volunteer principle,
in accordance with the basic tenets of libertarian communism, which should
provide the basis for the toilers' military formations. Te detachments of insur
gent partisans, workers and peasants, which carried out military action during
the Russian revolution, might be cited as examples of such formations.
Yet voluntary service and partisan activit should not be construed in the
narrow sense of te terms, that is as a struggle waged by worker and peasant
units against a local enemy and operating without coordination with one an
other in the shape of an overall operational plan, each unit actng off its own
bat, at its own risk and peril. Partisan action and partisan tactics should be
guided, in the time when they are flly developed, by a common revolutionary
strategy, lke any war, civil war could not be waged successflly by the toilers
except by application of the two prnciples fndamental to all military activity:
unity of operational planning and unity through single command. Te most
critical time for the revolution will be the one when the bourgeoisie will march
as an organized force against the revoluton.
Tat critical point will force toilers to havt I tCUUrSt Lu these prinCIples of
military stateg.
In tis way, given the requirements of military strategy, and also of te
counterrevolution's strategy, the revolution's armed forces will inevitably have
to amalgamate into a broad revolutionary army with a shared command and a
shared operational plan.
Te following principles will be the basis for that army:
a) Te class nature of the army.
b) Volunteer service (alconstaint wl be uterly banished fom te under
taking of defending the revolution) .
c) Free revolutionary (sel) discipline: (revolutionary volunteer service and
revolutionary sel-discipline are perfecty mutally complementary, and
will make the revoluton's army psychologically stronger tan any state
army.)
d) Utter subordination of the revolutionary army to the worker and peasant
masses: in te shape of common worker and peasant bodies throughout
the land, hoisted by the masses into positions overseeing economic and
social l.
2 1 0 F A C I NG THE ENEMY
To put tis another way: the revolution's defense agency, charged wth
combating the counterrevolution on the open military fonts as well as on the
fonts of the civil war wthin (lots by the bourgeoisie, hatching of counter
revolutionary action, etc.) , wll be wholly the responsibility of the workers' and
peasants' productive organizations, to which it wll be aswerable and by which
it will be directed politically.
Observation -While it must of necessity be stuctured in accordance
wt specied libertarian communist principles, the army itself should not be
regarded as a point of principle. It is merely te consequence of military stat
eg in te revolution. a stategic measure to wich the toilers will be dran
inescapably by te very process of civil war But that measure should be the
focus of attention even now. It must be diligently exained, so that, in the en
deavor to protect and defend te revoluton, alirepable delay may be avoided,
for delays in times of civil war, can prove damaging to the outcome of the whole
social revolution.
ORGAN I ZAT I ONAL PART
T H E P RI N C I P L E S OF ANARC H I ST ORGAN I ZATI ON
Te broad constructive positions set out above represent the organiza
tional platorm of anarchism's revolutionary forces.
Tis platorm, containing a specic theoretical and tactical outlook, repre
sents te minimum around which all the militants of the organized anarchist
movement must be rallied as a matter of urgency.
Its task is to rally around itself al of the wholesome elements of te anar
chist movement into one umbrella organization, continuously active and opera
tonal: the General Union of Anarchists. Te resources of all of anarchism's
active militants will have to be directed into the creaon of this organization.
Te underlying organizational prnciples of a General Union of Anarchists
wll have to be as follows:
1. Ideological unit. Ideolog represents tat force which directs the activ
it of persons and of orgaizatons along a specic route towards a specifc
goal. Natrally, it ought to be common to all persons and all organizatons afli
ating to the General Union. Al of the activit of the General Anarchist Union,
broadly, as well as in its details, should be in perfect and constant accord wt
the ideologica principles professed by te Union.
2. Tactical Unity or Unit of Collective Method ofAction. Te tactica means
employed by the individual members or groups fom the Union should likewse
be unitry, tat is to say, be stcty consonant wth one aoter as well as wit
the overall ideolog and tactic of te Union.
Tat tere should be a common tactcal line in te movement is of crucial
importance for the existence of the organization and of the entire movement: it
rids it of the damaging impact of sever
a
l mutu
a
lly antagonistc tactics and fo
cuses all of te movement's forces, making them follow a common directon
culminating in a specic objective.
D O C U M E N T N O . 2 O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P L AT F O R M 2 1 1
3. Collective Responsibilit. Te practce of operatng off one's own bat should
be decisively condemned and rejected in the ranks of the anarchist movement.
Te realms of revolutionary, social and political life are pre-eminently col
lective in nature.
Revolutionary social activit in those re
a
lms cannot be based upon the
persona responsibilit of indidual militants.
Te general anarchist movement's executive body -the Anarchist Union
-taking a decisive stand against the tactic of unaccountable individualism,
introduces into its ranks the principle of collective responsibility: te Union as a
body will be answerable for the revolutionary and political activit of each of its
members: likewise, each member will be answerable for the revolutionary and
politcal activit of the Union as a whole.
4. Federalism. Anarchism has always repudiated centralist organization in
te realm of the masses' social l as well as in that of its political action. Te
system of centralization relies upon the stunting of the spirit of criticism, initia
tive and independence of every individual and upon the masses' blind obedi
ence to te "center." Te inevtable natral upshot of this system is slavishness
and mechanization in social life and in the life of partes.
Contrary to centralism, anarchism has always professed and advocated the
principle of federalism, which reconciles the individual's or the organization's
independence and initiatve with servce of the common cause.
By reconciling te idea of te independence and fllness of each individual's
rights wth servce of social requirements and needs, federalism thereby opens
the door to every wholesome manifstation of the faculties of each individual.
But very ofen the federalist principle was warped in anarchist ranks: it
was too ofen taken to mean primarily the right to display one's "ego, " with no
obligation to heed one's duti es tow:ml.:the organization.
Tis misrepresentation disorganized our movement in the past. It is high
time tat it was ended frmly and irreversibly.
Federalism means fee agreement of individuals and orpanizations upon
coilecive endeavor geared towards a common objective.
Now, such agreement and federative union based thereon become reali
tes, rather tan fctions and dreams, only i te essential condition is fllled
tat all partes to te agreement and to the Union flly honor the obligations
they assume and abide by the decisions reached in common.
In a social undertaking as vast as the federalist basis upon which it is con
stucted, tere can be no rights without obligations, just as tere cannot be
decisions without implementation thereof. Tat is all the more unacceptable i
a anachist organization which takes upon itself alone obligations wit regard
to te toilers and their social revolution.
As a result, the federalist type of anarchist organization, while ackowl
edging every member of the organizaton's right to independence, to feedom
of opinion, initatve and individual liberty, charges each member with specifc
orgaizatonal duties, insisting tat tese be rigorously performed, and tat
decisions jointy made be put into effect.
2 1 2 F A C I NG THE E N E MY
On tat conditon only will te federaist principle be aive, and will the anar
chist orgaizaton fnction properly and move towards te goa it has set.
Te idea of the Anarchist Genera Union raises te problem of coordination
and compatibilit of te actites of all of te forces of the anarchist movement.
Each organizaton afliated to te Union represents a living cell that is
part of the overall organism. Each cel will have its secretaiat, carrying out
and theoretically shaping the organizaton's politcal and technical actvity.
Wit an eye to coordinating te actvity of alof the Union's affliated orga
nizations, a special body is to be established: Te Executive Committee of the
Union. Te following fnctons wlbe ascrbed to that Committee: implemen
taton of decisions made by the Union, which the later will have entusted to it:
teoretcal and organizatona oversight of te activit of isolated organizations,
in keeping with the Union's theoretica optons and overal tactical line: scru
tny of te general state of te movement: te maintenance of working and
organizational tes between all ofthe organizatons ofthe Union, as well as with
outside organizatons.
Te rights, responsibilities and practcal tasks of te Executve Commit
tee will be prescrbed by te Congress of the Genera Union.
Te General Union of Aarchists has a specifc and concrete goal. For the
sake of te success of te social revoluton, it must above all choose and ab
sorb fom among te workers and peasants the most revolutionary personnel
most endowed with critc
a
l spirit.
Espousing social revoluton and being, to boot, an ant-authoritarian orga
nizaton, which seeks te immediate abolition of te class societ, the General
Union of Anarchists likewise relies upon te to fndamental classes of the
present societ: te workers and te peasants. It will also facilitate tose two
classes' quest for emacipation.
A regads te workers' tades and revolutionay orgaizatons in te tows,
te General Union of Anarchists will have to escalate al of its efforts so as to
become their speahead and teoretical mentor.
I sets itself the same tasks where the exploited peasant mass is concerned
aso. As a flcrum plaing te same role as te workers' revolutonary tades
unions, te Union will stve to build a network of revolutionary peasant eco
nomic organizations, and, frtermore, a specifc Peasant Union built on anti
autoritaian prnciples.
Emanatng fom te heart of te mass of te toilers, te General Union of
Aarchists takes part in all aspects of teir life, aways and everywhere bring
ing the spirit of organizaton, perseverance, actvit and belligerence.
Only thus can it flll its role, its theoretcal and historica mission in te
toilers' social revoluton and become the organized instgation of teir process
of emancipaton.
D O C U M E N T N O . 2 O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P L AT F O R M 2 1 3
DOC U M E N T MO . J
S U P P L E M E N T TO T H E OR G A N I ZAT I O N AL P L AT F OR M
( QU E S T I O N S A N D AN S WE RS ) N OV E M B E R 2 , 1 9 2 6
As was to be expected, the organizational platorm of the General Union of
Anarchists has sparked very lively interest among several militants of the Rus
sian libertarian movement, While some wholeheartedly subscribe to the over
all idea and fndamental theses of the "Platorm, " others fame criticisms and
express misgivings about certain of its theses.
We welcome equally the positive reception of the platorm and the genu
ine criticism of it.
For, in the endeavor to create an overall anarchist program as well as an
overall libertarian organization, honest, serious and substantial criticism is as
important as positve creative initiatives.
Te questons we reprint below emanate fom just that sort of serious and
necessary criticism, and it is with some satisfaction that we welcome it. In for
warding tem to us, their author [ Maria Isidine - note by A. Skirda] - a
mIIanIof many years' standing, well icspcccdt:uur movement -encloses a
letter in which she says: "Obviously, the organizational platorm is designed to
be discussed by all anarchists. Before formulating any fnal opinion of tis 'plat
form' and, perhaps, speakng of it in the press, T shouIdlike to haVCa. ' explana
tion of certain matters which are insuffciently explicit in it. It may well be that
other readers will fnd in the 'platorm' a fair degree of precision and tat cer
tain objections may only be based on misunderstandings. It is for that reason
that I should like to put a seres of questions to you frst of all. It would be very
important tat you reply to these in a clear manner, for it will be your replies
tat tat will aford a grasp of the general spirit of te 'platorm. ' Perhaps you
will see a need to reply in your review."
In closing her letter, the comrade adds that she wishes to avert conto
versy in te columns of the review Dyelo Truda. Tis is why she seeks above all
elucidation of certain essential points fom the platorm, Tis sort of approach
is very far. It is all too easy to launch into polemic in order to come out against
a view with which one thinks one is in disagreement. It is even easier to trouble
oneself solely with polemicizing without bothering to fame any alternative
positive sugestion, in place of the targeted vie. What is infnitely harder is to
analyze the new proposition properly, to undertand it, so that one may go on to
2 l + F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
arrive at a well-founded opinion of it. It is exactly this last, most diffcult course
that te author of the questions below has chosen.
Here are those questions:
1. Te central point of the Platform is rallying the bulk of the anarchist
movement's militants on te basis of a common tactcal and policy line: te
formaton of a General Union. Since you are federalists, you apparently have in
mind a Union that will link autonomous groupings. Now, you also have in mind
the existence of an Executive Committee that will have charge of te "ideologi
cal and organizational conduct of the activity of isolated groups, " Tat tpe of
organization is to be found in all partes, but it is possible only if one accepts
te majority principle. In your organization, will each group be fee to prescribe
its own tactics and establish its own stance vs-a-vs each given issue? I te
answer is yes, ten your unit will be of a purely morl character (as has been
and still is te case inside the anarchist movement) . If, on te other hand, you
seek organizatonal unity, that unity will of necessit be coerced. Ad then if you
accept te majority principle inside your organizaton, on what grounds would
you repudiate it in social constuction?
It would be desirable that you frther clarif your conception of federalist
liaison, the role of Congresses and the majorit principle.
2. Speaking of the "fee regime of sovets," what fnctions do you see these
soviets having to perform in order to become "the frst steps in the directon of
constructive non-statist activt"? What is to be their remit? Will teir decisions
be binding?
3. "Aarchists should steer events fom te theoretca point of view, " says te
platorm. Tis notion is insuffciently clear. Does it mean simply that anarchists
will do their utmost to see that (trade union, loca, cooperative, etc.) organiza
tons which are to build te new order are imbued wt libertarian ideas? Or
does it mean that anarchists will themselves take charge of tis constuction? In
te latter case, in what would that state afairs differ fom a "party dictatorship"?
I is very important that this matter be clarifed. Especially as te same
queston arises regarding te role of anarchists in te tade unions. Wat is the
meaning of the expression: enter the unions in an organized manner? Does it
mean merely that te comrades workng in te unions should come to some
agreement in order to establish a policy line? Or does it mean that the anarchist
Executve Commitee will prescribe the tactic of te labor movement, rule on
stikes, demonstations, etc. , and that those anarchists actve in the unions will
stive to capture positions of leadership there and, using teir authorit, foist
tese decisions on te ordinary membership of te unions? Te mention in te
"Platorm" tat the activit of anarchist groupings active in tade union circles
is to be steered by an anarchist umbrella organization raises all sorts of misgiv
ings on this score.
4. In te section on defending the revolution, it is stated that the army is to be
subordinated to the worker' and peasants' organizations throughout the land,
hoited by the mases into positions overeeing the economic and social lie ofthe
country. In everyday parlance, that is called "civl autority" of the elected. What
D O C U M E N T N O . 3 S U P P L E M E N T T O T H E P L AT F O R M 2 1 5
does it mean to you? It is obvious that an organiation that in fact directs the
whole of life ad can call upon an army is nothing other than a state power. Tis
point is so importat that the authors of the "platorm" have a duty to dwell
longer upon it. I it is a "tansitional form," how come the platorm rejects the
idea of te "transitiona period"? And if it is a defnitive form, what makes the
"platorm" anarchit?
5. Tere are some questions which, while not dealt with in the "Platorm, " nev
ertheless play an important part in the disagreements between comrades. Lt
me quote one of tose questions:
Lt us suppose tat a region fnds itself effectively under the infuence of
te anarchists. What will teir attitude be towards the other parties? Do the
autors of te Platorm countenance the possibility of violence against an en
emy who has not had recoure to arms? Or do they, in keeping with the anar
chist idea, proclaim undiluted feedom of speech, of the press, of organization,
etc. , for all? (Some years ago, a similar question would have seemed out of
place. But at present certain views of which I a aware prevent me fom being
sure of te answer.)
And, broadly speaking, is it acceptable to have one's decisions implemented
by force? Do te authors of the "platorm" countenance the exercise of power,
even if only for an instant?
Whatever the group's answers to all these questions, I cannot keep mum
about one idea in the "Platorm" which is openly at odds with the anarchist
communism that it professes.
You speculate that once the wage system and exploitation have been abol
ished, there will neverteless remain some sorts of non-laboring elements, and
these you exclude fom the common fellowship union of toilers: they will have
no title to their hare of the common product. Now this was always the prin
ciple at the very basis of anarchism ''o each according to his needs": and it
was in that principle that aarchism always saw te best guarantee of social
solidart. When faced wit te question: "What wlyou do wth the idlers?, "
they answered: "Better to feed a few idlers for nothing than to intoduce, merely
on account of teir being there, a false and harmfl principle into the life of
societ. "
Now, you create, for political reasons, a sort of idler category and, by way
of repression, you would have tem perish of hunger, But apart fom the moral
aspect, have you stopped to consider where that would lead? In the case of
every person not working, we will have to establish te grounds on which he
does not work: we wlhave to become mindreaders and probe his beliefs. Should
somebody refse t perform agiven task, we wlhave to inquire into te grounds
for his refsal. We will have to see i it is not sabotage or counterrevoluton.
Upshot? Spying, forced labor, "labor mobilization" and, to cap i all, the prod
ucts vt to lie are to be in the gif of authorities which will be able to starve the
opposition to death! Rtons as a weapon of political struggle! Can it be that
what you have seen in Russia has not persuaded you of the abominable natre
of such a arangement! And I am not talking about the damage tat it would
2 1 6 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
do to te destny of the revoluton: such a blatant breach of social solidarty
could not help but spaw dagerous enemies.
It is in relaton to this problem tat the key to te whole anarchist concep
ton of social organization lies. If one were to make concessions on this point,
one would quickly be hounded into jetsoning all the other anarchist ideas, for
your approach to the problem maes any non-statist social organization an im
possibilit.
I may be tat I may have to write to te press about te "Platorm. " But I
should prefer t put tat off until all these gray aeas have been elucidated.
Tus, te orgaizationa Platorm spawns a series of substantve questions
set out in te letter just quoted, notably: 1. the question of majorty and minor
it in te anarchist movement; 2. tat of the structure and essential features of
the fee regime ofsoviet; 3. tat of the ideological steerng ofevent and ofthe
mases; 4. tat of defense ofthe revolution; 5. tat of press feedom and feedom of
speech; and, 6. te constuction to be placed upon the anarchist principle of to
each according to his need.
Lt us tacke tem in order:
1. Te question ofmajort and minority in the anarchist movement. Te witer
broaches tis by linking it t our idea of an Executive Commitee of the Union.
I te Union's Executive Committee has, besides other fnctions of an execu
tve natre, also tat of "steering te actvt of isolated groups fom a theoreti
cal and organizatonal point of view, " must that steering not be coercive? Ten:
ae groups affliated to the Union to be fee to prescrbe their own tactics and
determine teir own stance wit regard to each given matter? Or are tey to be
obliged t abide by te overall tactc and te overall positons to be laid down by
te Union's majort?
Lt it be sad, frst of al, that in our view, the Union's Executive Committee
cannot be a body endowed wit any powers of a coercive natre, as is the case
wth the centaist politica partes. Te General Aarchist Union's Executive
Committee is a body performing fnctions ofa general nature in the Union.
Instead of "Executve Commitee, " tis body might carry te tite of "Chief
Secretat of the Union." However, te name "Executive Committee" is to be
preferred, for it better encapsulates the idea ofexecutive fnction and that of
initiatve. Witout in any way restictng te rghts of isolated groups, te Ex
ecutve Comte will be able to steer teir activit i the teoretica and or
ganizational sense. For tere will always be groups inside te Union that will
feel burdened by various tactical issues, so tat ideological or organizatona
assistace will aways be necessary for certain groups. It goes witout saying
ta te Executive Committee wll be well placed to lend such assistance, for it
wll be, by virte of its situation and its fnctons, te most au fait with te
tctical or organizatonal line adopted by the Union on a variet of matters.
But i, neverteless, some organizatons or oters should indicate a wsh to
pursue teir own tactcal line, wll te Executve Commitee or te Union as a
body be i a positon to prevent them? In other words, is te Union's tctical and
D O C U M E N T N O . 3 S U P P L E M E N T TO T H E P L AT F O R M 2 1 7
policy line to be laid dow by the majorit, or will every group be entited to
operate as it deems ft, and, will the Union have several lines to start with?
As a rule, we reckon that the Union, as a body, should have a single tactcal
and political line. Indeed, the Union is designed for the purose of bringing an
end to the anarchist movement's dissipation and disorganization, the intention
being to lay down, in place of a multiplicit of tactical lines givng rise to intestinal
fictons, an overall policy line that will enable all libertarian elements to pursue a
common direction and be all the more successfl in achieving their goa. In the
absence of which the Union would have lost one of its main raisons d'etre.
However, there may be times when the opinions of the Union's member
ship on such and such an issue would be split, which would give rse to the
emergence of a majorit and a minorit view. Such instances are commonplace
in the life of all organizaons and all parties. Usually, a resolution of such a
situation is worked out.
We reckon, frst of all, that for the sake of te unit of te Union, the minor
ity should, in such cases, make concessions to the majority. Tis would be
readily achievable, in cases of insignifcant differences of opinion between the
minority and the majorit. If, though, the minority were to consider sacrcing
its viewpoint an impossibilit, then there would be the prospect of having two
divergent opinions and tactics within the Union: a majorit view and tactc, and
a minorit view and tactic.
In which case, the position will have to come under scrutiny by the Union
as a whole. I, aer discussion, the existence of two divergent views on the
sae issue were to be adjudged feasible, the co-exstence of those two opin
ions will be accepted as an accomplished fact.
Finally, in the event of agreement between majorit and minorit on the
tactical and political mattfr" separating them proving impossible, there would
be a split wit the minorit breaking away fom the majority to found a sepa
rate organization.
Tose are te three possible outcomes in the event of disagreement be
tween the minorit and the majority In all cases, the question will be resolved,
not by the Executive Commitee which, let us repeat, is to be merely an execu
tve organ of the Union, but by the entire Union as a body: by a Union Confer
ence or Congress.
2. Te fee regime ofsoviets. We repudiate te current (Bolshevk) soviet ar
rangement, for it represents only a certain political form of te State. Te sov
ets of workers' and peasants' deputes are a state politcal organizaton run by a
political part. Aainst which we offer soviets ofthe worker' and peasants' pro
duction and consumption organizations. Tat is te meaning of te slogan: fee
regime of sovets and fctory commitees. We take such a regime to mean an
economic and social arrangement wherein
a
ll of the branches and fnctons of
economic and social life would be concentated in te hands of te toilers' pro
duction and consumpton organizations, which would perform tose fnctons
wit an eye to meetng the needs of the whole laboring societ. A Federaton of
2 1 8 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
tese organizations and their soviets would dispense wit te state and the capi
tist system, and would be the chief pivot of the fee soviets regime. To be
sure, this regime will not instantly represent the fll-blooded ideal of te anar
chist commune, but it will be the frst showng, the frst practcal essay of tat
commune, and it wll usher in the age of fee, non-statist creativt of the toilers.
We are of the opinion that, wit regard to teir decisions relatng to the
various reams of economic and socia life, the soviets of the workers' and peas
ants' organizations or the fctory commitees will see to those, not through
violence or decrees but rather through common accord w the toiling masses
who wlbe taking a direct hand in the making of those decisions. Tose deci
sions, though, will have to be binding upon all who vote for and endorse them.
3. Anarchists will steer the masses and event in terms oftheory. Te acton of
steering revolutionary elements and the revolutonary movement of the masses
in terms of ideas should not and can
n
ot ever be considered as an aspiration on
the part of anarchists that they should take the constucton of the new societ
into their own hands. Tat constucton cannot be carried out except by the
whole of laboring society, for that task devolves upon it alone, and any attempt
to stip it of that right must be deemed ant-anarchist. Te question of the ideo
logical piloting is not a mater of socialist constucton but rater of a theoretical
and political infuence brought to bear upon the revolutionary march of polit
cal events. We would be neiter revolutonaries nor fghters were w not to tke
an interest in te character and tenor of the masses' revolutionary struggle.
Ad since te character and tenor of tat stuggle are determined not just by
objectve factors, but also by subjectve factors, that is to say by te infuence of
a vaiet of political groups, we have a dut to do all in our power to see tat
anarchism's ideological inuence upon the march of revoluton is maimized.
Te current "age of wars and revolutions" poses the chief dilemma with
exceptona acuteness: revolutionary events will evolve either under the sway
of statst ideas (even should tese be socialist) or else under te sway of non
statist (anarchist) ideas. And, since we are unshaable in our conviction that
te statst tend will bring te revolution to defeat and te masses to a renewed
slavery, our task follows fom that wit implacable logic: it is to do all we can to
see that te revoluton is shaped by te anarchist tendency. Now, our old way
of operating, a primitive approach reling upon tiny, scatered groups, will not
only not carry off that task but will, indeed, hinder it. So we have to proceed by
a new method. We have to orchestrate the force ofanarchism's theoretical infu
ence upon the march ofevents. Instead of being an intermittent infuence felt
through disparate pet actions, it has to be made a powerfl, ongoing factor.
Tat, as we see it, can scarcely be possible unless anarchism's fnest militants,
in maters teoretical and practical alike, organize temselves into a body ca
pable of vigorous action and well grounded in terms of theory and tactcs: a
General Union of Anarchists. It is in tis same sense that the drive to pilot
revolutionary syndicaism in theoretical terms should be understood. Enter
ing te tade unions in an organized manner meant entering a the carrier of a
D O C U M E N T N O . 3 S U P P L E M E N T TO T H E P L AT F O R M 2 1 9
certain theory, a prescribed work plan, work that will have to be stictly compat
ible in the case of every anarchist operating within the trade unions. Te Anar
chist Union is hardly going to trouble itself to prescribe tactics for te labor
movement or draw up plans for stikes or demonstations. But it is going to
have to disseminate within the unions its ideas regarding the revolutonary tac
tics of the working class and on various events: that constittes one of its in
alienable rights. However, in the endeavor to spread their ideas, anarchists will
have to be in strict agreement, both with one another as well as with the en
deavors of the anarchist umbrella organization to which they belong and in the
name of which they will be carrying out ideological and organizational work
inside the trade unions. Conducting libertarian endeavors inside the trade
unions in an organized manner and ensuring tat anarchist efforts coincide
have nothing to do with authoritarian procedure.
4. Te writer's voiced objection to the program's thesis regarding defense of the
revolution is, more than any other, rooted in a misunderstanding.
Having stessed the necessity and inevitabilit, in a civil war context, of the
toilers' creating their revolutionary army, the platorm asserts also tat that
army will have to be subordinated to the overall direction of the workers' ad
peasants' production organizations.
Subordination of te army to these organizations does not at all imply the
idea of an elected civil authorit. Absolutely not. An army, even should it be the
most revolutonary and most popular of armies in terms of its mentalit and
title, cannot, however, exst and operate off its own bat, but has to be answer
able to someone. Being an organ for the defense of te toilers' rights and revo
lutionary positions, the army must, for tat very reason, be wholl subordinate
to te toilers ad piloted by them, politically speakng. ( tess pulitically,
for, when it comes to its military and strategic direction, tat could only be
handled by military bodies witin the ranks of te army itself and answerable
to the workers' and peasants' leadership organizatons.)
But to whom might te amy be directly answerable, politically? Te toil
ers do not consttte a single body. Tey will be represented by manifold eco
nomic organizations. It is to these very same organizatons, in the shape of
their federal umbrella agencies, that the army will be subordinated. Te char
acter and social fnctions of tese agencies are spelled out at te outset of te
present answers.
Te notion of a toilers' revolutionary army must be either accepted or re
jected, But should the army be countenanced, then te prnciple of tat amy's
being subordinated to te workers' and peasants' organizations likewise has t
be accepted. We can see no other possible soluton to the mater.
5. Psfeedom, feedom of speech, of organization, etc.
Te victorious proletariat should not tamper either wt feedom of speech
nor of te press, not even tose of its erstwhile enemies and oppressors now
defeated by the revolution. I is even less acceptable that there be tampering
220 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
wt press feedom and feedom of speech in the context of the revolutonary
socialist and anarchist groupings in te ranks of te victorious proletarat.
Free speech ad press feedom are essential for te toilers, not simply so
tat tey may illuminate and beter grasp the tasks involved in their constuc
tve economic and social endeavors, but aso wt an eye to discerning al te
better the essental traits, agments, plans and intentons of teir enemies.
I is untue that the capitalist and social opportnist press can lead te
revolutionary toilers astray. Te latter will be quite capable of deciphering and
exposing the lying press and giving it the answer it deserves. Press feedom
and feedom of speech only scare tose like the capitaists and the communists
who survve through dirt deeds that they are obliged to hide fom te eyes of
te great toiling masses. As for te toilers, feedom of speech will be a temen
dous boon to them. I wlenable tem to listen to give everyting a hearng,
judge things for temselves and mae teir understanding deeper ad their
actions more effective.
Monopolizaton of te press and of te right to speak, or the limitation of
tese by teir being squeezed into the confnes of a single part's dogma, put
paid to all confdence in the monopolists and in their press. I fee speech is
sted, it is because there is a desire to conceal the tuth: something demon
stated sensatonally by te Bolsheviks, whose press is dependent upon bayo
nets and is read primarily out of necessity, there being no oter.
However, tere may be specifc circumstances when the press, or, raer,
abuse of te press, may be restcted on grounds of revolutionary useflness.
As an exaple, we might cite one episode fom the revolutionary era i n Russia.
Troughout the mont of November 1919, te tow of Ekaterinoslav was in
te hands of te Mahnovst insurgent army. But at te sae time, it was sur
rounded by Denikin's toops who, having dug in along the lef bank of the Dniepr
in the area around the towns of Aur and Nizhnedneprovsk, were shelling
Ekaternoslav continualy wit cannon mounted on teir armored tains. And a
Denikinist unit headed by Genera Slashchev, was simultaneously advancing on
Ekaterinoslav fom te nort, fom the area around Kemenchug.
At te tme, te folowing daly newspapers were appearing in Ekaterinoslav,
tanks to feedom of speech: the Makhnovist organ Putsk Svobodey (Road to
Freedom) , the Rght Social Revolutonaries' Narodovlastiye (people's Power) ,
te Ukrainian Lef Social Revolutonaries' Borotba (Stuggle) , and the Bolshe
viks' organ, Zvezda (Star) . Only the Cadets, the ten spirital leaders of te
Denikinist movement, were witout their newspaper. Well now! Say the Cadets
would have wanted to publish just ten and in Ekaterinoslav their own newspa
per which witout any doubt would have been an accessory to Denikn' s opera
tons, would te revolutionary workers and insurgents have had to grant the
Cadets the right to publish teir newspaper, even at a time when its prmarly
military role in events would have been apparent? We think not.
In a civil war contex, such cases may aise more tan once. In these cases,
te workers and peasants will have to be gided not by the broad principle of
D O C U M E N T N O . 3 S U P P L E M E N T T O T H E P L AT F O R M 2 2 1
feedom of the press and fee speech, but by the role that enemy mouthpieces
will be undertaking in relation to the ongoing military struggle.
Generally speaking though, and with the exception of extraordinary cases
(such as civil war) victorious labor will have to grant fee speech and feedom
of the press to lef-wing views and right-wing views alike. Tat feedom will be
the pride and joy of the fee toilers' societ.
Anarchists countenance revolutionary violence in the fght against te class
enemy. Tey urge the toilers to use that. But they will never agree to wield
power, even for a single instant, nor impose their decisions on te masses by
force. In this connection their methods are: propaganda, force of argument,
and spoken and written persuasion.
6. Te proper interpretation of the anarchist principle: "From each according to
ability, to each according to needs. "
Without question, this principle is the corner-stone of anarchist commu
nism. (See the "Platorm.") No other economic, social or legal precept is as
well suited to the ideal of anarchist communism as this one. Te platorm also
says that "the social revolution, which will see to the reconstuction of the whole
established social order, will thereby see to it that everyone's basic needs are
provided for. "
However, it is a broad declaration of principle on the problem of an anar
chist regime. It has to be distinguished fom the practical demands of the early
days of the social revolution. As the experiences of the Paris Commune and the
Russian revolution have shown, the non-workng classes are beaten, but not
defnitively. In the early days a single idea obsesses tem: collectng themselves,
overthrowing the revolution and restoring their lost privileges.
Tat being the case, it would be extremely risky and fatallv dangerous for
the revolution to share out the products that would be available in the revolu
tionary zone in accordance with the principle of 'To each according to his
needs. " It would be doubly dangerous for, aside fom the comort that this
might afford the classes inimical to the revolution, which would be morally and
strategically unconscionable, new classes will immediately arise and tese, see
ing the revolution supply the needs of every person, would rater idle than
work. Plainly this double danger is not something tat one can ignore, For it
wll quickly get the better of the revolution, unless effective measures are taken
against it. Te best measure would be to put the counterrevolutionary non
working classes useflly to work. In one sphere or another, to one extent or
another, these classes will have to fnd themselves usefl employment of which
society has need: and it is their very right to their share in societ's outut that
will force them so to do, for there are no rights tat do not carry obligations.
Tat is the very point that our splendid anarchist principle is making. It pro
poses notably to give to every individu
a
l in proportion to his needs, provided
that every individual places his powers and faculties in the service of societ
and not that he serves it not at all.
222 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
A exception will be made for children, the elderly, the sick and the infrm,
Rightly, society will excuse all such persons fom the duty to labor, without
denying them their entitlement to have all their needs met.
Te moral sensibilities of the toilers is deeply outaged by te principle of
takng fom societ according to one's needs, while givng to it according to
one's mood or not at all: toilers have suffered too long fom te application of
that absurd principle and that is why they are unbending on this point. Our
feeling for justice and logic is also outraged at this principle.
1e position wl change completely as soon as the fee societ of toilers
entenches itself and when there are no longer any classes sabotaging te new
producton for motives of a counterrevolutionary nature, but only a handfl of
idlers. Ten societ will have to make a complete reality of the anarchist prn
ciple: "From each according to abilit, to each according to needs," for only on
the basis of that principle will societ be assured of its chance to breathe com
plete feedom and genuine equality.
But even then, the general rule will be that all able-bodied persons, enjoy
ing rights over the material and moral resources of societ, incur certain obli
gations in respect of production of these.
Bakunin, analyzing this problem in his day, wrote in te maturit of his
anarchist thinking and activity (in 1871, comrade Nettau reckons) : "Everyone
wlhave to work i he is to eat. Any man refsing to work wlbe fee t perish
of hunger, unless he fnds some association or township prepared to feed him
out of pit. But then it will probably be fir to grant him no political rights,
since, athough capable of work, his shamefl sitaton is of his own choosing
and he is living off another man's labor. For there wil be no oter basis for
social and political rights than the work performed by each indivdua. "
-Te Group of Russian Aarchists Abroad
November 2, 1926
D O C U M E N T N O . 3 S U P P L E M E N T T O T H E P L AT F O R M 223
DO C U M E N T No . 4
TH E GROU P O F RU S S I A N AN A R C H I S T S AB R OAD
R E P LY TO AN A R C H I S M ' S CO N F U S I O N I S T S
PA R I S , AU G U S T 1 9 2 7
F OR E WORD: T H E C RUX OF T H E MATTE R
Te debates provoked by the "organizatonal Platorm" have thus far fo
cused chiefy upon its various arguments or indeed the draf organization pro
posed by it. Most of its critic as well as several of its supporters have at no tme
been clear-sighted in their appreciation of the mater of the Platorm's premises:
tey have never tried to discover what were the factors that prompted its ap
pearance, the point of departure adopted by its authors. Ad yet these are mat
ters of te greatest importance to tose who seek to understand te spirit and
import of the Platorm.
Te recenty published "Reply to the Platorm" fom Voline and a few oter
anarchists, purporting to be a wholesale rebutt of the Platorm, has -for al
te effort invested in the undertaking, for all its claims to be reading "beteen
te lines" -failed to rse above te level of a banal diatbe against aguments
tat are considered in isolation, and it has shown itsel poweress to strke at
te very heart of te matter.
Given tlat tis "Reply" displays uter incomprehension of te teses of the
Platorm, misrepresenting tem and using sophisty to counter tem, te Group
of Russian Aachists Abroad, havng scrutnized tis wouldbe rebut
a
l, has
once again idented a series of points that are being queried: at te same tme,
the Group has registered the politca and teoretcal inadequacies of te Reply.
Te commentary below, entted "Reply to anarchism's confsionists, " is
given over to a examination of teir reply. I is not at al intended eiter as a
complement nor as an addendum to te Platorm: it is merely designed to clar
a few of its theses.
Neverteless, let us avail of tis opportunit to point out a few tings for
consideration by comrades who may take an interest in the Platorm for orga
nizaton of Anarchism: we believe tat in so doing we wll be helping to make
its meaning and its spirit beter understood.
We have falen into te habit of ascribing te anarchist movement's failure
in Russia in 1917-1919 to the Bolshevik Part's statist repression. Which is a
224 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
serious error. Bolshevk repression hampered te anarchist movement's spread
during te revoluton, but it was only one obstacle. Rather, it was te anarchist
movement's ow internal ineffectualit which was one of te chief causes of tat
failure, an ineffectait emaatng fom te vagueness and indecisiveness tat
characterized its main policy statements on organizaton and tactics. (e hope
to demonstate and develop this claim in a separate study, adducing the data and
te documents to prove it.)
Anarchism had no frm, hard and fast opinion regarding te main prob
lems facing te socia revolution, an opinion needed to satisf the masses who
were carrying out the revoluton. Anarchists were calling for seizure of the
factories, but had no well-defned homogeneous notion of te new production
and its structre. Anarchists chapioned te communist devce: "From each
according to abilities, to each according to needs," but they never botered to
apply tis precept to the real word. In this way, tey allowed suspect elements
to turn tis grand prnciple into a caricatre of anarchism. (e might just re
member how many swindlers seized upon tis principle as a means of grab
bing collectie assets during te revolution for teir own persona advantage.)
Anarchists talked a lot about the revolutonary activt of the workers them
selves, but they were unable to direct te masses, even roughly, towards the
forms that such actvit might assume: tey proved unable to regulate recipro
c
a
l relaions between te masses and their ideological center. Tey incited te
masses to shrug off the yoke of autorit: but did not indicate how te gains of
revoluton might be consolidated and defended. Tey had no clear cut opinion
and specic acton policies wit regard to lots of other problems. Wich is
what alienated them fom the actvities of te masses and condemned them to
social ad historical impotence.
Tat is where we have to look for te prime cause of teir failure in te
Russian revoluton. We Russian anachists who lived through te ordeal of revo
luton in 1905 and 1917 have not te slightest lingering doubt of tat.
Te obviousness of anachism's internal ineffectuality has impelled us to
search around for ways that might aford it success.
Upwards of twent yeas of experience, revolutionary actvit, twent years
of effort in anarchist ranks, and of effort tat met wit noting but falures by
anarchism as an organizing movement: all of tis has convinced us of the neces
sit of a new comprehensive anarchist party organizaton rooted in one homo
geneous theory, policy and tactc.
Tese are te premises of the "organizational Platorm." Should anarchist
militants fom oter countres, with no frst hand experience of the Russian
revoluton, but wit any knowledge of it, however meager, be wlling to exam
ine careflly te climate witin te anachist movement in teir own county,
they cannot fail to notce tat te internal ineffectualit tat caused aarchism
to fail in te Russian revoluton is equally prevaent in teir own ranks and rep
resents a deadly treat to te movement, especially in tme of revoluton. Tey
will ten understand the signifcance of te step forward tat te organizatonal
D OCU M E N T N O. 4 R E P LY TO ANAR C H I S M ' S C O N F U S I ON I S T S 225
Platorm represents for anarchism, fom the point of view of ideas as well as
that of organization and construction.
And they will then realize that only the trail blazed by the Platorm can
restore anarchism's health and fortif it among the masses.
-P Arshinov
R E TORT TO T H E R E P LY OF S OM E R US S I AN ANARC H I S TS
TO T H E P LATF OR M
Te Reply (of April 1927) fom some Russian anarchists to the Platorm is
an atempt to criticize and uttery refte the "organizational Platorm" published
by the Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad.
Te Reply's authors claim to be in disagreement, not with certain ideas set
out in the Platorm, but rather with the whole thing. It is precisely "the Plat
form as such . . . its underlying principles, its essence, its very mentality" that
are not, in our estimation, acceptable, they say: they reckon that it is not anar
chism but Bolshevism which is set out therein. (p. 3037) Te ideological es
sence of the Bolsheviks and the "platormers" is identical (. 37) . Unquestion
ably, they say (. 29) "the "Platorm' authors look upon these as indispensable:
the creation of a directing policy center, the organization of an army and a police
force at the disposal of that center, which, in essence means, the introduction of
a transitional political authority statist in character. " Ad the Reply is peppered
with lots of other similar and similar stunning assertions.
It is our belief that such assertions make it obligatory upon teir authors
that they adduce adequate evidence before they make them.
Indeed, this practce of making unfunded allegations may lead in te ana
chist movement to questonable conduct: every anarchist, in the tue sense of the
word, ought thus to make a determined stand against this approach.
In te course of our exposition, we shall see in what measure the authors
of the Reply have authenticated their claims ad this may enlighten us as to te
meaning and worth of the Reply.
Its authors open with the declaration that they are "wholly in disagree
ment wth the group regading several fndamental or important teses in the
Platorm. " But in reaity, the dissension relates to every one of the Platorm's
teses on organization and principle. To explain their difference of opinion,
they go to a lot of bother, resort to lots of sophisty and come up with unlikely
auments of their own. Since they are a priori hostile to the entret of te
Platorm, but have no explicit view of their own on any of te issues broached
terein, this necessarly had to be the case. We ca appreciate this if we exam
ine teir main objections. But tere is more: we shall see too that te autors of
te Reply, while rebuttng certain arguments fom the Platorm, very ofen
wind up reiterating those arguments, claiming them as their own and using
tem to counter the Platorm.
One point: te best retort to their objections is te Platorm itself and te
reader wlfnd a specifc and defnite opinion tere on all of te issues broached.
226 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
We shall, in order to clarif te spirit and the current by which they are moti
vated, be dwelling only upon certain points fom the Platorm which the au
thors of the Reply have sought to rebut.
1 . Te Causes of te Anarchist Movement's Weakess
Te Platorm locates the main cause of the anarchist movement's weaess
i the absence of organizing factors and organized relatons within the move
ment, which plunges it into a state of "chronic disorganization." At the same
time, the Platorm adds that this disorganization itsel nestes in a few shortcom
ings of an ideological natre. We can see tese shortcomings in a whole range of
pett-bourgeois principles which have nothing to do wt anarchism. Te disor
gaization prevailing in our ranks draws succor fom ideological confsion. Ad
in order to overcome such practcal and ideological consion, the Platorm foats
the idea of establishing a general orgaization founded upon a homogeneous
program. In tis way, the Platorm lays the foundations for a general organiza
tion of anarchists and creates ideological homogeneit. Te organization thus
collectvely created wll be stong enough to fee anarchism fom its ideological
contradictons and organizational inadequacies and to pave te way for a mighty
anarchist organizaton banded around homogeneous principles, We see no other
way of developing and fortiing anarchism among te masses. Te Platorm
has pointed out that the approach of brnging the various strands of anarchism
togeter into one "tenderly united family' wll not restore te health of the anar
chist movement, but wll instead only weaen and befddle it.
Te criticisms fom the Reply utterly repudiate the pictre of the causes of
the anarchist movement's weakness that te Platorm has painted. Tey see
te causes located in "the vagueness of several ideas basic to our outlook, such
as: te notion of social revolution, that of violence, that of collective creatity,
tat of te tansitiona period, that of organization, and still others," Aso, the
autors of te Reply enumerate other matters on which not all anarchists see
eye to eye. I they are to be believed, you would think that anarchists have no
common view on any matter, and that we would frst have to theorize about
everything before going on to tackle te organization issue. We have head
tese ideas and promises ofen by now. And, instead of treatening for the
hundredt and frst tme to come up with a probing teoretical work, would the
authors of te Reply not be better employed getting on with tat task, brnging
it to fuition and offering it as a counter to the Platorm? Our conception of te
principles of anarchism is quite different. We are well aware that there is agree
ment among anarchists on te major issues like the idea of socia revolution,
that of violence, collective creatvity, dictatorship, organizaton, etc. Tose who
have thus f remained adversaries of social revoluton, of revolutionay vo
lence and of organization, will always be such, and it really would be too naive
to begin the history of anarchism alover again just for them. As soon as some
body would come along and tell us that he does not accept the idea of the social
revolution, someone else would announce that he is against revolutionary
D OC U M E N T N O. - R E P LY TO ANARC H I S M' S C O N F U S I O N I S TS 227
violence, and a third would express unhappiness with te very idea of commu
nist anarchism and a fourth would speak up against te class struggle. Shout
ing in every instance that "anarchism's principles" are not precise enough is
tntamount in fact to a filure to devise an overal teory. Didn't we have Bakunin,
Kopotkin and Malatesta who were precise enough about anarchism's prin
ciples? Tere were anarchist movements in a variety of countries based on
tose principles. How can we claim tat tey are not clear enough?
True, there are many obscure points in anarchism. But those are of quite
another character. Te fact is that alongside unquestionably anarchist person
nel, the movement contains a number of liberal tendencies and indiidualist
deviatons tat prevent it fom having a stable base. To restore the movement
to healt, it must be feed of these tendencies and deviations: but this purge is,
to a very large extent, prevented by just those individualists, open or disguised,
(and the authors of the Reply are undoubtedly to be numbered among the lat
ter) who are part of the movement.
2. Te Class Stugle in te Aarchist System
Te Platorm declares quite plainly that te "class stuggle beteen labor
and capital was at all times in the history of human societies the chief factor
determining the form ad stucture of tose societies, " that anarchism emerged
and developed on the terrain of tat struggle, in the bosom of oppressed, labor
ing humanity: that it is a socia movement of te oppressed masses: the atempt
to represent it as a general humanitarian problem amounts to a social and his
torcal falsehood. In the stuggle between capital and labor, anarchism fghts
wholeheartedly and inseparably alongside the latter.
Te autors of thf Rfply (otmter tat clear ad precise message willl "an
archism is a syntesis of elements: class, humanitarian and individual. " Tat is
the view held in common by liberals fearfl of relying upon te tuts of labor,
who are forever ditherng ideologically between the bourgeoisie and te prole
tariat and lookng for common humanitarian values to use as connections be
tween te contending classes. But we know well tat tere is no mankind, one
and indivisible, tat te demands of anarchist communism will be met only
trough te determination of te working class and tat te activit of mankind
as a whole, including the bourgeoisie, will not come into tat at all: consequently,
te viewpoint peddled by te liberals who do not know how to pick a side in the
world-wide social tagedy canot have anying to do with te class stuggle
and thus with anarchism.
3. On the Problem of Directon of te Masses and Events fom te
Ideal Point of View
Te Reply raer taes issue more te idea an autoritarian leadership of
its own devising tan wit the idea set out in te Platorm. And, broadly speak
ing, troughout te Reply, its autors stve to divne some hidden meaning to
228 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
te enigmatic Platorm and go on to paint a picture tat might stike terror not
just into anarchists but even into certain overy sentmental statsts. Tus, the
inuence wielded in te realm of ideas by te anarchists over te revolutonary
tade unions is turned by them into subordinaton of tose unions to the anar
chist organizaton. Te method of a common revolutonary military stategy
applied in defense of the revoluton "becomes," in their interpretaton, te idea
of a cented State's army. Te notion of an executve comittee of anarchist
organizaton becomes, in teir representaton of it, tat of a dictatorial Cental
Committee demanding unquestoning obedience. One might think tat te au
tors of te Reply are too ignorant to be capable of grasping the essence of al
tese problems: Not a bit of it! Al of te misrepresentations and alteratons
made by te latter are made to te same end: we shall demonstate anon to
what end our adversaries pretend to be alarmed by te expression "directon of
te masses and events fom te ideas point of vew. " But are they not ten like
tose odd sorts who, being terrifed by te idea of inuence, are aaid of infu
encing temselves? Directon of te masses fom te "ideas" point of vew sim
ply means te existence of a guiding idea in teir movement. In the world of
socialist struggle and socialist demads, such ideas are not numerous. But it is
natral that we anarchists wanted te toilers' guiding idea to be te anachist
idea and not tat of the social democrats for example, of tose who have only
recenty betayed the Viennese workers' revolutonary movement.
But, in order tat te anarchist idea should become the lodestone of the
masses, we have to develop well organized ideological actt which in trn
necessitates an anarchist organization whose members spread very clear and
coherent notions among the masses. Al of which is so elementary and sel
evdent tat it is embarrassing to have to spell it out again in tis day and age to
folk who claim to be conversat w anarchism. Te authors of the "Reply"
are, moreover well aware of that, since, afer having misrepresented our point
of view and peddled a mountain of absurdities regarding te General Union of
Aarchists, tey close by saying tat te anarchists' role in economic organiza
tons is to infuence te masses moraly and in terms of ideas, while tat of
specicall anachist organizatons would be to help tem indeed fom this
"ideas" point of view. But is not saying tat ttamount to borrowing te posi
tons of te "Platorm" aer having blackened its name? Wat is the meaning
of "infuence and assist the masses fom the ideas point of view"? Are anar
chists going to render ideologica assistance to a mob in te process of mount
ing a pogrom or of carrying out lynch law? Alassistance aforded to te masses
in the realm of ideas must be consonant wit te ideology of anarchism: oter
wise, it would not be anarchist assistance. "Ideologicaly assist" simply means:
influence fom te ideas point of view, direct fom the ideas point of view.
Bakunin, Kropotin, Reclus, Malatesta -those are men who were, incontest
ably, ideological directors of te masses. But we aim to see tat such directon,
exercised occasionall becomes a permanent factor: that is only going to be
possible when there is an organizaton possessed of a common ideology and
whose membership engage in ideologicall coordinated actvit, witout being
D OC U M E N T N O. " R E P LY TO ANARC H I S M' S C O N F U S I ON I S TS 229
side-tracked or dispersed as has been the case hitherto. Tose are the terms in
which the question is posed. And it is in vain that the authors of the "Reply" will
dream up sophisms in order to show that direction in the realm of ideas means
authoritarian direction.
It is the masses of the people that will make the revolution themselves, say
our adversaries. Understood. But tey ought to know that the revolutionary
mass is forever nurturing in its bosom a minority of initiators, who precipitate
and direct events. And we are entitled to assert that in a true social revolution
the supporters of worker anarchism alone will account for that minority.
4. Te Idea of te Transitonal Period
Te "Platorm" notes that the social political parties understand the term
'Transitional Period" to mean a specifc stage in the life of a people, the essen
tal features of which period are: a breach with the old order of things and the
installation of a new economic and political system, a system which as yet does
not represent the complete emancipation of the toilers. Communist anarchism,
however, repudiates transitional arrangements of that sort. It advocates a so
cial revolution of the toilers that will lay the foundations for their fee and egali
tarian societ.
It strikes us that the problem could not be posed any more clearly. But the
autors of the "Reply" have contrived to discover the precise opposite in the
"Platorm. " In their estimation, the "Platorm" is, all in all, merely "an attempt
to peddle this idea (o/the transitional period) and to graf it on to anarchism. "
And here comes te proof: te "Platorm" looks forward to certin points, (there
are some set out in the appendix to the "Platorm") when the press (or rather
the abuse thereof of the class hosti le to thp toi l er.:will h"vp been shut down
by stug g labor. And te authors of the "Reply" are cock a hoop: w doesn't
that amount to a "transitional period really"? Ten again the "Platorm" de
clares that the anarchist communist principle "fom each according to his tal
ents, to each according to his needs" in no way makes it incumbent upon labor
in rebellion to feed everyone, including its avowed enemies who, for
counterrevolutionary motives, would refse to play a part in production and
would dream of nothing other than decapitating the revolution. Tat principle
merely means equality in distribution within the parameters of the egalitarian
society: it does not at all apply to those who have placed themselves outside
that society for counterrevolutionary motives. Furthermore, that principle
means that every member of laboring society who profts fom its services
should serve it in accordance with his strengths and capabilities and not at all
in accordance with his whims or indeed not at all. Te authors of the "Reply"
again raise a hue and cry: what about that, is that not the transitional period?
Tey proclaim "the application of the principle of equal enjoyment of all avail
able and feshly manufactured products, regardless of their quantity, by all the
members of te collectivity, without exception, restriction or privilege of any
sort. " True, it is none too clear fom this formula whether the rebel workers
23 0 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
must feed the bourgeoisie that plays no part in production and uses its ingenu
it to oppose them. But, since that formula is opposed to the labor principle of
the "Platorm, " we have to conclude that te toilers do have a dut to maintain
the bourgeoisie, even i they have not the slightest desire so to do.
We shall not enter into discussion of such a viewoint. Te working class
itsel wll resolve it practically, come the social revolution. However we do be
lieve that it will not shower the authors of te "Reply" with praise for the tender
care wit they have surrounded a bourgeois that refses to work. Would the
autors of te "Reply" not be better advsed to devise some way of turning
bourgeois into honest members of laboring society instead of watching out for
them with such solicitude?
But the most impressive sleight of hand by the authors of the "Reply" comes
only later. Aer having seen tem rebut all of the positions of the "Platorm, "
aer havng seen them dismiss its authors as shamefl Bolshevks, and teir
constuctive system as a tansitonal political and economic state system -one
would expect to fnd tem presenting a bold outine of the post-revolutionary
anarchist societ, of the societ in which everybody would fnd his every need
met and which would have nothing in common with te one sketched in the
"Platorm, " Not a bit of it, though. Al one fnds tere is an admission that te
creative endeavor of the social revolution "will be a naturl start to the forma
tion ofan anarchist society." Now tat declaraton is borrowed, word for word,
fom te "Platorm," which states "the vctory of the toilers . . . will be the start of
the construction of te anarchist societ which, once outined, will then, witout
interruption, follow its line of development, growing stronger and more
rounded. " In truth, with our adversaries, te right side of teir minds has no
idea what te left side is tinking and doing.
5. Te Problem of Producton
Nor do the autors of te "Reply" fail to raise categorical objections to us in
relaton to te problem of producton as well. It is very hard to get an idea of
what prompts teir objectons, as well as of what tey are advocating in their
exposition. Te idea of unied and coordinated production set out by the "Plat
form" leaves them cold, as does te idea of agencies directing producton and
elected by the workers. In the idea of coordinated producton they divine te
specter of centalizaton and statism and they offer instead the idea of decen
taized production.
Te idea of unifed production is clear: te "Platorm" looks upon the whole
of modern industry as one single, gigantic workshop of producers, created by
the efforts of several generations of toilers and altogether the property of ev
erybody and of no one in particular.
Particular branches of production are inseparably interconnected and they
can neiter produce nor even exist as separate entities. Te unity of that work
shop is determined by technical factors. But there is only one unied and coor
dinated producton capable of existence in this mammoth factory: production
D OCU M E N T N O. 4 R E P LY TO ANARC H I S M ' S C O N F U S I O N I S TS 23 1
carried out in accordance wt an overall scheme prescribed by the workers'
and peasants' production organizatons, a plan draed in the light of the needs
of society as a whole: the products of that factory belong to the whole of labor
ing society. Such production is tuly socialist.
It is very much to be regretted that the autors of the "Reply" omitted to
explain how they envsage decentalized producton. But we may suppose that
they are talking about several independent productions, isolated industies,
separate tusts and mabe even separate factories producing and disposing of
teir products as tey see ft. Te authors of the "Reply" declare that decental
ized production will operate according to federalist principles. But, since te
federated units will be nothing more than small private entepreneurs (to wit,
te united workorce of a single plant, tust or industy) , production will not be
at al socialist: it will still be capitalist, in that it is based on the parcelizaton of
ownership, which wll not take long to provoke compettion and antagonisms.
Unifed production is not centralized production directed fom some
autoritarian "center." Unifed producton is merely authentcally communist
producton.
6. Defense of te Revoluton
Examining the problem of te defense of the Revolution, the "Platorm"
remarks frst that the most effective means of defending the revolution would
be to fnd a radical soluton to te problems of production, supply and te land.
But te "Platorm" also foresaw that solution of these problems will necessarly
spark a bitter civl war in which te exploiter class will strive to retain or to
regain its prvleges. Tat is quite inescapable. Te "Platorm" indicates also
that thf cl aff (urrfnty in power wilin that wa resort to "te methudulog of
almilitary action: unity of operatonal planning and unit of overall command. "
It goes on to say tat the toilers will also have to have recourse to these meth
ods of stuggle, and all the armed units that will spring up voluntarily wlha
to amagamate into a single army. Tis necessit does not make it impossible
for local detachments to wage an independent fght against the counterrevolu
tion. I does, though, require tat a revolutonary worker and peasant army
confont the broad font of the counterrevolutionary onslaught.
In order to combat te counterrevoluton, te workers must possess their
common operational plan and overall command. Otherwise, te enemy will
attack them where they are weakest and least expecting it.
History is the best proof of this:
a) Al popula revolutons were especially successfl when the army ceased
blindly to serve the ruling classes and trew in its lot with the rebels.
b) Durng the Russian revolution, it was tose popular movements tat man
aged to unite their armed forces, units of importance, to which military
operations afectng an entire region were entusted, tat met with ap
preciable success. Tis was te case wit te insurgent movement headed
by Mahno. Insurgent groups that failed to understand tis necessit
23 2 F AC I N G T H E E N E M Y
perished in the face of a well organized enemy. Tere were hundreds of
instances of tat in the Russian revolution.
c) Te Russian counterrevoluton led by Koltchak, Denikin, Yudenich and
others owes its military defeat chiefy to the fact tat it failed to establish
a single operaonal plan and united command for the counterrevolution
ary armies: tus while Koltchak was (in 1918) near Kazan and making
for Moscow, Denikin stayed in the Caucasus: but it was only wen
Koltchak was "liquidated" (in 1919) tat Denikn rounded on Moscow.
(Note: We ae not speakig here of te partsan warfare waged by te
peasants against Koltchak and Denikin and which brought te latter to
military and social defeat.)
Insurgent revolutonary work during te civl war must know how to use te
metodology of unit of operatonal planning and overall command of the revolu
tonary armed forces. Without that, the workers and peasants will be beaten by
counterrevolutionary forces highly conversant wth the militay arts. Te "Pat
form" pointed out how necessary it was that workers utilize that methodology as
well as create a single army embracing al of the armed forces at te revoluton's
disposa. I goes wthout sayng that the "Platorm" insists upon tis organizaton
only for te duration of the civil war in the fght against the counterrevoluton.
Once tat war ends, te revolutionary army has no frter raison d'etre and wl
fade away. To tell the tuth, te whole chapter in the "Platorm" tat deals with
defense of te revolution stressed only the need tat workers wll have to utilize
te metodology of a common operatonal plan and common command. Te "Pat
form" also labors te point that tese methods as well as the idea of te revolu
tonary army are to be regarded only as a statagem necessitd by civl war ad
in no way as anachist prnciples. It stkes us that no sane and honest mind could
fnd grounds there for accusing the "Platorm" wit pushing the idea of a standing,
centalized army. But te "sages" of the "Reply" manage it nonetheless. Tey
chage us with noting more nor less tan aspiring to create a centalized am
placed at te disposal of the overall productive orgaizatons directed, in teir
turn, by the Union/Part. We believe that anarchist circles are clear-sighted
enough to grasp for temselves that tis vew is absurd ad incoherent. Te "R
ply" proposes no hard and fast solution to te problem of defense of the revolu
ton. Aer having, as is its wont, proffered the most motey shower of insults
against te "Platorm," te autors of it stat to mumble someting about union
of te armed forces in te revoluton, tereby aping te idea of te "Platorm,"
albeit misrepresentng it as usual.
But it is by examining te necessit, announced by te "Platorm, " of the
revolutonay army's being subordinated to the toilers' higher productie or
ganizations tat te autors of te "Reply" display a tuly penetratng mind, a
real masterpiece of farsightedness. How dare you, tey exclaim, argue tat
tat is not a tansitional period? Precisely how subordinaton of te revolution
ary army to te workers' and peasants' productive organizatons constitutes a
tansitonal period -tat is the inscrutable enigma. Te toilers' military forces
D OC U M E N T N O. " R E P LY TO ANARC H I S M' S C ON F U S I ON I S TS 2 3 3
will not in any way become an end in themselves: they wlhave only one way of
implementing the formalities of the worker and peasant revolution. As a result,
it is to the workers and peasants that the army should be answerable and by
them alone that it should be directed politically. According to the authors of the
"Reply" the revolutionary army, or indeed the armed groupings, should not be
answerable to those organizations: they will lead an independent existence and
fght as they deem ft. Tus are folk who have the effontery to speak of things
upon which they have never refected hoist on their own petard!
7. Anarchist Organiaton
On this score too, the autors of the "Reply" are primaril concerned with
misrepresenting the meaning of the "Platorm. " First of all they turn the idea of
an Executive Committee into that of a Party Central Commitee, a committee
that issues orders, makes laws and commands. Anybody in te least degree
slightest conversant with politics knows well tat an executive committee and a
cental committee are two quite different ideas: the executive committee may
very well be an anarchist agency: indeed, such an organ exists in many anar
chist and anarchist-syndicalist organizations.
Wile rejecting the idea of a broad anarchist organization based on a ho
mogeneous ideology, the authors of the "Reply" peddle the idea of a syntesiz
ing organization wherein all of the stands of anarchism are gathered together
into "one single family. " To pave te way for the establishment of that organiza
tion, they propose to set up a newspaper in every country which would discuss
and examine all contoversial issues, fom every angle, and thus bring about an
entente beteen anarchists.
We have already spellen out o1 lr position rfgarri ng thi < notion of synthe
sis and we shall not rehearse our reasoning here. We shall confne ourselves
simply to adding that te existence of discrepancies beteen the opinions of
anarchists is due more to te lack of a periodical to act as a forum for discus
sion (tere were some once) . A forum for discussion will never manage to
bring the divergent currents together, but it will assuredly clutter up te minds
of te laboring masses. Furthermore, a whole swathe of individuas claiming
to be anarchists has noting in common with anarchism. Gathering tese people
(on the basis of what?) into "one family" and describing that gatering as "anar
chist organization" would not only be a nonsense: it would be positively harm
fl. If that were t happen by some mischance, all prospect of anarchism's de
veloping into a revolutonary social movement of te toilers would be banished.
It is not an indiscriminating mix, but rather a selecton fom the whole
some anarchist forces and the organizaton thereof into an anarchist-commu
nist party tat is vtal to the movement: not a hotchpotch synthesis, but dif er
entiation and exploration of the anarchist idea so as to bring them to a homoge
neous movement program. Tat is the only way to rebuild and strengthen te
movement in te laboring masses.
23 4 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
To conclude, a few words on te etical features of the "Reply. " In realit, it
is not to te "Platorm" tat this "Reply" is addressed, but to a whole seres of
positons duly misrepresented in advance by the autors of the "Reply. " Tere
is not a single paragraph to which they reply without preamble. Tey always
start off by ferretng out the Jesuitical recesses of the position and, aer having
concocted those, tey put teir objectons to tem. In teir hands, te "Plat
form" has been trned into a fendish conspiracy against the anarchist move
ment and against te working class. Tis is how tey represent te thinking of
te "Platorm": "On top, the leading part, (the General Union of Anarchists) ;
down below, te higher peasant and worker orgaizatons directed by te Union;
lower stll, te inferior organizations, the organs of stuggle against the counter
revoluton, te army, etc. " Elsewhere, they t about "investgatory and politi
c
a
l volence" institutions. A whole picture is painted there, a portait of a police
state, directed by te General Union of Anarchists.
One might well ask: why tis recourse to altese lies? Te autors of the
"Reply" have read te "Platorm. " So they ought to know tat the tinking
behind the "Platorm" boils dow to the organizaton of anarchist forces for
the period of strugle against the capitalist class society: its object is simply to
spread aarchism among te masses ad ideological directon ofteir stuggle.
Te moment tat te toilers will have defeated capitalist societ, a new era in
their history will be ushered in, an era when all social and political fnctons
are tansferred to the hands of workers and peasants who wl set about the
creation of the new life. At tat point the anarchist organizatons and, wth
tem, the General Union, will lose all teir signicance and they should, in
our vew, gradually melt away into te productve organizations of te workers
and peasants. Te "Platorm" contains a whole constuctve secton dealing
wit te role of te workers and peasants in te wae of the Revoluton. By
contast, it says noting about the specifc role at that junctre of te World
Union of Anarchists. Ad this is no accident, but rater a deliberate omission.
Because all politcal and economic actvit will ten be concentated, as we
see it, in te toilers' organs of self-administation: in the trade unions, te fac
tory committees, the councils, etc.
But, to credit the authors of the "Reply, " it is only then tat the Anarchist
Communist Part comes into its own: positioned somewhere up above, it is to
direct te "higher" and the "lower" toilers' organizatons, the army, etc. Tat is
their way of dealing wth a document of which they propose to offer a critique,
their way of teatng the reader to whom they promised tuth. Te irresponsi
bility of tese methods will surely starte any reader capable of refection on
maters political.
In scrutinizing the oter reasons for the anachist movement's weakness,
the autors of te "Reply" point to tis one: ''e current state of mind of te
masses who have neither te wherewtal nor the desire to investigate, analyze
and make comparsons and who, consequenty stll and always plump for te
easiest option, te course of least resistce according to te "ready-made' reci
pes on offer fom demagogues of every hue. "
D OCU M E N T N O. 4 R E P LY TO ANARC H I S M ' S C O N F U S I O N I S TS 2 3 5
Let us conclude our examination of te "Reply" by these remarkable uter
ances fom its authors. Remarkable words in that they demonstate the ftlit
and hypocrisy of their speechifing about the creatve potential "of te masses,
their autonomous activity, the dire threat that ideological direction poses to
tat potential, etc. If the "Reply is to be believed, one gets te impression tat
the masses are not only incapable of fnding the paths to teir liberaton, but
also have not the slightest desire so to do, and prefer to follow the line of least
resistance. "
I that is how things really stand, things are going badly for anarchism,
since it is by force that it has to draw the masses to its side. In setng tem
selves the target of rebuting the "Platorm, " regardless of cost, even should
they have to fy in the face of reason, the facts and life itself, in order to achieve
that, the authors of the "Reply" have been reduced to declaratons like tose.
We hope that we have proved, in the foregoing exposition, that te pro
gram of the authors of the "Reply" was quite without foundation and tat tey
are tpical specimens of the political incoherence in our movement. As for the
ethical side of the "Reply, " that cannot be described as anything other ta an
object lesson in calumny.
23 6
-Te Group of Russian Aarchists Abroad
August 18, 1927
F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
DO C U M E N T No . 5
P I OT R ARS H I N OV - TH E OL D A N D T H E N E W I N
AN AR C H I S M ( R E P LY TO CO M RA D E MAL AT E S TA)
In te Geneva anarchist magazine L Reveil frst of al, and later in pamphlet
form, comrade Errico Malatesta has published a atcle critical of te Organiza
tional Platorm issued by te Group of Russian Anarchists Aroad.
Tat artcle has inspired puzzlement and reget in us. We had expected, and
expect still, that the notion of organized anarchism may meet with dogged resis
tance fom te supporters of chaos, so numerous in anachist circles, for tat
idea obliges any anachist partcipatng in te movement to shoulder his respon
sibilites and confont the notions of dut and consistency. Whereas te favored
principle in which most anarchists have been schooled thus far ca be summed
up by te following aiom: "J do as J please and pay no heed to anything. " It is only
natura tat aachists of that sort, imbued wit such principles, should be vo
lenty hostle to an noton of organized anarchism and collectve responsibilit.
Comrade Malatesta is a stranger to this principle, and tat is why his text
has drawn this response fom us. Puzzlement, because he is a veteran of inter
nationa anarchism and has failed to grasp te spirit of the Platorm, its essen
tial character and its relevance, which fow fom the demands of our revolu
tionary age. Regret, because, in order to keep fait with the dogma implicit in
te cult of indivduaty, he has set his face (only temporarily, let us hope) against
te endeavor which seems a crucial stage in te frther spread and develop
ment of the anarchist movement.
Right at the outset of his article, Malatesta says tat he subscribes to a
number of the theses of the Platorm or indeed reinfrces tem with te ideas
he sets out. He would agree with us in noting tat anarchists have not had ad
do not have any infuence over socia and political developments, for want of a
serious, active organization, Te principles embraced by comrade Malatesta
correspond to the chief tenets of the Platorm. One might have expected that
he would also have examined, grasped and accepted a number of other prin
ciples set out in our dra, for tere is a tread of coherence and logic running
through all of the Platorm's theses. Malatesta, though, goes on to express in
tenchant terms his difference of opinion wth the Platorm. He raises te ques
tion of whether the General Aarchist Union anticipated by te Platorm might
resolve the problem of education of te toiling masses, answering that query in
the negative. He advances as his grounds for this te allegedly authoritarian
D O C U M E N T N O . 5 T H E O L D & N E W I N A N A R C H I S M 2 3 7
character of the Union which, according to him, would nurture the idea of sub
mission to higher-ups and leaders.
On what can such a grave charge be based? It is in the notion of collective
responsibilit espoused by the Platorm that he sees his chief grounds for fam
ing such a charge. He cannot countenance the principle that the Union as a
body is answerable for each of its members and that, conversely, each member
is answerable for the policy line of the Union as a whole. Wich means that
Malatesta rejects the very principle of organization which appears to us to be
the most essential thing i the organized anarchist movement is to be able to
proceed wit its development.
Tus far te anarchist movement has nowhere reached the stage where it
is a popular movement organized as such. Te blame for this cannot be laid at
the door of objective circumstances, for instance the fact that the toiling masses
might not understand anarchism or take any interest in it in times of revolution:
no, the cause of the anarchist movement's weakness and instabilit resides es
sentally in the anarchists temselves. Not once to date have tey atempted
conduct either propaganda of their ideas or their practical activities among te
toiling masses in an organized manner.
Strange as this may appear to comrade Malatesta, we staunchly affrm that
the actvity of the most active anarchists -of which he is one -necessarily
displayed an individualistic character: even i that activit was marked by high
personal responsibilit, it was the business only of an individual and not of an
organization. In the past, when our movement was new-born as a national or
international movement, this could not have been otherwise: the foundations
had to be laid for the anarchist mass movement: the toiling masses had to be
called upon and invited to commit themselves to the anarchist mode of struggle.
Tat was necessary, even i it was onlv the doing of i !ol'tfi iTdi"idual cf lim
ited means. Tose militants of anarchism fulflled their mission: they drew the
most active workers towards anarchist ideas. However, that was only half of
the task. At a time when the number of anarchist personnel, coming fom the
laboring masses, grew considerabiy, it became impossible to confne onesel to
isolated propaganda and practice, individually or in scatered groups. To con
tinue thus would have meant marking time. In order to avoid slipping back
wards, one had to press on. Tat is the precise explanation for the widespread
decline in the anarchist movement: we had taken that frst step but proceeded
no frther.
Tat second step consisted ten and consists still of gathering anarchist
personnel drawn fom the toiling masses into an active collective capable of
leading the organized struggle of the toilers wit the aim of maing a realit of
anarchist ideas.
Te question facing anarchists of every land is as follows: can our move
ment content itself wt subsisting on the basis of the old forms of organization,
local groups with no organizatonal linkage beteen tem, each one operating
off its own bat, with its own ideology and partcular tactc? Or should our move-
23 8 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
ment instead look to new forms of organization that would help it develop and
put dow roots in te broad masses of toilers?
Te experience of te last twenty years, and more especially that of te
to Russian revolutons -of 1905 and 1917-1919 -hint better tan any "teo
retcal consideratons" at te answer to that question.
During the Russian revolution, the toiling masses were won over to anar
chist ideas: even so, anarchism as an organized movement suffered a complete
rebuff i it. Wereas at the outset of the revolution, we were in the van of the
fghting, as soon as the constuctve phase arrived we found ourselves irrepa
rably at a remove fom this and, in the end, remote fom the masses. Tis was
not te work of chance: such an attitude fowed inevitably fom our own power
lessness, in terms both of orgaization and of our ideological confsionism.
At te root of tat failure was the fact tat, troughout te revolution, anar
chists proved unable to expound their social and political program, and courted
the toiling masses only wit ftl, contradictory propaganda: we had no stable
organization. Our movement was represented by makeshif organizations
sprouting up here and there, temselves unsure of what they wanted and which
most ofen evaporated afer a time, leaving not a tace. One would have to be
desperately naive and stpid to think tat the toilers could follow and join such
"organizations" in time of social struggle and communist constucton.
We have falen into the habit of puting te failure of the anarchist move
ment in Russia in 1917-1919 down to statist repression by the Bolshevik Part:
this is a great mistake. Te Bolshevik repression hobbled the spread of the anar
chist movement during te revoluton, but it was not te sole obstacle. Rer,
the internal impotence of the movement itsel was one of the chief causes of tat
failure, a impotence that arose fom the vagueness and indecision that charac
terized te sundry politcal statements regarding organizaton and tactics.
Anarchism had no set, hard and fast opinion on te essental problems of
te social revolution: an opinion tat was crucial in satisfing te appetite of the
masses who created the revoluton. Aarchists preached te communist prin
ciple: "From each according to hi ability, to each according to his need," but tey
never toubled to apply tat principle to realit, or indeed they allowed certain
suspect elements to turn tat great prnciple into a carcatre of anarchism (let
us just recall how many swindlers capitalized upon it so as to seize the assets of
te collectvity for teir ow personal advantage) . Anarchists tlked a lot about
the revolutonary actvity of te toilers, but proved incapable of helping tem,
even by sketching out in rough the form that such actvt should have assumed:
they proved unable to regulate the reciprocal relations between te masses and
teir source of ideological inspiraon. Tey encouraged te toilers to shake off
te yoke of Authorit, but they did not indicate how to consolidate and defend
te revoluton's gains. Tey lacked clear and precise ideas and a program of
acton on lots of oter issues. It was tis that distanced them fom te masses'
actvit and condemned tem to social and historcal impotence. Tere is where
we should seek te prime cause for their failure in te Russian revoluton.
D O C U M E N T N O . 5 T H E O L D & N E W I N A N A R C H I S M 2 3 9
Ad we have no doubt tat, i the revoluton were to erupt in several Euro
pean counties, anarchists wlsuffer te same failure, for tere tey are no less
divided -if not in fact more divided -in terms of their ideas and organization.
Te present age, when te toilers in their millions are entering the lists of te
social struggle, requires of anarchists direct and plain answers to a whole series
of questions concerning that struggle and the communist reconstruction that
should follow it: likewise, it requires that anarchists assume collectve responsi
bility for those answers and for anarchist propaganda generally. Should tey not
shoulder that responsibility, anarchists, like anyone else in such circumstnces,
are not enttled to engage in inconsequential propaganda among te laboring
masses, which fght heedless of heavy sacrifces and te loss of countless victims.
Tese days, this is neiter a game nor a matter of improvisaton. So it is that,
until such time as we have our General Anarchist Union, we will not be in a
position to supply common answers to all of these vital questions.
At the start of his article, comrade Malatesta appears to welcome te idea of
an anarchist umbrela organization being set up: however, by categorically re
jecting collective responsibility, he makes realization of such an organization an
impossibility. For it would be possible only i there was a theoretical and organi
zational concordance, representing a common platorm on te basis of which
numerous militants might come togeter. Insofar as they would accept that plat
form, the latter would become binding upon them. Anyone unwllng to accept
these basic principles as binding will not, and indeed will not be wlling to, be
come a member of the organization.
In this way, that organization would be te union of tose who would share
a common conception of te theoretcal, tactical and political policy line to be
observed, As a result, the practical activt of a member of te organizaton is
naturally in complete harmony wth the overall actt ad conversely te adiv
it of the organization as a whole could not be at odds with the conscience and
activity of each member, assuming he has accepted te program fundamenta to
the organizaton. It is this which characterzes te principle of collectve respon
sibility: the Union as a body is answerable for te activit of each member, i te
knowledge tat he could only carry out his political and revolutionary work in
te political spirt of the Union. Lkewise, each member is flly answerable for
the Union as a whole, since its actvit could not be at odds with what has been
determined by the whole membership. Tere is no hint here of autoritrianism,
as comrade Malatesta mistakenly argues: merely the expression of a aert and
responsible understanding of militant work.
It goes without saying that i summoning anarchists to organize themselves
on te basis of a defnite program, we are not tereby depriving anarchists of
other persuasions of their right to organize howsoever they may deem ft, How
ever, we are convnced that, as soon as anarchists have created an organization
of importance, the hollowness and ftlity of te traditional organizations will
become glaingly apparent.
. . . Te principle of responsibilit is taen by comrade Maatsta in te sense
of the moral responsibilit of individuals and groups, Tis is why he atibutes to
240 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
congresses and their resolutions te mere role of sort of fendly get-togeters,
mouthing only platitudes.
Tat taditonal way of thinking about te role of congresses does not stad
up to the simplest test in re
a
l lie. In fact, what would be te point of a congress
that would merely express "opinions" and would not undertake to make these
a reality in lif? None. In a broad movement, a merely moral rather tan organi
zatonal responsibility loses al value.
Wich brings us to te question of majorit and minort. Our thinking is
tat all discussion of tis topic is redundant. In practce, it has long since been
resolved. Always and everywhere, practca problems aong us have been re
solved by majority vote. Which is perfecty understandable, for tere is no oter
way of resolving these things in an organizaton tat is determined to act.
Out of all te objections voiced to te Platorm, an understanding of te
most important thesis therein -understanding of our approach to the organi
zational problem and how to resolve it -has thus fa been missing. Indeed,
understanding of tis is exremely important and is of crucia signifcance wit
regard to a proper appreciaton of te Platorm and of te whole organizational
endeavor of the Dyelo Truda group .
. . . Te only way to banish chaos and breate life back into te anachist
movement is a theoretcal and organizatonal clarication of our ranks, leading
on to diferentiation and recruitment an actve core of militants on te basis of a
homogeneous theoretical and practica program. Which is one of te main aims
of our text.
What does this clarcaton represent and how should it proceed? Te ab
sence of an agreed overall progra has always been a lack sorely felt in the
anarchist movement, and has helped leave it very ofen highly vulnerable, its
propaganda having never been any too coherent and consistent in relaton to
te ideas professed and te practcal principles advocated. Quite te contrary,
it has ofen come to pass that what was propagated by one group is denigrated
by anoter one. And tis holds not only for tactical applicatons, but aso for te
underlying theses.
Some excuse such a state of affairs by saing tat it is an index of the
multiplicit of anachist ideas. Fine, let us agree upon that, but of what interest
is tat multiplicit supposed to be for the toilers?
Tey struggle and suffer in the here and now and have immediate need of a
proper concepton of revoluton tat may speed tem on teir way to emancipa
tion right away: tey do not need any abstact noton, but a living idea tat is a
rea, developed answer to teir questons, while anachists, in practce, ofen
proffer many contadictory ideas, systems ad progras, wt te most signi
cant rubbing shoulders wt te tg, or even at odds wth one aoter. In
such circumstances, it is readily understandable tat aachism has not man
aged, and, in te ftre never will manage to germinate in te masses ad be
come one with tem, in such a way as t provde te inspiraton for teir libera
ton movement. For the masses sense te pointlessness of contadictory ideas
D O C U M E N T N O . 5 T H E O L D & N E W I N A N A R C H I S M 24 1
and instnctvely give them a wide berth: even though, in tme of revolution,
they may act ad live in a libertarian manner.
To conclude: comrade Malatesta reckons that the Bolsheviks' successes
in their country have been giving sleepless nights to those Russian anarchists
who issued the Platorm. Malatesta's error consists of his having failed to t
a
ke
account of the extemely signicant circumstance that the Organizational Plat
form is the product, not just of the Russian revoluton, but also of the anarchist
movement in that revolution. Now, tere is no way that this fact can be over
looked if one wishes to resolve the problem of anarchist organizaton, its for
mat and its theoretical basis. It is crucial that questions be asked about the
place that anarchism occupied in the great social upheaval in 1917. What was
the atttude of te insurgent masses to anarchism and anarchists? Wat was it
about them that they prized? Why, in spite of that, did anarchism meet with
failure in that revolution? Wat lessons have been learnt fom that? All these
questions, and many another, must inevtably arse to confont anyone who
broaches the issues raised by the Platorm. Tis, comrade Malatesta has not
done. He has tacked the current problem of organizaton as an absent-minded
dogmatist. Which is rater incomprehensible for those of us who have been
wont to look upon him not as an ideologue but, rather, as a practitioner of real,
active anarchism. He makes do with examining the degree to which such and
such a thesis fom the Platrm is compatible or otherwise with anarchism's
traditional viewoints, then he rebuts tem, fnding them to be at odds with
tose old notions. It does not even enter his head that the reverse might be
true, that it is these latter which might be at fault, ad that that is reason for the
appearance of the Platorm. Tat is one way of explaining the whole series of
errors and contadictions set out earlier in his text.
Lt us note ,till :mothff serious omission on his pat: he fails to dwell at al
upon the theoretcal basis, or the constuctive part of te Platorm, focusing
solely upon the organizational dra. Our text not only refted the noton of syn
thesis and of anarcho-sydicalism as untenable and having failed, but it also prof
fered a scheme for rallying anarchism's active militants on the basis of a more or
les homogeneous program. Comrade Malatest ought to have dwelt in detl upon
tat approach: however he passes it over in silence as he also does the construc
tve section, altough his conclusions are apparently applicable to te Platorm
as a whole. Which maes his article somewhat of a contadiction and unstble.
Lbertria communism must not languish in the doldrums of its past: it
must rise above tem by combating and overcoming its defects. Te novelty of
te Platorm and of te Dyelo Truda group consists precisely of teir being stang
ers to obsolete dogmas and preconceptons and that instead they stive to con
duct teir activit on te basis of rea, current dat. Tis venture represents te
frst ever atempt to fse anarchism and rea life, and to create anarchist activit
on tat basis. Only thus will libertarian communism be wested fom te talons
of an obsolete dogma and invigorate the life-givng movement of the masses.
Dyelo Truda, No. 36, (May 1928) , pp. 411
242 F A C I NG THE E NE MY
DO C U M E N T N o. 6
TH E
"
NAB AT " OR G AN I ZAT I O N I N T H E UK RA I N E ,
1 9 1 9 - 1 9 2 0
Note by the editors of Dyelo Truda: Te article published below is lied fom a
lengthy letter fom a Russian anarchit, one of the founder and most active par
ticipant in the "Nabat" anarchist Confederation in the Uraine: we shall not
name him, for since 1920 he has been incarcerated without cease in Bolshevik
prisons: in the Butyrki, in the Solovietzky island . . . and is even now a deportee in
Sibera.
Te organizational and political structure of "Nabat" has hitherto been de
scribed only in the articles of Voline and, in his verion, seems a rather loose
organization founded upon fiendly and harmonious relations, ignornt of orga
nizational discipline and responsibility, and acknowleding no leaderhip ech
elon, in terms of ideas, in anarchist circles. Now we have the testimony of a com
rde who shed a dif erent light on the organizational and political aspect ofWabat. '
Not only did the latter enforce strict organizational prnciples and collective re
sponsibilit but in fact it strugled to impose these and tended to become the pro
totype of the structured organization for which the Dyelo Truda Group of Russian
Anarchist is now campaigning. And we have the testimony of one of "Nabat's"
founder and active participants to that effect.
Obviously, there were theoretical contradictions, on account of the aspiration
of certain of it member that the Confederation should espouse the famous ideol
og of the anarchist synthesis. But that in no way undermined the strength of the
"Nabat" structure.
It should be pointed out tat the author ofthis piece has not dealt adequately
with the centrlist deviation of the French anarchist, regarding that deviation as
a quite natural and usefl backlash against the chronic chaos and diintegration
that have prevailed in anarchit circles, and would therefore identi with that
deviation. Asfor ourelves, however we see it as a passing fad that will give way to
a libertaran federalism strctly compatible with ideological and organizational
accountabilit
-Te editor ofDyelo Truda
D O C U MENT NO. 6 THE ' NA S AT ' O RGA N I Z AT I ON 243
Lt me come back to the problem of the "Nabat," concerning which our
exchange of views has been temporarily interrupted in our correspondence,
for I have yet to reply on tis matter to one of your last leters, due to te fact
that, on account of circumstances not of our making, that latter was destroyed
and I lost the thread of our discussions.
Tat sad, I want to answer you in a couple of words regarding the back
ground of this mater, for apparently you have not yet grasped the true nature
of "Nabat," the circumstances in which it was established and how it resolved
the problems that confonted it. Wat you term, i memory serves, te realistic
idealism of "Nabat" represented its genuine, living aspect, its true essence. At
frst, "Nab at" had no defnite standard program tat could have resolved all of
the movement's theoretical and practical questions. It had not yet managed to
draf one. It had only begun to do so, operating on the basis of certain method
ological principles. It had even made a little headway in this, particularly with
regard to stuctre and organization. It was in fact an organizational Union
rooted in a few broad principles, the aim being to carry out organizational work
in concert wit the best and most wholesome representatives of the various
anarchist tendencies, wit those sensible of te need for that. Te N abatovians
as yet had no set program, but they did have a common outlook on the basis of
which to resolve a series of points in that program: an outlook that was forged
in the process of struggle, on te basis of lived experience of revolution, re
quiring immediate answers and solutions.
Tactical maters accounted for a large part of our concerns: the soviets,
the toilers' Unions, te army, the insurgent movement, the peasantry and so
on were all on te agenda. At the same level, te great theoretical issues of the
movement's program were broached. Some were resolved, oters were in the
process of being resolved. A issue a importat as the mater ot the transi
tonal period was forever being debated among us, and it was only at the Sep
tember 1919 "Nab at" conference tat it was resolved trough the formulaton
of phase one of the communist reconstucton of society, wich .. ve strove with
considerable difculty to endow with an increasingly concrete content.
As regards organizatonal structures, a defnite line was developed ad
implemented at two levels: frst of all through a policy line rising above te
various schools of anarchism: and ten trough organizatonal practce, trough
te ral g of te most determined, most dynamic militants wit an eye to
launching a heathy, well-stuctured movement with te prospect of a standard
ized program.
Such organizationa constructon depended upon the principle of "federal
ist centalism": it was, in a manner of speaking, a party built upon this prin
ciple, wt a single orgaization
a
l famework, structured aong federal lines.
Te component organizatons ad groups were well-disciplined and answer
able to one anoter for te implementaton of policy options. In particular, they
regarded the resolutons and decisions reached at gener
a
l assemblies, even by
a simple majorit vote, as binding.
244 F A C I NG THE ENEMY
In short, it was a well-stuctred and disciplined movement with a leading
echelon appointed and monitored by te rank and fle. And let there be no
illusions as to the role of tat echelon: it was not merely "technically execu
tve," as it is commonly regarded. It was
a
lso te movement's "ideological pilot
core," looking aer publishing operations, and propaganda activt, utlizing
te centa fnds and above all controlling and deploying the movement's re
sources and militants, who were, sad to say, none too numerous. In this way,
"N abat" was a well-structred party wit a single, coherent platorm. I say plat
form because we had not, as yet, any fnalized stadard program: we were dra
ing one as the revolutonary experience we were living was evolving. But the
minimum basis for agreement that served us in our common endeavors was
te same and binding upon al Confederaton members. To the extent that the
Secretarat was empowered to take steps to exclude fom the movement any
organizaton serously departing fom te movement's overal line, untl such
tme as te following congress of the Confederaton might make a fnal deci
sion. Witout fear of overstatng te case, I believe tat everything being done
among you in France, and generally speakng, everything wholesome tat is
going to be accomplished in te aarchist movement in the realm of organiza
tion, cannot outdo te "Nabat" experience. Maybe a few operational details
could be improved: tat is all. It goes wtout saying tat at present we may
have differing vews of the problems of te ftre part, its role and its place in
te preparaton and piloting of the toilers' soci
a
l struggles, as well as its ties to
te toilers' organized or spontaneous movements. Tat is quite obvious, but
tis is not because "Nabat" erred or resolved tese matters differenty, for at
te tme, it existed only historcally, which is to say that it had been caught up in
te whirlwind of revoluton and had not yet reached its maturty, lacking te
experence and the tme to resolve these matters as perfectly as in te present
moment.
. . . It is on te basis of these principles tat our movement operated and
grew, at te risk of being regarded as "heretica" and vlifed by the "ortodox"
chatterboxes of all sorts who decline to get involved in life. Te orthodoxes
screamed teachery, and rased a hullab
a
loo about a centralist party, etc. But
ten, as now, teirs was a voice fom te past and fom confsion, over which
we must raise a huge cross so tat we may gain a frm footng in te here and
now ad fght for te fture to come.
-A Nabatovian, Dyelo Truda No. 32, Oanuary 1928) , pp. 12-16
D O C U M E N T N O . 6 T H E ' N A B AT ' 0 R G A N I Z AT I O N 245
DO C U M E N T No . 7
MA R I A I S I D I N E - OR G AN I Z AT I O N A N D PA RT Y
Te problem of the organization of anarchist forces is of te order of the
day. Many comrades explain the fact that, in the Russian revolution, the anar
chists, despite being at all times in the forefont of the revolutionary battles,
wielded only slight infuence over the march of events, in terms of the lack of
solid organization. Tus they posit the creation of such an organization, an
anarchist part, as the premier requirement for more fuitl efforts in the f
ture. Tis word "part" of itself triggers controversy: can there be such a thing
as an anarchist "part"? It all depends on the meaning wit which one invests
the word.
Te term "party" can be applied simply to the community of persons of like
mind, agreed with one another on the aims to be achieved and the means to be
employed, even i they are bound by no formal link, even i they do not know
one another. Te more united their thinkng, the more they devise a similar
soluton to the particular issues that arise, and the more apt the use of te term
"party" in relation to tem, It is in that Sellse that the Internationale talks about
the "great party of te toilers. " and also in that sense that Kopotkin, Malatesta
and oter militnts fom our movement, especially fom te older generaton
of its founding fathers, talk about the "anarchi st part. " In that sense, the
"
aa
chist part" has
a
lways been with us: frtermore, in te anarchist movement,
we have
a
lways had organizations, well-defned organizatons indeed, such as
stnding federatons of groups, embracing all the groups in a town, region or
county. Such federatons have always been te customay form of anarchist
organization across the world.
In tis respect, neither the scheme spelled out in the "Platorm" of our
Russian comrades, nor the mode of organization adopted by the Union
Aarchiste at its last congress imply anything novel. But tere is one novelty
ad it is this. Te "Platorm" aims to amend the essential charcter of the bond
wich has hiterto bound anarchist groups togeter, and to change this unspo
ken "constitution" that has always obtained in our ranks and which,
uncontroversially, like something self-evident, lay at the root of every anar
chist organization. In their yeaning to tighten te bonds between militants,
te authors of the "Platorm" propose to launch a new model of anachist "pat,"
along lines espoused by the other parties, with binding decisions made by
246 F A C I NG THE E NE MY
majorit vote, a central leadership committee, etc. Such a party ought, as they
see it, to cure te anarchist movement of most of the ills tat beset it.
It is surprising to see that the experience of the Russian revolution, which
has demonstated with spectacularit the inappropriateness of a part dictator
ship as te pilot of social l, has not just led these comrades to ask: what oter
organizations should have pride of place in the work of revolution, but, on the
other hand, has inspired in tem an aspiration to a stong, centalized part.
Ad te sae goes for our French comrades. We know tat the Union Anarchite
at its congress in Orleans has adopted a declaraton of principles by which it
plainly broke raks wit te anarchists of te individuast school and proclaimed
a series of basic propositions regarding both anarchism's social ideal and its
campaign metods. At the most recent congress, that declaration has been
endorsed as the foundation charter of the Union. Tat was not enough for te
congress, and it saw ft to draw up statutes: and it is here that the centalizing
tendency at odds not just with anarchist principles in general, but also with the
text of the very "charter" that had just been adopted, showed itself.
From the outset, the Orleans declaraton announces tat the authort prn
ciple is the root of all social ills, tat centalism has manifesty failed, politcally
and economically, and that the fee commune and fee federation of communes
must form te basis of the societ of the fture: for its pat, the commune should
be simply the gamut of te various associatons existing in the same area. All
centalism is, as a matter of principle, sticken fom social organizaton, which
should be supple enough for each indivdual inside the associaton, and each
association inside the federaton to enjoy complete feedom. All of which is unani
mously accepted by all aarchists, and, if te authors of te Orleans declaraton
have seen ft to enunciate these tuths yet again, it was for propaganda purposes.
And we were entitled to expect "stattes" consonant wth these principles. But
tis was not the case: thinking to create something new, our comrades have
ventred on to the beaten tracks of other parties.
For a start, in te Union, decisions are reached by majority vote. Tis ques
tion of majorit is sometmes regarded as a mere detail, a handy way of resolv
ing issues. Now, it is of capital importance, for it is inseparably bound up wt
the very notion of a societ wtout power. In their crtique of alforms of te
Stte, even the most democratc, anarchists operate fom te principle tat deci
sions taken by one group of individuals cannot be binding upon other, who have
not reached them and who are not in agreement with them - and it is of no
matter whether they are reached by a majorit or by a minorit. I is of course
pointless to enter here into a rehears
a
l of all the arguments, with which our
literatre is awash, against the majorit principle: all comrades are conversant
wth these, especially as they make daily use of them to expose the fcttous
character of popular representation under a paliamentary regime. How come
then, tha this principle, whose absurdity and unfairness are so plain where te
fture societ is concerned, turns benefcia and fair when it is to be applied to
our ow circles? Either the maority is always enttled to prevail, or we should
drop this arithmetic of tuthflness and look around for anoter one.
D O C U M E N T N O . 7 O R G A N I Z AT I O N A N D P A RT Y 247
In their infatuaton wit organization, our comrades overlook the fact that,
instead of strengthening union, the overruling of the minority will merely give
rise to fesh intestinal struggles: instead of working productively, energies will
be squandered on winning a majorit in congresses, committees, etc. And un
derstadably so: life inside a party is, in these conditions, easy only for the
members of te prevailing majority: the others are stymied when it comes to
teir action. Moreover, the resolution fom the congress of the Union states
tis very bluntly, by proclaiming tat, while entitled to criticize te resolutions
tabled, the minority ought not, once these had been passed, to impede their
implementation. Tat means that the minorit has to hold its peace or quit the
party, and then, instead of a single party, we have two, usually more venomous
wit each other tan wit the common enemy. Another resolution fom the
congress states that there should be no criticism voiced outside of the organi
zation and that nobody has the right to make use of the columns of Le Libertaire
to criticize the decisions reached. Now, Le Libertaire is the offcial organ of the
Union, and as such, should refect all the views existing within the later. It
occupies a quite different position fom that of an organ founded by a group of
comrades pret well agreed upon propagation of their views: these comrades
are perfectly entitled not to accommodate opposing voices in their organ, in
that they claim to represent no one but themselves. That is how things were in
te old L Libertaire, in Les Temps Nouveaux and virtually all the organs of the
anarchist press. But whenever a newspaper styles itself the organ of the Union
of the anarchist federations of the whole of France, all the members of that
Union have that entitlement. Now, the resolution passed plainly shows that
such an entitlement is acknowledged only where the majority is concerned.
Atough our anarchist movement may be open to reproach on several
counts, we have to give it its due: it has alays been fee uf congressional in
tigues, electoral chicanery, te artifcial cultivation of majorties, etc. And that
thanks solely to te prnciple that has prevailed within it up to now, to wit, that
decisions are binding only upon those who have taken them, and may not be
imposed upon those unwilling to accept tem. Te force of such decisions and
the commitment given are all the greater for that, in that each man is more
sensible of a decision taken by himself than of some decision reached without
his input and very ofen contrary to his wishes.
We may perhaps be told: "if comrades band togeter on a properly thought
out and well-draed program, accepted by everybody, differences of opinion
will relate only to details and the sacrice asked of te minorit will be mini
mal." Tis is f fom always being the case. Every day life poses fesh prob
lems, sometimes very important ones, but which were not foreseeable at te
tme when the compact was entered into: difering replies may perhaps be fort
coming to such problems. Tus, in days gone by the anarchists of France were
split over te tade union movement, more recently over te war, and the anar
chists in Russia -over te Makhnovist movement, te attde to be adopted
regading Bolshevism, etc. : if, at those points, anarchists had been "banded
togeter into a real party, " would a congress decision upon questions of that
248 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
gravit have been accepted by everyone? Tese matters are for the individual
conscience and its conception of the revolution: in which case, can a mechani
cal decision taken by a majority prevail?
Still another tendency is emerging, with regard to the intoduction of the
maj ort principle and the limitaton of the autonomy of the groups: it would
like to see all anarchist initiatives overseen by a single organizaton of the hier
archical type, headed by a single Execut Committee. Te stattes adopted
by te most recent Union congress contain a series of propositions that sound
queer to our ears. Take, say, groups belonging to the minorit, which is to say,
not acceptng some resoluton passed by the congress: that minority's right to
crtcize is indeed acknowledged (so far, at any rate) but its criticisms must be
addressed exclusively to the Federation to which te group belongs (and to
which it is obliged to belong if it wishes to be part of te Union) or to te
cental steerng commission "which alone have the competence to give them a
hearing and satisfacton. " In other words, the minorit is not entited simply
and openly to peddle its views among the comrades (not to menton the pub
lic) : it has to address itself to the bodies named, following hierarchical proce
dure. Lkewise, the unfettered initativ of groups tends everywhere to be re
placed by te principles of election and delegation: no one must atempt any
ting at all unless he has autorization fom the competent organization. A
newspaper, a review, say, may not spring into life trough the decision of a
group or individual: they can only be published by Anarchist Federation del
egates and must refect only te thinking endorsed at its congresses. 1e same
holds tue for te publicaton of books or pamphlets, for lectures, clubs, even
aid fnds for imprisoned comrades. At frst glance, this "organization" appears
to certain minds to be a highly practical thing. But in point of fact such rules (if
aarchist circles proved capable of abiding by them) would end up kiling off
te movement completely. Take a group of comrades intending to set up a pro
paganda newspaper and possessed of the wherewithal to do so: tey have no
rght so to do: tey must frst seek te approva of te existing organization as
a body and invte te latter to take charge of publication. Let us suppose that
te later agrees and appoints its delegates to that end: fortunately the ideas of
te instigators ae in tune wit those of te organization's majort: ten they
need only yield possession of te planned publication and pass it on to others'
hands (which is not always a good move eiter) . But what if those delegates,
speaing for te majority, are not of the same mind as the instgatng group?
Ten the latter has but one option: to disow publication. And the newspaper
never sees the lght. Instead, whenever a group embarks upon a publicaton at
its own rsk and perl, tose whose aspiatons it meets rally around it, dissemi
nate it, ad magni its scope for expansion. Others, of differing views, set up
oter organs, and such vaet of te anachist press, far fom harming propa
ganda, simply works to its beneft.
Take a group of comrades who want to publish books or organize lectres.
"On whose authort?" tey are asked. "W frst of all must fnd out if the exist-
D O C U M E N T N O . 7 O R G A N I Z AT I O N A N D P A RT Y 249
ing groups agree to place you in charge of this and if they endorse your pro
gram. " Work grinds to a halt. Discussion begins inside the groups on te dra
ing of a number of programs. In the end, as tere is no way to keep everybody
happy, the venture is aborted and its instigators are for a long time rid of their
appetite for launching anything at all.
Only utter ignorance of the history and life of the anarchist movement
could explain the eruption of such schemes for "organizaton." Everything vau
able and lastng ever created in our movement has been the handiwork of groups
and individuals well endowed with the initiative to press on without waiting for
autorization fom anybody. Tat is the way the fnest organs of the anarchist
press have been created: the way tat propaganda began in the trade unions
tat led on to the creation of revolutionary syndicalism: the way that the anar
chist idea has survived, i its purit and its logic, inside certin groups of staunch
convictions, in spite of all the desertons and betayals. It does not lie within
the power of any mechanical orgaization to replace this initiative. Te role of
an organization is to facilitate the work of individuals and not to hinder it: this is
all the more tue in the anarchist movement, which is not strong enough nu
merically to indulge in hindering the actions of its members and squander pre
cious resources. Which is how the tendency that emerged at the latest Union
Aarchiste congress will inevitably end up.
Wat te anarchist movement needs right now, is not so much new organi
zational formulas as a concrete, well-defned program of work to be undertaken,
just as soon, in the wake of a successfl revolution, there will be scope for
every initiative in te endeavor to create te new society. Only familiarity with
what they are to propose at that crucial point will guarantee anarchists the
infuence to which their ideas entitle tem. For this, initiatves must not be
sted and minds snuffed out, but instead, a fee and lively exchange of all
views is to be encouraged. Oterwise, energies will be squandered on the pet
tness of internal ftions and te real will not be advanced by a single step.
It is always easy to criticize, some comrades may perhaps object; it is a lot
harder -and more usefl -to put forward a practical mode of organizaton
that would help rid our movement of what keeps it weak. Certain comrades
seek to do tat by creating a more or less centalized part, based on the major
it principle: oters -ad te writer of these lines is one of them -believe
tat such a part would be more harmfl than usefl. ! Of course, they do not
deny eiter te need for anarchists generally to get organized, or the need to
rid the movement of the faws that stop it fom acquiring the social infuence to
which its ideas entite it. But what form of organizaton have tey to offer in
place of the one suggested by the "Platorm, " and upon what prnciples are
they going to found that organization, which tey would argue is more fee, in
order to achieve the same outcomes: agreement on principles, a prescribed
policy of practical action, and appreciation by each individual of his dutes to
wards the movement?
Te fndamental error of those of our comrades who are supporters of te
"Platorm" resides perhaps in te fact that tey look to a union of groups and
250 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
even to a directng center for te rehabilitaton of our movement, instead of
lookng to te groups temselves. I is not of te federation but rater of te
groups which make it up that we can require such and such a policy line: te
movement's center of gravity lies tere: te federaton will be whatever its com
ponent groups are. And whenever issues are broached and debated, not at te
level of te federaton, but at group level, soluton of tem wll be greaty facili
tated: a group can readily do what a huge organizaton cannot. Te devising of
a single policy line for a complete federaton presents insuperable diffcultes,
for it presupposes decisions taken by maj orit vote and tus, inevitably, involves
interna fictons. Recruitent of members and the eliminaton of undesirables
whose presence compromises te movement, is a task tat te federaton's lead
ership body is incapable of carrying off wit success. Any more than it capable
of ensuring tat te action of all its members conforms to anarchist principles.
But al of tat can be easily and natrally accomplished by each group witin its
ow ranks. So te premier issue to be resolved is tis one: what ae the fnda
mental principles upon which an anarchist group can base its existence?
Tere is no way that a seeping answer, good for all groups, can be given
to tat, for the answer might vary greaty according to te goas pursued by
te group and the context in which it operates, depending whether the group
was set up to tacke a particular practca task or genera propaganda, wheter
it operates in a period of calm or a tme of revolution, wheter it operates openly
or in clandestine fashion, etc. , etc. But, even so, a few general considerations
can be famed.
Tae this frst queston: is it desirable tat the goup should comprise of
comrades wit a common concepton of te anarchist idea, or can anarchists of
varying persuasions (communists, indivdualists, etc.) really work in concert
witin it? Tis issue was raised at te most recent anarchist congress. Certin
comrades reckon that, since each of te existng anarchist tendencies contns a
kernel of tut, it would be better not to dwell upon teir discrepancies but in
stead to "sythesize" everything tat looks worthwhile, so as to arive at a basis
for joint actvit. At frst sight, tis approach seems very logica and perfectly
practcable, but upon refecton, it tanspires tat unit ten in tat sense would
be merely formal. Of course, circumstces may arise in which anarchists of
differing shades of opinion wll act in concert, but te same goes for all revolu
tionaries in general: the aarchists in fact colaborated wit te Bolsheiks in
te fght against the White amies. Such instances will
a
lways be fequent in
times of revolution: such arrangements, most ofen tacit, are tus quite natural
and necessary, but when it comes down to lastng acvit in a period of cam,
agreement upon basic principles is not enough. Suppose tat an individuaist
anarhist, an anarchist communist and an anarchist syndicalist reach agreement
upon declaring teir oppositon to te state and teir approva of te comunist
form of property (assuming tat te individualist agrees to it) : of what practca
signifcace would this be, since tey immediately go teir separate ways aer
wards? Te individuaist is preoccupied with liberag te individual tis very
D O C U M E N T N O . 7 O R G A N I Z AT I O N A N D P A RT Y 25 1
day, in te existing social contex (colonies, living in natre, "fee love, " etc. ):
contemptous of the masses and their movements, he is not going to identif
wt them. So what could he undertae in common wit his communist col
league? Ten again, a pure syndicaist comrade will place store only by labor
movement tasks and will collaborate only wth certain of his communist col
leagues: he may even fnd himself at odds wt them, on the issue of relatons
between the tade unions and te anarchist groups for instance. Ad so it all
goes. In day to day action, the metods proper to such and such a tendency play
such a signicat role tat agreement upon te general principles acknowledged
by all is far fom suffcient. Wen disagreements inside a group are substantial
and do not relate merely to te use of certain labels, they hinder the acton of the
group, for the members, being united neither in their propaganda nor in their
chosen metods, expend a lot of teir energy upon internal wrangling. A tuly
united group, tough, made up of comrades who have no need for frther de
bate about the most essentia points and who, come what may, are as one on
propaganda and acton, tat sort of a group can become highly infuential, even
if it not large. By comparison, other groups of different mentalit will founder:
not that there is any loss in tat, for tere is noting usefl about trying to enfold
te largest possible number of comrades witin the same organization.
Random recruitment of members is, perhaps, the prime cause of the de
fects of most groups. Very ofen, people become anarchists all too easily and all
too quickly, without having familiazed temselves with other schools of so
cialism, nor indeed wit anarchism in the essentials of its theories: that way, in
te ftre, for oneself and for comrades, lie sore disappointments, for, as one's
knowledge expands and one's horizon widens, it may perhaps be found that
one has gone astray and tat one professed to be an anarchist only out of igno
rance of everything elsc. One day, a Russia Social Revolutionary was asked,
in my presence, at what point in his lie he had ceased to be a Marxst: ''en
I began to read someting other than Marx" was te answer.
Tings may be a lot more serous if it is not just a matter of some theory
tat one accepts or rejects, but a cause to which one has devoted part of one's
life and which one at some point feels incapable of championing because one
had never given prior consideraton to te crtcisms of adversaries. Ten again,
te lie of groups is ofen made difcult by an excess of practcal mentality: one
accepts such and such a comrade on account of te services he may render (as
speaer, teoretician, administator, etc.) witout takng care to ensure that
his overall moral or intellecta profle meets the group's requirements.
Plainly, such close scrutny i te selecton of members can be maintained
only by the group ad not by the federaton, ad no federal se will ever be
able to guaratee it. But, if it is implemented in te federation's component
groups, te federation will fnd tat many torny questons resolve themselves.
In our concepton, te bond beteen te various goupings is absolutely
fee and arises fom their needs alone: tere is no center, no secretariat en
ttled to dictate to the groups wt which, in some shape and on some basis,
252 F A C I NG THE E NE MY
tey must unite. Lnks may be established for a wide variet of reasons: like
mindedness, concerted acton, territorial contiguit, etc. Generally, te rule is
tat groups fom te same region are in touch wit one anoter, but it ca
happen (and we have seen examples of tis) tat a Pars group has closer bonds
of solidarit wth a London or Geneva group tan wt te group in te next
distict. Broadly speaking, set fameworks, where each group is obliged to
belong to such and such a federaton, and each federation to maintain links
wit its neighbor through te obligatory mediation of such and such a commit
tee can (i such regulatons re
a
lly are observed) parayze al acton. A secre
tarat can be a very usefl agency in the facilitaton of communications, but it is
merely a tool to be used when one feels it necessary.
Te anarchist movement has always had congresses: tey can be of very
great importance if tey arise fom te actvity of pre-isting groups which feel
te need to share teir work and their ideas. Certain especial features of our
congresses relate to the very principles of anachism. Tus, up to te present,
comrades assembling for a congress did not necessarly have to be delegated
by the groups: tey could participate in an individual capacit.2 Contary to the
practce in oter partes, where delegates take away fom the congres resolu
tons to which teir mandatares have merely to submit, anarchist delegates
bring to the congress the resolutons, opinions and tendencies of teir respec
tve groups. Congress is fee to express an opinion of tem -but that is all.
Te countng of the votes (should tat be judged usefl) is merely a statistcal
exercise: it may be interestng to know how many comrades, belonging to which
grouping, come down on this side or te other. Te importance of congresses
is in no way diminished, and their work only grows more serious: instead of
frnishing an arena for gambits designed to win a maj ority, they can devote
temselves to maing known the movement's stats in different locaities, its
successes and failures, its different tendencies, etc. Te resolutons cannot be
anying more tan indications, expressions of opinion, for the delegates to
impart to teir groups, which may adopt or reject tem.
In short, tis schema merely rehearses tat which is familiar, tings tat
might even seem too seldent to need menton: but te present confsion of
minds is such tat one sometmes feels compelled to reiterate old tuts. Te
formal connecton beteen organizations is eemely loose here: because al
of te emphasis is upon the intellectua ad moral internal bonds. Furter
more, in tis schema, the individua or group is formally fee: te less subordi
naton to anying, the more exensive and grave te moral responsibilit. Here
each member of te group is answerable for te action of te entire group -
all te more responsible in that te resolutons are reached by common accord
and not mechanicaly, by any majorit vote. Moreover, the entre group is an
swerable for the deeds of each member of it, alte more so, also, in tat it has
recruited its members only discriminatngly, acceptg only tose who suited
it. Ten the federaton as a body answers for te actons of each of its compo
nent groups -precisely because tere is noting to make te liaison engaged
in any way binding, and because the groups know in advance wit whom and
D O C U M E N T N O . 7 O R G A N I Z AT I O N A N D P A RT Y 2 5 3
for what purpose to join forces. Ad each group is answerable for the whole
federation -precisely because te latter cannot do a thing witout its assent.
Tere is more. Every anarchist, whether he wishes it or not, bears the
moral responsibility for the actions of his comrades, even if no formal connec
ton binds him to tem: every act contrary to te aachist idea, every contra
dictory postre, has repercussions for the movement as a body, and this ex
tends the responsibility beyond the individual, beyond even his immediate
group. And it is this consciousness of his responsibilit that should be te great
spur capable of maintaining the solidarity in anarchist circles. Maybe this is
not aways properly understood, and maybe that is the source of many of our
movement's shortcomings, shortcomings that some would remedy by means
of new forms of organization. We are not persuaded of the effcacy of these
measures; our confdence is vested instead in other means, of a quite different
nature, only a few of which we have touched upon here.
Plus loin No. 36, (March 1928) , and No. 37, (April 1928)
Notes to Document No. 7
1. Events have borne this out even more quickly than might have been expected: scarcely a
few weeks had elapsed aer the last congress of the "Union" and the organizaton has split
in two. And Le Libertaire now manages to appear only wth the greatest of diffculty.
2. Tis stte of afairs was amended at the latest "Union Anarchiste" congress in respect of
te intoducton of te majorty principle.
254 F A C I NG THE E NE M Y
DO C U M E N T No . 8
P I OT R AR S H I N OV - E L E M E N TS OL D A N D N E W
I N AN A R C H I S M ( A RE P LY TO MA R I A l S I D I N E )
Comrade Isidine counters our concepton of a revolutionay anarchist or
ganizaton wth te old conception corresponding to a age when anachists
had no real organizaton, but, by means of mutal understanding, came to agee
ment upon goals and upon the means of achieving tem.
In fact, that old part was conned to analogous ideas and was beref of
authentc organizatonal format it corresponded above al to the birt of te
anarchist movement, when its pioneers were groping teir way forward, not
having been tempered by harsh experience of life.
Socialism too, in its day, had a diffcult gestaton. However, as te masses'
soci
a
l struggle evolved and became acute, alte tendencies that were vying to
infuence the outcome took on more precise politcal and organizatona forms.
Tose tendencies which failed to keep in step wit tis evoluton lagged far
behind life. We Russian anarchists were especially sensible of tis during te
two revolutons in 1905 and 1917. Wereas, at teir outset, we were in te v
of te fghtng, as soon as te constuctve phase bega, we found ourseles
side-ined beyond recovery and, ultimately, remote fom te masses.
Tis was not te result of chance: such a atitude fowed inecapably fom
our impotence, fom the orgaizatona point of vew as well as fom te van
tage point of our ideological confsion. Te current, of tis decisive age, re
quires of us something more than a "part devoid of organizatonal format
and erected solely upon the noton of a beautl idea. Tese tmes require
tat the libertarian movement, as a whole, supply aswers to a whole host of
issues of the utost importace, wheter relatng to the social stuggle or to
communist construction. Tey require tat we feel a responsibilit towards
our objecties. However, untl such tme as we have a rea and signifcant orga
nization, it is not going to be possible for us to supply those answers, nor to
shoulder tose responsibilites. Indeed, te consistenty distnce feature of
our movement is tat it does not have a unit of views on tese fndamental
issues. Tere ae as many views as tere are persons or groups.
Certain anarchists regard tis sitaton as refective of te multfaious
ness of anarchist thinking: stuggling labor has no idea what to mae of tis
mixed bag, which stikes it as absurd. So, in order to rise above te morass of
D O C U M E N T N O . 8 E L E M E N T S O L D & N E W 55
absurdity in which the anarchist movement has got bogged down. by loitering
in te frst stage of organizaton despite its numerical expansion, it is vital that
a strenuous ad decisive effort should be made: it must adopt the organiza
tional formats for which it has long since been ripe: oterwise, it wlose its
abilit to hold its natral place in the fght for a new world. Te urgent neces
sity of tis new step is acknowledged by many comrades. the ones for whom
te fate of libertarian communism is bound up wit the fate of stuggling labor.
Comrade Isidine, if we understand her aright, is not to be numbered among
te aarchists of whom we spoke earlier. but she is not a participant in our
movement either: she takes part only in debate, in a crtical way, and, to be
sure, she helps its progress in so doing.
Lt us now tacke te various critical points indicated by comrade Isidine.
Everybody knows tat ay wholesome principle can, once denatred, serve a
cause contary to the one to which it was originally assigned.
In our raks, tis holds tue for federalism: sheltering behind that cover,
lots of groups and certain indivduals perpetated acts te opprobrium of which
fell upon te movement as a whole. All intervention in such cases came to
nothing, because te perpetators of these acts of infamy sought refge in teir
autonomy, invoking the federalism tat allowed them to do as they saw ft. Ob
viously, tat was merely a crass misrepresentation of federalism. Te same
might be said of other principles, and especially, of te principle of organizing
a General Union of Anarchists, should it fall into te clutches of witess or un
scrupulous persons . . . . Comrade Isidine disagrees profoundly with the prin
ciple of majorit. We on te other hand reckon tat on tis point debate is
scarcely necessary. In practce, tis mater has long been resolved. Almost a
ways and almost everywhere, our movement's practcal problems are resolved
by majority vote. AIIhc same time, te minorit OHcHug to Isown views, but
does not hold out against te decision: generaly and of its ow voliton, it maes
concessions. Tis is perfecty understandable: tere cannot be any oter way
of resolving problems for organizatons that engage in practal activt: tere
is, anyway, no alternative if one really wants to act.
In te event of differences of opinion between te majorit and the minor
it being due to factors so important that neither side can give ground. a split
comes about, regardless of te principles and positions espoused by the orga
nization prior to tat moment.
Nor do we agree wit comrade Isidine when she says that te moutpiece
of an isolated group can work out a policy line of its own, and tat, in tis way,
according to her, te organ of the General Union of Anarchists should mirror al
of te vews and tendencies existng inside tat union. In fact, te moutpiece of
a partcular group is not te concern merely of its editoria team, but also of all
who lend it matera and ideological backing. Since, in spite of tis, a well-deter
mined policy line is needed by tat, say. local, organ, it is al te more essential
for te mouthpiece of te Union which carries a lot more responsibilites wit
regard to te anachist movement as a whole tan tat partcular orga.
25 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
To be sure, the Union mouthpiece must aford te minority a platorm for
its views, for otherwise te latter would be denied its right of fee expression:
however, while allowing it to set out its point of view, the Union mouthpiece
must simultaneously have its ow well-defned policy line and not just mirror
te motey vews and states of mind arising witin te Union. In order to illus
tate the example of a decision made by te Union as a body, but not enjoying
unanimous backing, comrade Isidine cites te Manovist movement, anar
chists having been divided in teir attitudes towards it Tat example, though,
rater redounds to the advantage of the argument in favor of the ongoing ne
cessit of a libertarian communist organizaton. Te differing views expressed
ten are explicable primarily in terms of many libertaians' utter ignorance of
tat movement during its development: many of tem were later poweress to
anayze it and adopt a policy line with regard to a movement as huge and orig
nal as te Makhnovists. Tey needed a solid collectve: had tey had one at the
tme, it would have considered itself obliged to scrutnize tat movement mi
nutely and ten, on te basis of tat scrutiny, it would have laid down te stance
to be adopted with regard to it Which would have served libertarian commu
nism and te Mahnovist movement bettr tan te chaotc, disorganized stance
adopted by aarchists with regard to te latter during its lifetime. Te same
goes for the problem of te war.
It comes to pass that differences arise in organizations over such matters,
and in such cases splits are fequenty te outcome. However, tere is an argu
ment for taking it as a rule that in such situatons, te point of departre should
be, not te individua conscience and tactcs of every single anarchist, but rater
te essenta import of te teory, polic and tactics of te Union as a body.
Only tus wl the movement be able to preserve its polic line ad its liaison
wt te masses.
Organizaton and the principle of delegaton are not such impediments to
the display of initatve as comrade Isidine believes. Quite the contary: all
wholesome initatve will aways enjoy te backing of organization: te prin
ciples spelled out are not designed to ste initiative but to replace the ftl
activit of individuas operatng randomly and occasionall wit the consis
tent, organized work of a collective. I could not be oterwise. A movement
that survived only thanks to te initatve and creatvt of various groups and
individuals and which had no specifc overal actvit would run out of steam
and go into decline.
For tat very reason one of te fndamental tasks of our movement con
sists of contiving te circumstances that allow every militant not merely to
demonstate initiative, but to seize upon and develop it, maing it an asset to
te entire movement.
Tus far, and for want of an overall organizaton, our movement has not
had such circumstances, thanks to which every autentic militant might fnd
an outlet for his energies. It is common knowledge that certain of the
D O C U M E N T N O . 8 E L E M E N T S O L D & N E W 25 7
movement's militants have given up te fght and thrown in their lot with te
Bolsheviks, simply because tey were not able to fnd an outlet for their efforts
in the anarchist ranks. Moreover, it is beyond question tat lots of revolution
ary workers, who fnd temselves in the ranks of the Communist Part of the
USR, have no illusions lef regarding Bolshevik rule and might switch teir
loyalty to anarchism, but do not do so because there is no overall organizaton
offering precise guidance.
Comrade Isidine stesses one of te merits of te Platorm, in that it has
broached te principle of collectve responsibilit in te movement.
However, she thinks of this principle solely in terms of morl responsibilit.
Whereas, in a large, organized movement, responsibility can only fnd expres
sion in te form of te oranization's collective responsibility.
A moral responsibilit tat does not accommodate organizational respon
sibility is bereft of all value in collective endeavors, and trns into a mere for
malit devoid of all content.
What we need, comrade Isidine tells us, is not so much an organization as
a defnite practical policy line and a hard and fast immediate program. But each
of those is unthinkable in te absence of prior organizaton. only to raise
issues of the program and its implementation, tere would have to be an orga
nization in place tat might undertae to stuggle towards their resolution.
At present, te Dyelo Truda Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad has given
that undertaking, and enjoys the support in this of several anarchist toilers'
organizations in Nort Aerca and by comrades remaining in Russia.
In te pioneering work carried out by these organizations, there may well
be certain errors ad gaps. Tese must be pointed out and help given in the
repairing of them, but tere must be no lingering doubt as to te basis and
principle upon whch thesc organizations operate and suuggIc. mcdrafing ot
a defnite progra, a well-determined policy and tactc
a
l line for libertarian
communism, creation of an organization representing and spearheading the
whole anarchist movement: tis is vtally necessary to it.
-Dyelo Truda No. 3031, (November-December 1928) , pp. 13-17
25d F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
DO C U M E N T WO .
GE O R G E S F O N T E N I S O N T H E OP B
When te OPB came into existence in January 1950, it was merely te aspi
raton, te exression of te "platormist" tndenc in te Federaton Anarchist,
which is a rater motey collecton of appreciatons of anarchism.
Te operatonal consideratons tat underlay te need for te OPB inside
te liberta "mama," are the necesity 0/a hihly structured organization, tac
tical unit and the class nature 0/ anarchim.
Te fact tat it is a secret caucus wtin te Federaton Anarchiste makes
te OPB highly efective in te stuggle in teoretca terms (a retrn to te
origins of Bauninism, of te ant-autoritarian school of socialism in te First
Internatonal, wit te utlization of certain contibutons of Marx and te dia
lectcal materialist metodology) and in terms of responsibilites at every level.
Tus, in three years, it broke the ascendancy within te Federation
Anarchiste of te indivduaistc and "syntesist" currents which ensured a stg
naton and confsionism tat exasperated younger mlitts, members of the
factory groups, and te taditonally platormist groups (Pas 18e, one group in
Lyon, Narbonne, to name but a few) . For we have to place te fcts on record:
te OPB is a backlash against te mentit of "deliquescence" (to borrow te
expression of our Narbonne comrades) in oter tendencies which, aer teir
fshion, have organized temselves, setting at "get-togeters" upon teir stat
egy for preventng Congresses fom producing anying positve1 and stessing
a "humanistc" vision of anarchism tat makes it tanscendent of class and thus
non-proletarian.
te OPB succeeded in Bordeaux in 1952, in Pais in 1953, tis was quite
simply because it represents the majorit o/the groups and militants because, in a
contex of cold war and in te face of te French Communist Part's (C F) he
gemony wtin te workng class, it saw its essenta optons trough to success:
Poletaran combat (te OPB's adversaes being primarly a colecton of
smal businessmen ad artsans, indeed of smalemployers and masonic
style intellectas) designed to overtrow te hegemony of te PCF's
ascendancy.
Te Tird Front simultaneously opposing St and Truman (at a te
when te movement as a whole had opted for te US cap) .
D O C U M E N T N O. 9 F O N T E N I S O N T H E O P B 25
Anti-olonialism which, in opposing te war in Indo-China and later the
war in Algeria was to take a high toll of te FCL (aer the departure of te
"nothingarians" and "empty vessels, " the platformist majority of the
Federaton Anarchiste assumed te name FCL at te Paris Congress of
1953) .
Afor te constctng nature of te OPB's regulatons, te fact is tat, by
way of a backash against te rejecton of a solid organizaton, tere were some
exaggeratons tat left a number of members unhappy. To tis should be added
personal rivalres, harassment by police and courts, te wearying effect of unin
terrupted campaigning fom 1950 to 1956, and also a certain mentt of "mak
ing te running" in some fom 1954 onwards.2 But tat is a far cry fom te exag
geratons ad haf-tuts wit which te Konstdt goup's "Memorandum" (which
was maiciously reprinted in 1968 by PLpeyre, a sworn enemy of te Platorm)
is peppered.
I cannot say any more on te subject in tis short communicaton, but I wish
to close by stng tat, in spite of tose who condemned te anarchist movement
u France to a lingerng degeneraton and evaporaton, the FCL, taks to te
OPB, salvaged its honor and managed, trough many historca vicissitudes, to
see to it tat a libertan communist current was estblished tat has self-vi
denty endured to tis very day.3
Notes to Document No. 9
1. And fom te frst congress held mParis on October 67 and December 2, 1945 a tat. At
the Dijon congress in November 1946, a split was just averted through my appointent to
te positon of general secretary. I shall be r!turning to this point m c detailed workI
have under preparaton.
2. Obvously, in te work I have promised, I will be returning to tis mdetil and ma spirit
of self-ritcism.
3. Lter to te autor dated MMch25, 1987.
AP ROP OS OF GE OR GE S F ONTE N I S ' S NNOl RE5
In 1990, just as he had promised when we put some questons to him,
Georges Fontenis published a book of memoirs on te FCL experience ad
has supplied frter details of te stuctre of te OPB.!
Here let us mae a personal statement, for cert people have ten us t
task for even mentoning tis mater: conversat and involved wt te French
anarchist movement since 1959, we had cause to know te autoritrian d
and mischief of te OPB, but aways fom word of mout reports, because few
of te militants fom tose times took te risk of putng pen to paper to explain
tis "exaordinary" phenomenon -and I employ tat adjectve in its proper
and literal sense of "out of te ordinay. " Such discreton stuck us as irksome,
as Uit was a matr of drawng a veil over some shamefl disease tat had stcken
2 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
te movement. For te purposes of our present study, we sought, witout great
success, to discover more about it: Fontenis's book, however, has shed some
light and adduced enough information to enable us to pass defnitve judgment
upon tis adventure. Indeed, it seems not so much a book of memoirs proper as
a defense plea, except that te arguments adduced by te defense have back
fred ad played into te hands of the prosecuton! Lt us examine tem in
order:
1. First, te stle of te book: the narrative is clumsily constucted and vrtu
al y incomprehensible to te uninitated; tere are obscure references, con
tnua repettons and a lurching backards and forwads in time, wit detals
blown up out of al proportion and a rater annoyingly disingenuous mor
a
listic
tone, especially regarding slanderous allegations leveled at the stance of well
known libertara comrades during te period of te war and the Occupation
between 1939 and 1944. Since severa of these were acquaintances of ours and
are no longer around to defend temselves, we are dut bound to defend them.
Lt us take te case of Nicolas Faucier, a comrade of high caliber, very actve
beteen 1925 and 1960. On page 66 of his book, Fontenis has tis to say: "He
entered te service of the Todt organizaton" [working on te Atlantc Wall
defenses -A. Skirda] , only to relate (page 73) : "He refsed the dra, was
sentenced to tree years' imprisonment and was ten interned. He went on to
escape and was to reman underground rht up to te Lberation. " Wat are
we supposed to make of tat? Especially when Fontenis, assuming te role of
prosecutng counsel, comments (age 67) : " cannot feel satsfed wit te
lack of any explanation as to how Faucier te dra def-er of 1939 trned up in
te ranks of te Todt organization by 1943. " We brought tis innuendo to the
attenton of Nicolas Faucier and his reply was this splendid characterization of
Fontenis's ploy: "I repudiate it, but even so I am annoyed for te sae of those
who ae no longer wit us ad who are not in a positon to reply. Nursing a
grudge as a way of covering up his own bankruptcy shames nobody except the
one who resorts to such things . . . . How edifng tis urge to sling mud as a way
of making up for a defciency of positve ideas. "2
Lkewise, in te case of Louis Mercier Vega, an outstading comrade fom
te French anarchist movement of te yeas between te 1930s and te 1970s,
a member of the Durrut Column's International Group in Spain in 1936 -
somebody else we knew well and whom we hold in te highest regard -
Fontenis tes him to task for refsing te cal-up in 1939 only to enlist wit te
Gaullist Free French Forces in 1942. Wenever we mentoned one day te
vaous rumors circulatng about him, Mercier Vega too replied wit tis splen
did vrle answer: "Altis is sad behind my back and never to my face. " Since
he took his ow le in 1977, we can but honor his memory and fme at Fontenis's
calumny. Oter teacherous and contadictory remaks are peddled regarding
Pierre Besnard, who is accused of having joined the Petainist Lgion des
Combatant (Servicemen's Lgion) , before " . . . having been courted as a pos
sible minister of Lbor (in 1945) , coming witin an ace of succumbing to te
D O C U M E N T N O . 9 F O N T E N I S O N T H E O P B 26 1
Gaullists' siren song" (p. 83) . Fontenis goes on to add tis squalid misrepre
sentaton of Pierre Besnard: "He was a utopian intellectual hungry for te lime
light. Under te Occupation, he wrote a book, meant for te victors, whoever
they might turn out to be, settng out his ' scheme' for organizing te world. "
Tis was Besnard's masterpiece, Un Monde nouveau, which had in fact been
witen prior to 1939 and reissued in 1946, something of which Fontenis cannot
have been aware as it confunds his entire tesis.
Here again his allegatons backre against him. Although he himsel was
born in 1920, he says not one word about what befell him in the years between
1939 and 1945. He must have been in there somewhere, so why the veil of
silence drawn over it? Or could it be that he would like to blacken other people's
memory in order to exonerate himself? To put i bluntly: he may well be keen
to point to the mote in oters' eyes, but hasn't he overlooked te beam in his
own? Be tat as it may, he maintains a discreet radio silence in his book.
We were profoundly shocked by another episode related by Fontenis: af
ter a libertarian comrade of some renown, Louis Louvet, had made some slight
ing remark about him, Fontenis went to see him wit to goons in tow: and
"spurred on by indignaton" he struck him "a couple of almighty blows . . . of
some violence, for he staggered and fell. " Maille took great care not to get
involved (p. 348) . Fontenis omits to mention that Luvet and Maille -whose
acquaintance we made in 1960 -were old men in comparison with him. Tey
could have given him a good 20 to 30 years. And he had two of his henchmen
aong to boot! And he dares to glory in this deplorable act of cowardice! Te
same misfortune befell Fontenis himself nearly twent years later, but he does
not brag about that in his book! Shocking and rather more tan distastefl it
may be, but it speaks volumes about the man.
2. Fontenis even seeks to rewte te history of libertarian ideas and, like a
fantasist, he dismisses as "proto-history" the entirety of the libertarian move
ment prior to September 15, 1872 and te Saint-Imier congress of te ant-au
thoritarian Internationa, tereby trowng overboard the 1848 revoluton and
the plead of libertarian thinkers and militants like Proudhon, Coeurderoy,
Dejacque and Bellegarrigue (to name only te French ones, and not countng
Russia, with Baunin, or Switerland, or England, etc. ) Wonder why? Fontenis
supplies te answer wt his constant references to Marx ad Marxism which
he praises to te skies, fyig in te face of history, because, since te collapse
of te Berlin Wall in 1989, these have been cast into te rubbish bin of history.
Te anarchists are unfailingly accused of hang ignored Marx and his
teachings: let us cite a few examples of this: "phony theorization based upon
refsal and negation: Marx's dialectical materiaism and Bakunin's interpreta
ton tereof [?] are ignored or forbidden"! (. 30) . 'Te anarchist texs fom
tis perod" (ror to 1914) "are exceptionally impoverished by comparison wit
"Maxist' anayses" (. 36) . 'Te OR (Orgaizaton Revolutonnaire Anarchiste)
broke fee fom the morass of te Federation Anarchiste (Anarchist Federa
ton) of te day [ 1971] and embraced a living conception of historica diaectcal
262 F A C I NG THE E N E M Y
materialism (p. 46) . Marx goes unread but "Marxsm' is condemned (. 51) .
Most ofthose [ among te aarchists, he means -A Skirdal who spea out or
wte have deliberately simplifed Max's tinking so tat they need not tke
any heed of it . . . Maurice J oyeux, a specialist in ant-Maxist idiocies. (. 53) . In
fact, tey have read noting. Which is why we had to wait for what I regard as
Maimilen Rubel's overstated teses about an "anarchist' Max before there
was any movement past a simplistc and mulish condemnaton of anying re
sembling Marx's thought. Even Skirda was to wat for Rubel before movng
past simplicaton [?] (p. 54) . "Marxsm' is repudiated wtout quite knowing
what it is" (. 117) . And so it contnues on pages 118 and 126. Te whole book is
stdded wit such charges, that anarchists are not far wit Marx, have not
read h, nor studied him, etc. Te most entertaning point is tat tis blows
up in Fontenis's own face, because Marx never used the expression "historical
and dialectcal materaism. " It was Engels and above al St
a
lin who employed it
as a genera purpose term. To quote his ow words, Marx merely devsed a
"matrialist conception of history" (see his 1859 Foreword to Contrbution to a
Crtique of Political Eonomy) . Fontenis has done a litle "simplifing" trough
te Marxist-Lninist current fom which he has drawn
a
ll of his ideological
sustenance. Hence his criticism of French anachists as "petts bourgeois" en
gaged in small tades, omiting to mention, on te one hand, tat some of tem
were reduced to this as a result of repression by employers or by society at
lage, and, on the other, that taditionally, in France and elsewhere, te ana
chist movement has always comprised mosty of proletans, whereas it is com
mon kowledge tat Marxism has, instead, been primaly an obsession ofbour
geois intellectuals.
3. Freemasonry: the statutes of the FCL (iven on page 318 of Fontenis's book)
prohibited "membership of a secret societ, in particular in France, te Free
masons, membership of which is incompatible. " Freemasonry stood accused
of class collaboration and the blackest misdeeds: but as soon as Fontenis be
came a Freemason, it became a benevolent associaton of te kindhearted! Here
he forgets to mention that it was tanks to his becoming a Freemason tat he
became eligible to teach again and the likelihood is tat he is indebted to tat
for his havng been able to build a good career and end up as a "regional teach
ing inspector," a stating appointment and promoton for someone purportng
to be a dyed in te wool revolutonary! Moreover, i we must underine te
balefl role of Freemasonry, we need only invoke al of te politca-fnanci
a
l
scandas of recent years, wheter in Italy, wt its famous P2 Ldge, or in France
during the Socialists' hegemony under Mitterrand, and, subsequently, at
present, under te Rght. Of Freemasonry's wheeler-deaer nature, which is
too embarassing to admit, tere can be no doubt.
4. Te OPE: te chief focus of our stdy in tis book. Fontenis defnes it as a
"militt order . . . Intent upon binding partcipants in te OPE by a sort of com
pact requiring a degree of obeisance to the collectve wll" (p. 168-169) . I is not
had to work out who could have been te embodiment of tat "collectve wll,"
D O C U M E N T N O . 9 F O N T E N I S O N T H E O P S 263
namely, the "bargain basement," Stalin, Fontenis himself. He has forgotten not
ing and learned nothing, i we are to go by his explanatons and commentaries:
" declare loud and clear tat te OPB, clandestine or not, was a necessit i
we were to have done with the insidious cunning of te anti-organizers, anarcho
liber
a
ls ad anarchy's 'purists'" (p. 169) . May we point out tat among the OPB
stattes which he reproduces is one provding for "the possibility of suppres
sion, tat is, to put it at its most blunt, of murder! Every militnt, actve, on sus
pension, expelled or havng tendered his resignaton must observe absolute si
lence on the subject of te a PB and te militants belonging to it. Ay derelicton
in this respect entails whatever steps the 0 PB may deem appropriate and which
may extend even to suppression, in te event of denunciation jeopardizing te
security of its militts. " Fontenis's comment today upon this passage is tat it is
indicative of a rater derisory penchant for dramatzaton and overestmaton of
the secret group and its members. In our vew, te word "derisory" is a rater
feeble description of such a fawed ad criminal measure.
In an interview subsequent to te publicaton of his book, Fontenis con
ceded with rather more candor:
"Ys, tere is no denying it. We slid into what might be called a certain
"fnctonal Lninism, ' but you have to understand that we tended to borrow
fom elsewhere, fom Lnin, not all of whose actions were so awfl, what the
last f years of anarchist tadition had failed to provide: for instance, scrupu
lous observance of commitments given, punctiliousness and assiduity [ ?] . Tat
said, there was no 'scadalous excrescence. ' " 3 One could not be ay plainer:
Fontenis's FCL and OPB were classic Bolshevism, taken to lampoonish ex
temes in some respects.
Natrally the sequel to this is not hard to guess: there were disagreements
and rpfsals to bow to Fontenis's "wl," which entailed resignatons and expul
sions, followed by a rearguad action; standing for electons, recruitng Adre
Mart, (e who had been the "butcher of Abacete" in Spain) , and some so
called cladestne activit tat was, going by its results and Fontenis's present
assessment as he satirizes te game of "professional revolutionaes" played
out back then, quite puerile, and, at te last lap, total eclipse as Fontenis ad
his chief leutenats wound up eiter in Trotskist organizations or in Lninist
ones like te Communist Part. It was a patetc adventre, but one tat proved
exemely usefl; in terms of what it had to teach us about how a secret orgai
zation aimated and contolled by just one ma, an out-and-out politcal police
agency ca lead to te self-destuction of what had been, at te outset, a lber
tarian orgaizaton.
Wat is the explanaton for altis? In our view, the chaisma of one mili
tant gifed wt certain talents, who, becoming gradually very sensible of his
responsibilites abetted by the passivit, blind and dea obedience of certain
oters, te lack of revolutonay vigilance in stll oters, comes to look upon
himself as te "leader," a sort of guru fgure, te orgaizaon becoming a closed
sect untl everyting eventual y implodes as human natre emerges as te ston
ger factor.
264 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
Alof which leads us to revse our assessment of te FCL and 0 PB which
we had initially analyzed, on the basis of inadequate data, as anarchistic
Blanquism: but no, now everying is clear tanks to te revelatons contned
in Fontenis's hook: tey were only a bureaucratc, Stinist aberraton.
-Aexadre Skirda, April 1997
Notes to Skra's Remarks on Georges Fontenis's Memoires
1. Georges Fontenis, I'autre communisme. Histoire subverive du mouvement libertaire,
(Mauleon, 1990) , 396 pages.
2. Ltters fom N. Faucier to the autor on February 10 and Mach 20, 1991.
3. Georges Fontenis intervewed in te January 20 - February 5, 1991 edition of Itcole
emancipee, revue sydicate et pedagogige (p. 32-33) .
L L L U P b M M L . | 0 R G A M | Z AT | L M A L P R | M L | P L E S 265
DO C U M E N T No. 1 0
TH E G R O U P E KR ON S TADT , P A R I S
DR AF T L I B E RTA R I A N CO M M U N I S T OR G AN I ZAT I O N A L
P R I N C I P L E S
1. Te lbertarian Communist organization (OCL) is characterized by the col
lective approach of its members' militant practice, which is rooted in the
organization's polic line, subject to the principle of ongoing monitoring of te
anayses and experiences of the membership as a whole.
2. Te OeLs policy line is defned by the following principles:
a. Teoretical coherence. Wich is to say stict homogeneity in te overall
positons espoused by the organization, amended in the light of ongoing
analysis of te evoluton of te political reality, tereby eliminatng te
danger of a monolitism of fed positons and accentatng te effec
tveness of actons undertaken.
b. Practical cohesion. Te OCL seeks tactical unity through militant imple
mentton of te overall policy line espoused by groups ad regions at
Congresses.
c. Ongoing collective responsibilit. In respect of exerna expression, each
member is answerable for te organizaton's line. Similarly, te organiza
ton is a.swerable for ad claims responsibilit for the positons and ac
tons adopted by each of its members, provided tat tese accord wit
te genera line of te OCL.
d. Federalism. Te organization is only the emanaton of its component
groups -te group being te driving force behind te whole organiza
ton. However, te militants or group may not adopt positons contary to
the organizaton's line.
e. Fraternal ethic. Witin its ranks, te organizaton practces te etical
concepton of libertarian communism. Fraterna relatons - based on
mutua tust, esteem and respect -link its militants as a body.
3. Opertona work pln. Congess is sovereign in defning te organizaton's
line. I lays down the plan of militant work, delegatng and assigning commis
sions and responsibilities, updatng te OCLs Declaaton of politca and orga
nizationa principles.
Certain posts are allocated at congress:
266 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
Te Press and Propaganda Commission: this is charged with te publica
tion and distibuton of all of the OCLs forms of public expression: news
paper, review, pamphlets, posters, handbils, aong federal lines. It oper
ates in close concert wit the teasurer.
Te Secretarat has te task of overseeing te orgaizaton's internal,
exernal and international communications. It publishes the Internal
Bulletn. I includes a teasurer. Its role is, consequently, merely techni
ca and administae.
Te IB Onternal Bulletin) contains reports of te meetings of the vaous
offcers, commissions and the Liaison Council: aso feaured are reports
on te activtes of goups and regions, motions or guideline texts of te
organization, interna or operatona informaton, and a discussion forum,
Reserved for te exclusive use of OCL members, its contents are conf
dential.
Treasury: Tis is fed by compulsory dues (set by te congress) levied
fom militants, subscriptons and te revenue fom saes of publications.
Te work of te commissions is monitored by congress. Members of the
commissions are nominated by their group at the congress and elected by te
latter.
Te commissions may drop or add members, under the supervision of the
laison Council.
Congress meets at least once per year. Exa-ordinary congresses can be
convened folowing a referendum of te groups.
In te interval beteen two congresses, the OCL is represented by te
laison Council, whose dut is to oversee implementaton of te policy line laid
down by congress, and to oversee the work of the commissions and offcials. It
pronounces upon proposals fom te groups wth implicatons for the whole
organization.
Te laison Council is made up of delegates fom te groups or regions -
but it is not necessay for a group to have a delegate on it, should its fncton
ing, actvit or geographical location not alow this.
Te laison Council meets reglarly -montly -or, exceptonally, fol
lowng a referendum of te groups. Only delegates fom groups or regions can
patcipate in its meetings: members of the commissions are also required to
atend.
4. Orgiton chat
Te group. Is the basic unit, the nerve center of te organizaton. It com
prises at least fve members and at most 15. I brings militants togeter on te
basis of localit, tade, school or practicalit. Te group is fee to organize as it
sees ft, but it should, however, include a coordinator/secretary and a tea
surer. Posts should be rotaed among te members. Te group participates in
te internal life of te organizaton, in te ongoing discussions and collation,
culminatg in the drang of te OCLs operatona scheme of work.
D O C U M E N T N O . 1 0 O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P R I N C I P L E S
267
Te group is required to conduct its actvites witin the parameters of
tis scheme.
Te group is fee to do what it will outside of te objectves of te scheme
and may do so in the name of the OCL, provided it does not confict wit its
line, and that the group undertaes to report its experiences and its outcome
to te rest of te organizaton.
Around its outside activites te group organizes its sympathizers, main
taining contacts with tose isolated members of te organization closest in
geographical terms. It co-ordinates their actvit witin te OCL and is answer
able for it.
Inter-group commissions can be set up for specic tasks.
Te Circle. Te group may give rise to the formation of circles, embracing
actve sympathizers who devote temselves to specifc actvites: propaganda
work, external expression, running a study and debatng circle.
Several groups together make up one sector, or, on a larger scale, one re
gion. But te sector and the region are merely an internal link for operational
work -they are not sovereign inside the organizaton, which is founded on
te group alone.
Tere is a fee hand in te organizaton of sectors and regions.
Togeter, te groups, sectors and regions make up te Federation. In it
fnctioning, the OCL is thus a body coordinating and planning the practices of it
component groups.
Te OCL has no internationa boundaies, and federations may organize
temselves into one Internationa Lbertaia Communist Federation.
Method of operation.
All matters and decisions upon which tere is not unanimit, at all levels of
te organizaton: -goup, region, sector, federation (congress) -and in te
Laison Council, wll be put to a vote, following discussion. Te majority view
prevails in matters tactcal and practcal: in mattrs teoretca and stategic,
ad other importt decisions (expulsions, admissions . . . ) tere must be a
three-quarters majorit.
Wen tere is profound disagreement beteen two positons on a fnda
mental issue, te only soluton is a split.
Decisions taken are binding upon all member.
Voting is by mandates: i te Lason Council, and in the congress, each
group has three mandates, making possible representation of te various posi
tions: one for, one against and one blank. At te level of te group, the sector
and te region, voting is by head count.
5. Supervsion. Te OCL operates in accordance wth te principles of perma
nent delegation and revocability.
Te various posts taen up are monitored contnually by te groups. Any
post can be witdrawn, outside of congress, on a referendum of te groups,
ad registraton of a majorit against.
268 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
Accounts by post-holders of teir stewardship should be provided contnu
al y in te lB, so that informaton may circulate as prompt ad regularly as
possible.
6. Itra regton. Partcipaton in te OCL is conditona upon member
ship of a group.
Te sympathizer takes an interest in te OCLs stance and takes pat in te
organization's practca actvities trough te group to which he is atached.
He is brefed regularly on mit experiences and the organizaton's line by
means of al of te OCLs externa documents. But he may not hold any offce
and does not patae of te internal actvties of te group or te OCL.
In prnciple, aer a certain time, a mutal decision by te sympatizer and
te group should be made regarding his membership, for it is not possible for
an organizaton to have eterna sympaizers.
Te correponding member. He wholy subscribes to te OCLs positons ad
line, but canot partcipate regulaly i te actvt of a goup, eiter on account of
geographica isolaton or for persona reasons. He pays dues ad patcipates as
best he ca in te group closest to his place of domicile.
However, isolated militants should stive to found a loca group.
Te militant. He is afliated to his group. His membership is not an act of
fat, but a signifcat commitent, entaling for him te obligaton to partae
of te activtes of his group and of te whole orgaizaton, tat is to say, to
shoulder responsibilities tere and report back on tese, ten to supervise te
actvites and responsibilities of his group ad of te OCL.
Affliation Te admission of a sympatizer or a militant is lef to te sole
discreton of te group. It comes about trough co-optaton.
A group suing for admission into te OCL maes contact wit te Secre
taat ad te nearest group, familiazes itself wit te Declaraton of politca
and organizatona principles as well as te line of te tme, ten is obliged to
submit its comments upon the lot ad a resume of its past and actvites to te
Secretiat, which circulates it to te groups. Tese latter give teir opinions
and verdict: for or against.
Following unanimous acceptance, te candidate group becomes a fll
fedged afate: in te event of hostlit fom one or more OCL groups, te
applicaton is discussed at te nex congress.
Eulion. In the event of a serious breach of te OCLs politcal and orga
nizatona principles, a militant or a group may be expelled fom te organiza
ton.
In te case of a militant, he is suspended by his goup, which reports its
grounds to te laison Council, i tere is ay chal enge, untl such tme as te
nex congress endorses (or fils to endorse) te decision trough a vote, wit
te group in queston taking no part in te vote.
In te case of a group, te procedure is te sae, except tat suspension
is decided by te laison Council.
D O C U M E N T N O . 1 0 O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L P R I N C I P L E S 269
DOC U M E N T No . I I
RE VO L U T I O NARY AN AR C H I S T OR GAN I ZAT I O N ( ORA)
Organiatonal Contact
Te organizationa Contact is specifcally defned by what is te essental
basis of anarchism, to wit, a two-pronged asserton:
te primacy of the individual.
te necessit of living in societ.
Within tis famework, anarchism repudiates all autoritarianism: tat of
pure indivdualism wit its repudiaton of societ, and tat of pure communism
which seeks to ignore te individual. Aarchism is not a synthesis of antagonis
tc principles, but a juxtapositon of concrete, living reaites, te convergence
of which must be sought in an equilibrium as elastc as life itself.
Tus, aarchism cannot be idented wit a philosophy of immutable tuths,
nor wth a doctne of untouchable principles, but may be defned as a way of life
whose basis is creatve libert and whose means is ongoing experimentaton.
Olr organization has no pretnsions to a rigid ideologica unit generatng
dogmatism. But on the other hand, it refses
a
lso to be merely a motey collec
tion of divergent tendencies, te fictons between which would inevitably lead
to stagnaton.
Union on ideologica common denominators, but not stodgy uniormity
in the interpretation of tem (ideologica unity) .
Tolerance i ideas and coherence i action (tactcal unit) .
Effectve shared responsibilit of
a
ll militats (collectve responsibilit) .
Non-hierarchica ad non-centaist organizaton (ibertaran federalism) .
Tese are te essental points which are required a priori for partcipaton
in the life of the organizaton.
Te orgaizaton is a federation of territorial or tades groups, and not a
gatering of individuals. I has a specic character ad is regarded as forming
a whole in itself.
Te man or woman who joins the organizaton does so w fll knowledge
of what is aoot and their afliaton represents a mora commitent towards
the entre organizaton, just as te latter ackowledges a collectve responsibil
it towards every new member.
270 FACI N G TH E E N E MY
Te Group
1) Te Group is te basic cell of the organizaton, wherein te miitant actvt
arising out of all decisions taken at congresses is concentated.
2) Te Group is autonomous in te sense tat it can te, localy, alte deci
sions it may deem ft. Tat autonomy, tough, is limited by te very fact tat te
Group's affliation to te organizaton implies respect for a contact feely en
tered into, as well as respect for decisions ten in congress.
3) Te number of militants in a Group is limited to a mamum of 12.
Te Local Federaton
1) Te Groups of one localit are under an obligaton t form temselves into a
Local Federation.
2) Te General Assembly of te militants of one locait is te forum for evalu
aton of ideas and action plas. It should meet fairly fequenty (at least once
each month) ad it has sole collective decision-making powers at te loca level.
3) Every militant is required to atend te Plenary Assemblies of his Lca
Federation on a regular basis. Tree consecutive, unexplaned absences may
entail his exclusion fom te organizaton.
4) In the event of non-unanimity on an acton plan, te latter must secure te
support of 3/4 (three-fourts) of te militants present at te Genera Assembly
before it can be put into effect in te organizaton's nae. Tose not in agree
ment shall refain fom al externa counter-propaganda, but may engage in
action based upon different crteria, though not confictng wit te acton of
te organizaton, and wit te later's endorsement.
5) Te to basic offcers of te Local Federation are: te organizing Secretay
and te Propaganda Coordinatng Secretary. Appointed to serve fom one Gen
eral Assembly to te next, they may have teir mandate renewed for a ma
mum of one year. Aer a six mont interval, tey may be re-appointed to one of
tese offces.
6) Other offcers may be appointed on a temporary basis, should tis be felt
necessary.
Te Regional Federaton
1) Te Groups of one region are under an obligaton to form temselves into a
Regional Federaton.
2) A region may not be formed wit Groups fom under 3 (tree) dferent
localities.
3) Te Regional Assembly of the delegates fom each Group must be held
firly regularly (at least once every tree monts) and performs te sae fnc
tons at regional level as the Genera Assembly of militats does at loca level.
4) Te role of Regional Laison Commission, in charge of interna comunica
tons, the Regional Treasury and coordinatng Propaganda, is to be vested in
D O C U M E N T N O . I I A N A R C H I S T O R G A N I Z AT I O N 27 1
one Group fom the Region. Holding offce fom one Regional Assembly to te
next, this group may fnd its mandate renewed for a maimum of one year.
Mer an interva of 6 (six) months, it may again be entusted with that offce.
5) Should the need arise, oter Regiona Commissions may be established on a
temporary basis.
Te Plenum
1) Te plenum is te general assembly of the delegates fom each Regiona
Laison Commission.
2) Te Plenum meets as convened by the Natonal Collective or at the prompt
ing of hal of the Regional Laison Commissions. It is not required to meet
regularly.
3) Its object is to monitor te activity of the Natonal Collective, to assist it in
making decisions for te organization should certain unfreseen events neces
sitate rapid decision-makng when pressure of tme precludes te convening of
an Exta-ordinary Congress.
4) A 3/4 (tree fourths) vote is required for a Plenum decision, each Regional
liaison Commission casting as many votes as there are Groups in its Regiona
Federation. Te Natonal Collectve may not partcipate in the voting.
5) Te Plenum may suspend the Natonal Collectve fom its dutes and con
vene an Exta-ordinary Congress, but it may not admit or expel anyone.
6) Any miltant of te organizaton may attend a Plenum as te delegated ob
server fom his Group.
Te Congess
1) Since al decisions must of necessit be made by the rank and fle, te Con
gress amounts to te Genera Assembly of all te organizaton's Groups: it is
terefore empowered to take
a
ll decisions governing te l of the organiza
ton.
2) Prepared at Group level, through te Interna Bulletn and trough the Re
giona Assemblies, te Congress is a worng session and proceeds in camera.
3) Te Congress agenda, drafed on te basis of proposals fom te Groups and
te Nation
a
l Collective, should be communicated to te Groups at least two
months in advance of the Congress date. Votng may proceed only on te spe
cifc items featured on the agenda.
T
hus, no decision compromising the
organiaton's ideological line may be taen witout its having frst been de
bated in te Groups. On each item of te agenda, delegates' frst contbuton is
limited to a maimum of 30 (tirt) minutes, and teir second to fve.
4) Only delegates duly mandated by their Groups participate in the
organizaton's Congress. Observers' mandates may be issued to militants fom
te Groups who wish to attend te proceedings.
5) Only i it has more than fve militants is a Group entted to a say in te
Congress proceedings. Only one delegate per Group is empowered to partcipat
272 FACING THE ENEMY
in te votng. He represents te entre membership of his Group: the vote may
not be splt. However, as te technicaity of te business at hand may necessi
tte a range of exertise, severa delegates fom te sae Group may take pat
in te Congress.
6) Should te militants fom te same Group not have managed to overcome
teir diferences, nor reached a clear majorit feeling on a given point, te
Group may abstain when te vote is taken.
7) Te Chairman of te Proceedings, and his assessors. appointed by Con
gress at te start of business, proceed to sample opinion and determine te
outcome by adding up te number of votes cast. Decisions are reached by a 3/
4 (tree fourts) majorit and a minute is draed which Congress ten rat
fes. Te Chairman of te proceedings and his assessors may not spea in te
debates: as tey will, of necessit be members of Groups, it will be for teir
Group's delegates to represent them.
B) Ate implementaton of decisions reached in Congress requires te con
tnuous presence of te collectve expression of te organizaton, te Congress
appoints a Natona Collective charged wt coordinatng and carying out te
decisions it has reached.
9) Tis Naton
a
l Collective comprises fve offcers plus a equal number of depu
tes in case tey might no longer be capable of performing teir duties:
an organizing Secretary (internal Relations) .
an Externa Relatons Secretary.
a Secretary for Internatona Relatons.
a Popaganda Coordinatng Secretary.
a Treasurer.
10) Tese vaous secretaries should all be drawn fom te same region, but
tey may not hold any offce in teir Local and Regiona Federatons.
11) Holding offce fom one Congress to the next, te offcers may not belong
to te Nationa Collectve for more tan two consecutive years. Mer an inter
va of one year, tey can agan take up a position on te Naton
a
l Collecte.
12) Exceptng in te case of certain unforeseen events which require speedy
decision-maing, te Natona Collective may not tae initatves and mae de
cisions except where tese accord wit the organizaton's ideological line as
lad down in Congress. It is answerable for its actions before a Plenum or te
next Congress.
13) Congresses are held every year and each tme in a diferent geographica
locaton, as far as possible. Should te need ase, a Exa-ordinary Congress
may meet i summoned by te Natona Collectve, a Plenum or at te prompt
ing of ha of te organizaton's Groups.
NaUoua fUce
1) Te Natona Propaganda Council, chaged wit issuing te organizaton's
Newspaper and various Reviews, publishing books, pamphlets and posters
D O C U M E N T N O . I I A N A R C H I S T O R G A N I Z AT I O N J
destined for nationwide distibution, comprises a Publications Committee and
a Steering Committee.
2) Te Publicatons Committee is appointed by Congress, the Steering Com
mittee by te National Collective. Te Propaganda Coordinating Secretary is
te Natonal Collective's representative on the National Propaganda Council.
3) Te National Collective is responsible for directing and managing te Na
tional Propaganda Council.
4) It is desirable that the members of te NPC should be drawn fom te same
region as the members of the Natonal Collective.
5) Te members of the NPC may not hold any offce in their Local and Re
gional Federatons.
Te Treasury
1) It is lef to the Group and to the Regional Federation to determine te rate of
dues.
2) Regional or national actvities are fnded by the Regional Federation or the
organizaton as a whole, proportonately wit te number of militts per Group.
Tus it is the task of the Regional laison Commission or the National Collec
tive to collect te fnds and co-ordinate activities.
3) To fnd the activites of te Nationa Collective, tere is a natonal levy pay
able 12 (twelve) times a year: te minimum amount of tis is prescribed by
Congress in the light of te antcipated requirements of te Natonal Collectve.
4) Tere is a solidaity fnd, into which fnds not rased fom dues (special
demonstrations, donations, etc. ) are paid. Tis fnd is used to cover the
organization's debts as well as the purchase of propaganda material for tose
Groups which might not have the wherewital to procure their own.
5) In the event of its failing to regulaize its dues payments prior to Congress, a
Group may be denied admission to the latter. A repeat offense may entail
expulsion.
Te Internal Bulletn
1) Te Internal Bulletn (IB) is placed under the supervision of te organizing
Secretary. It is monthly and involves at the least reports on te actvtes of each
Group and fom te members of te Natonal Collective and NPC.
2) Te publication date, format and print-run of the IB are determined by Con
gress. To IBs ae run off per Group and fve for te natona archives. Te
IBs are the property of te Groups and not of the militants.
3) In order to spread the bulk of the work around all of te Groups, in order to
ensure that the organizaton as a whole can contnually monitor te serious
business of each Group, in order to avert all censorship, it is the Groups tem
selves that roneo teir submissions to te IB. Tus te work of the organizing
Secretary consists merely of reprinting te pages submited and passing on
the IBs tereby compiled to the various Groups.
2 74 FACI NG THE ENEMY
4) It is essentially through te IE tat the minorit in the organizaton fnds
expression.
5) A Group not contrbuting regularly to te IE may be deemed to have lost
interest in the organizaton ad, as such, incur expulsion.
Securit
1) For reasons of securit, a m on his tavels will at all times carry a letter
of intoducton signed by te organizing Secretary of his Lcal Federaton.
2) Also on securit grounds, the organizing Secretary of each Local Federaton
keeps on him a list of the names and addresses of the militants of his localit.
He ca tus confrm for offcers at vaous levels, at a moment's notce, wheter
a given individual is or is not a member of te organizaton.
Admissions
1) Tere is no individual affliation to te organizaton. Every new member
must belong to a Group or, i none exists in his area, he must be in touch wit
te nearest Group, in anticipaton of a Group being formed in his area.
2) Every new member belonging to a Group wl be precuded fom representing
it for te period of one year, and fom holding any offce at a level. He wll stl
be able to attend Congress, wth te consent of his Group, as observer-delegate.
3) Before it is accepted, a Group that has sued for admission will have to wait
untl te organizaton has been able to check tat it conforms to te movement's
etic. To tat end, it shall submit its montly report on its acttes as well as
copies of its handbills and pamphlets, will take part on te same footng as the
organizaton's Groups in te distibuton of te Newspaper (cash on delivery)
and wll scrutnize te Ideological and organizatona Contacts to see i they
suit it.
4) In te event of militants tained in the organizaton being behind te forma
ton of a new Group, tere shal be an exception to te preceding rule. It is for
te organizaton's Congresses to endorse or reject afliaton of a new Group
(y unanimit minus 10 percent) .
Exulsions
1) Any individual or Group that is in breach of contact wth the collectvity wll
tereby exclude itself fom te organizaton.
2) As far as the individual is concerned, it is for te Group to which he belongs
to decide for itself upon exclusion (wth a 3/4 majorty of votes cast on an indi
vidua basis) .
Te excluded mt may appea to te Regiona assembly which wl decide
in te last instance (on a 3/4 majort of votes cast by Group) . Te militant
whose expulsion is annulled by the Regional Federaton may join anoter Group
or form a new Group around himself.
D O C U M E N T N O . I I A N A R C H I S T O R G A N I Z AT I O N 275
3) In the case of te Group, it is for te Regional Assembly to determine exclu
sion (on a 3/4 majorit) . Te expelled Group may appeal to Congress which
wldecide in the last resort (on a 3/4 majorit) .
4) During the appeal period, and pending te decision of te organizaton, te
appellant militnt or Group, shall suspend activities wt regard to te latter.
Amendment of te Organizatonal Contact
1) Te present organizatonal Contact refects the organizaton's current cir
cumstances and will require amendment as these evolve.
2) Any amendment to te organizatonal Contact will be possible only in Con
gress (unanimit minus 10 percent) .
ADD E N U M
T H E C ONTRI B UTI ON OF T H E J U L E S VAL L E S G ROU P,
P AR I S , TO TH E D RAF TI NG O F T H E OR GAN I ZAT I ONAL
CONT RACT
As a stepping stone to revolution and tus to libertarian communism, we
have opted for te creation of a Revolutionary Anarchist organization (OR) ,
which is to be te driving force behind mass movements against authoritaran
systems, said organization being te coalition of persons united by the prior
theoretical considerations of:
ideological unit
tactcal unit
collectve responsibilit.
Te problem which ten arfQ is that of individuals' afation t te orga
nizaton, the problem of te manner in which tose who start out as sympatiz
ers with the OR are to be gradually incororated into te organization.
Te Need for Inducton Procedures
Generally, indivduas wishing to militate in our ranks lack the minima
grounding in theory, and in practice too, which are required for te achieve
ment of effective work.
Ten again, te commitment tat we demand of militants requires tat
these be as well-briefed as possible upon te broad tenets of te OR so it is
essential that we offer a members' "apprentceship" trough what we term a
"Front Lbertaire Circle. "
Te Front Lbertaire Circles
Tus, the role of te Front Lbertaire Circles is primarily to offer training
to OR sympathizers/prospectve militants, but also tey must devise propa
ganda and a libertian communist policy line.
276 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
Te Front Lbertaire Circles are, consequenty, launched initiall by one
or by several OR militants, or te nearest OR Group and are made up of
OR sympaers.
Tese Circles, besides teoretca taining trough te Newspaper and
above alprinted pamphlets or local taks, are also engaged in practca actvi
ties (publishing handbils, posters, bulletns, selling te newspaper, etc.) ad
should allow te sympathizer to develop his feeling for self-organizaton and
self-management.
Tus, the Front Lbertaire Circles are autonomous of te OR in te sense
tat they do not implicate the OR in the actvities they might possibly carry
out, have a budget of their ow, frnished by te sympathizers, and are autono
mously managed.
Te Circles are merely extensions of te OR trough te OR militnts
in te localit, eiter the OR Group or, in te case of geographical isolaton in
te provinces, through te local federatons, region
a
lly organized.
Ultimately, in tese Circles, te OR is merely te drving force, the chief
teoretca contibution coming trough the Newspaper and te Manifest [te
ORs fndamental tx-note by A. Skirda1 .
Estblishing te Circles
Tese Circles, which are a practical necessit for the Lbertarian Front
polic which we mean to devise, should be established wheresoever revolu
tionary propaganda is needed.
Tere can be Circles in frms, faculties, high schools and even around cam
paign organizatons such as tenants' associations, consumers' associatons, te
peace movement, and, at a later stage, clandestine circles inside te army: in
short, no sector of stuggle should be overlooked.
Defnitve Incorporaton
In te fn
a
l analysis, it will be te OR militants and te local region
a
l tat
will pronounce upon te defnitive incorporaton into te 0 R of a Circle mem
ber, or of an entre Circle, if need be, such incorporaton being effected on te
basis of subscripton to te drve to achieve:
a sense of collective responsibilit.
persona commitent.
Te militant should be a teorist, an agitator and a propagandist as well
(witout of course lapsing into intellectu
a
lism or escapism) .
Inside te OR, te affliate bears fll responsibilit, and little by lite te
difference beteen te militant and te affliate should fade away.
D O C U M E N T N O . I I A N A R C H I S T O R G A N I Z AT I O N 277
LI ST OF BI BLI OGRAPHI C NAMES
Abos Serena, Miguel. Aragonese anarcho-syndicalist unairlyblamed for
te fall of Zaragoza to the fascists in 1936. A militant of some statre fom the
teen years of this centry, he was on te CNT national committee at the start of
1936 and encouraged CNT supprters to vote in te February 1936 electons.
Escaped fom Zaragoza in 1937, onl to be interned by his CNT colleagues.
Served in the 127t Mixed Brigade and died in France in 1940.
Allemane, Jean (1843-1935) . Involved in te Paris Commune ad deported
to New Caledonia. Retrning in 1880, he joined Guesde's POF and followed the
possibilists' breakaway, heading teir working-class wing while Brousse headed
te intellectas. Allemane and his colleagues launched the POSR -Revolu
tonary Sciaist Workers' Part -i 1890. Te so-caled "Allemanists" espoused
ant-autortan policies and worked for socialist unity. In 1905 the POSR ama
gamated wit te SFIO - French Section of te Workers' International (So
cialist Pat) . Allemane took issue wit the Lninist line on trade unions.
Arm and, Ernest (1872-1962) . Tireless propagandist of Christan then ate
ist anarchism of te individualist school.
Arru, Andre (orn 1911) . French anarchist, real name lean-Rene Sauliere.
Refsed mobilizaton in 1939 and moved to Marseilles to form an underground
and mult-natonal anarchist group of which Voline .. vas a member. Sometime
general secretary of te SI (Internatonal Aascist Solidarit) .
Arshinov, Piotr (1887-193?) . Uainian Bolshevik worker who became an
aarchist terrorst before te 1917 revoluton. Associate of Makhno in te Urai
nian insurgent movement during and aer the Russian revoluton. Retrned to
Russia in the 1932, working as a proof-reader until 1937. Believed klled in a
purge.
Ascaso, Francisco (1901-1936) . Spanish anarchist actvist, inseparable com
panion of Durrut. Kled in te routing of te Francoist revolt in Barcelona in
July 1936.
Azev, Yevno. Social Revolutonary and Okhrana agent who rose to head the
SRs Fightng Secon. He permited the SR assassination of tsarist Interior min
ister Plehve in 1904 and ensured tat almost all delegates to the Fighting Sec
ton congress in 1906 were arested. Exposed by Burtsev as a police spy.
278 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
Babeuf, Fran<ois "Gracchus" (1760-1797) . French revolutionary and ear
communist: leader of te Conspirac of te Equ
a
ls. Executed by the Directory.
Bakunin, Mikhail (1814-1876) . Russian anarchist, focus of te anti-autori
tarian elements in te Frst Internaton
a
l opposed to Marx's centalism.
Barmash, Vladimir. Russian anarchist, one-tme emigre. A member of te
secretariat of te universaist anachists durng te Russian Revolution of 1917,
he was sentenced to deat and ten expeled fom te Soviet Union along with
Yrtchuk, Maximoff, etc. in 1921.
Bastien, Georges. French anarchist actve in the textle unions of the Amiens
region. Co-founder of te lbertarian Communist Federaon of te Nord re
gion in 1920. Edited L Libertaire for a time.
Bellegarricue, Anselme (orn c. 1820-?) . Involved in te 1848 overthrow
of the July monarchy in France, he launched a newspaper in 1850, called
L'narchie, subttled "a journ
a
l of order."
Berkman, Alexander (18701936) . Russian Jewish anarchist active in the
United States before returning to Russia aer te Bolshevik revolution, tere
to record his disillusionment wit Bolshevik autoritarianism. Committed sui
cide in 1936.
Berneri, Camillo (1897-1937. Italian anarchist professor of philosophy and
antfascist. Murdered in Barcelona in May 1937 by Stinists during inter-Re
publican fghting.
Besnard, Pierre. French railroad worker and syndic
a
list who helped resist
te absorton of te French CGT into te Profntern. Lter founded the
anarcho-syndicalist CGT-SR afliated to te Berlin syndicalist international
(. Besnard was secretary of the IA during te civil w in Spain, clash
ing wit te CN on a number of issues. Wrote infuenta books setting out the
etics and vision of syndicaism.
Blanqui, Louis Auguste (1805-1881) . French revolutonary sociaist and
vgorous agitator, involved in te earliest upheavas in France fom 1831 on
wads. Frequenty arrested, he spent many yeas in prison.
Boetie, Etienne de la (1530-1563) . French writer who at te age of eigh
teen wrote Dicoure ofVoluntary Seritude a denunciaton of tranny and the
complcit through which it survves.
Bonnot, Jules (1876-1912) . Outstanding mechaic actve in anarchist and
sndicaist circles. Around 1910 he went over to "ilegalist" teory, formed a
gang and carried out a number of robberies and murders. Tere was rea hys
teria about the "Bonnot Gang" unt he was killed in a police operaton in 1912.
Bonnot Gang. A gang of anarchist illegalists actve in France in 1911-1913.
Included Jules Bonnot, Ryond Cal emin, Octave Garnier, Edouard Carouy,
Andre Soudy, Rene Valet and Elie Monier.
LIS T OF BIB LIOGRAP HIC NAME S 279
Borghi , Armando (1882-) . Anachist fom an early age and acte in te
labor movement. When te leaders of te USI (an Syndicaist Union) . came
out in favor of Italan interventon in te Great War, Borghi led the majority
which disowned tem and he was made secretary of te organization. He was
a great fend of M
a
latesta. Under the fascists Borghi was forced to leave Ital
frst for France and ten te United States.
Borovoy, Aleksei. Russian academic and individualist anarchist at the tme
of te 1917 revolution.
Brassens, Georges. French poet and singer, a stalwart of the French Anar
chist Federation in charge of organizaton and helping to run L Libertaire.
Broutchoux, Benoit. French working-class anarchist forged in the stuggles
of te miners of te nort of France. Member of the watme Syndicalist De
fense Commitee (CDS) .
Brousse, Paul (1844-1912) . A member of te First Internatonal's libertar
ian wing fom 1872, and involved wit the Jura Federation in Swterland. De
ported fom Switzerland to France in 1880 he joined Guesde's POF, but broke
away wt te "possibilists, " becoming teir leader. Espoused a very reformist,
electoralist line.
Burtsev, Vladimir. Russian Socia Revolutionary, regarded as expert on op
eratons of te secret police. R a revolutonares' counter-espionage opera
ton against te Okhrana. Lter sided with te Whites in te Russian Civl war.
Cabet, Etienne (1788-1856) . French utopian sociaist. Wrote about an imagi
nary ideal societ in Voyage to !ana (1840) . Icarian settements were founded
in the United States in Texas and Illinois in 1848 and 1849 respectvely.
Cafero, Carlo (18461892) . From a wealty family of the nobilit, he began
a career in diplomacy but turned to social studies and politica economy. On his
tavels he met and married te Russian revolutonary Olimpia Kutzov. He
frst came ito contact wit revolutonaies in Pars in 1867 and met te founders
of te First International, stiking up a relatonship with Marx. He became one
of te chief propagandists for te I in Italy and a correspondent of F
Engels. In 1971 he met Bakunin in Switerland and became an anarchist. He
was involved in te Rmini conventon in 1872 when the decision was made to
launch a (libertarian) Itlia chapter of the Internatonal. Used his wealt to
fnd a number of insurrectons, ranging fom the 1874 revolt in Bologna to te
Benevento revolt of 1877. Wile jailed in 1877-1878, tanslated Da Kapital
into Italian. In te 1880s he suffered a menta bre
a
kdown and died in a asylum
in 1892.
Carbo, Eusebio C. (1883-1958) . Well-tavelled Spanish anarchist noted as a
public speaer ad wter. Ealy critc (1921) of te dicttorship of te prole
tarat. Held a post in te Generaitat during te civil war before recovering his
ideological integrt in exile, refsing a ministy in te Republica government
in-exile in 1945.
280 F AC I N G T H E E N E M Y
Caserio, Sante (18741894) . Itaian anarchist who attempted te life of French
president Sadi Carnot in 1894. Executed by guillotine.
Chapelier, Emile. French anarchist involved in a range of actvities, not least
te "LExperience" commune in Boitsfort.
Cherkessof, Varlam (18461925) . Actve revolutonay implicated in te Arl
1865 atempt on te life of Tsar Alexander II and in te Nechaev plot. Escaped
fom Tomsk in 1876 and fed abroad. Became a fiend of Kropotn in Lndon,
helping to found Freedom. Sided wt Kopotn in supportng te Ales in te
Great War. Returned to Georgia once te Russian revoluton came but was forced
to leave by te Bolshevk take-over.
Coeurderoy, Ernest (1825-1862) . French republican, socialist and anarchist.
Fulmiatd aanst autorit and in favor of intrnatonaism in numerous books.
Corneli ssen, Christian (b. 1864) . Dutch anarchist collaborator with
Nieuwenhuis on te paper Recht voor Alen. A former teacher, Cornelissen was
a well-known writer on economic and syndicalist afairs. Signed te Manifesto of
the Sixteen on the outbreak of te Great War.
CoUin, Emile (18961936) . French anarchist who atempted te le of Fench
premier Clemenceau in 1919 because of te later's ban on anarchist meetings.
Sentenced to deat and reprieved: served 10 years in prison. Died in combat
during te Spanish Civil War.
Degayev, Piotr. Russian revolutionary member of te "People's Will" orga
niation. ''urned'' by te Okhrana's L Col. Sudeikin, he betrayed numerous
comrades to te tsarist autorites before assassinatng Sudeikin. Degayev be
gan a new life as professor Alexander Pell in U.S. universities.
Dej acque, Joseph (1821-1876) . French internatonalist sociaist who moved
to Lndon and thence to te United States where he edited a paper called L
Libertaire and subscribed t anarchist communism.
Delesalle, Paul (18701948) . Mechanic who became an aarchist aer tav
els in Catlonia and Belgium. Atve in te tade unions fom 1884 on and deput
to Jean Grave at Temps Nouveaux. Deput serety of te Federaton of Bourses
du Travil 18981908. Helped dra te Chartr of Aiens. Actng secrety of
te CGT while Yvetot was jailed in 1911. Became a bookseller and publisher
aer 1907.
Duclos, Jacques (18961975) . Member of te French Communist Part fom
1921 and leader of te Comunist parliamentary party in France aer te sec
ond word wa. Notoriousl close to Moscow and once accused by Trotsky of
being a "long-tme agent" of Moscow.
Dumoulin, Georges (1877-1963) . French miner and revolutonary syndi
c
a
list prior to te Great War: during and aer te war, he became idented
wit te reformist line in te CGT
L I ST OF B I B L I OGRAP H I C NAME S 28 1
Durruti, Buenaventura (1896-1936) . Legendary Spanish anarchist activ
ist and internatonal revolutionary. Embodiment of te commitment and vigour
of Spanish anarchism. Killed in te defense of Madrid in 1936.
Duval, Clement (1850-1935) . Famous French illegalist anarchist. Driven by
poverty into a life of crime. Mechanic and thief who trned to anarchism and
devoted himself to a career of "individual reappropriation," fnding varous
movement activities wit the proceeds. Arrested and sentenced to death in
1887, his sentence was then commuted to life imprisonment in Guyana. He
escaped fom Devil's Island afer 14 years. Reached the United States and died
in New York. His memoirs were published by Luigi Galleani.
Fabbri, Luigi (1877-1935) . One of the most active of Italian anarchists. He
joined te movement in his teens in 1897 and soon came into contact wt Errco
Malatesta who was publishing L'itazione in Ancona. In 1903 in Rome he
launched the review II Pensiero along with Pieto Gori. It ceased to appear in
December 1911. He was an actve contibutor to Volonta, a weekly launched by
Malatesta in Acona in 1913. He was among the founders and contibutors of
the anarchist daily Umanita Nova and contibuted to Pensiero e Volonta, a maga
zine run by Malatesta in Rome (1924-1926) . Harassed by the fascists (aving
declined, as a teacher, to pledge allegiance to the regime as required by the
educaton authorities) he lef Italy. In Paris he launched Lota Umana (1927-
1929) . Deported fom France and fom Belgium, he fed to Uruguay and in
Montevideo he launched Studi Sociali in 1930, running te paper untl his death
on June 24, 1935. He was a prolifc writer and used the pen names of Catalina,
Quand-meme and L. Sclosser among oters.
Faure, Sebastien (1858-1942) . French anarchist and former Jesuit semi
narian. R for parliament for te Guesdist POF in 1885. From 1888 (when he
was a delegate to the Tird Natonal Congress of the Naton
a
l Federaton of
Unions) onwards a propagandist for libertarian communism. Joint founder of
I Libertaire. Actve on behalf of Dreys. Founded and ran L Ruche, a co
educational experimental school. Te "Grand Old Man" of French anarchism.
Fedeli , U go (aka Hugo Treni) . Italian anarchist, arrested during the Great
War for ant-war actvtes. In 1924, fom Pars he ran te Politcal Victims' Sup
port Commitee, helping antifascists. Deported to Belgium in 1929 afer pres
sure fom the Italian government. Lter he went to Uruguay fom where he
was deported to Italy and banished to te island of Ponza in 1933. Aer 1944 he
helped revive the Italian Anarchist Federaton (F) . Autor of numerous ar
ticles on anarchist history and biographies of anarchists.
Feneon, Felix (1861-1947) . French writer, part of the school of artistic
anarchism.
Fleshin, Senya (1894-1981) . Ukrainian-born. Immigrated to the USA and
became anarchist in 1913, working with the Mother Earth team. Returned to
Russia in 1917 and worked wit te Golos Truda group in Petograd. Joined te
Nabat federation. Arrested by the Cheka in 1918, 1920 and 1922 and banished
282 F AC I N G T H E E N E M Y
to Siberia. Expelled fom Russia in 1923. Lved in Berlin, then Paris, escaping
the latter aer the German invasion. Lf for Mexico in 1941.
Fontenis, Georges. French anarchist. Sometime secretary of the French
Anarchist Fedration. Later formed the Lbertarian Communist Federaton
(FCL) .
Fourier, Charles (1772-1837) . Utopian French socialst who ofered a mi
nutely detailed descripton of te operaton of a "scientcaly"-run society. Rec
ommended idea communities caled Phalansteries, made up of 1,800 like
minded individuals.
Fremont, Rene (1902-1940) . Lading member of te French UACR (Revo
lutonary Anarchist Communist Union) and UA (Anarchist Union) . Editor of
Lt0er/otrefom October 1934 to May 1935. Genera secretary of te UA in
1939. Caled up into te French army and killed in June 1940.
Fribourg, Paul (1868-?) . French railway worker sociaist of te Alemanist
school and revolutonay syndicalist. Advocate of the general stike and ant
militarist.
Friedeberg, Dr. Raphael (. 1863) . German socia democra turned anar
chist. Active in anacho-syndicalist spheres in 1904-1908. Abandoned tis ac
tivity due to ill healt.
Garcia, Oliver Juan (?-1980) . Spanish anarchist acvist. Associate ofAscaso
and Durrut. Minister of Justce in te Caballero government in 1936-1937,
representng the CNT (and, unoffcially, te FAI) .
Girault, Ernest (1871-1933) . French anarchist actvst ad chemist. Aer
te Great War he set up a sovet in Argenteuil. In 1920 he joined te French
Communist Part.
Goldman, Emma (1869-1940) . Aerican anarchist of Russian exacton.
Returned to Russia aer the Bolshevik revoluton and documented te Bolshe
vik perversion of the people' s revolutionary aspirations. Notorious in her
younger day as fee-loving, iconoclastic "Rd" Emma.
Grave, Jean (1854-1939) . French anarchist shoemaker and journalist. Au
tor of numerous anarchist works.
Griffuelhes, Victor (1874-1923) . One-tme Blanquist who became general
secretary of te French CGT 1902-1909 -before the Great War. Primarly an
actvst, he supported te Sacred Union in 1914 but gradually broke away, sym
patizing wit te revolutonary syndicaist minorit.
Guerin, Daniel (1904-1988) . French ant-oloniaist ad sociaist. Moved fom
Trotskist Marxism towards a hybrid libertarian communism illuminated by
te insights of anarchism.
Guesde, Jules (1845-1922) . Sympatizer wit Baunin and te anarchists m
side te First Internatona, but went over to Marxism in his tirtes, becoming
its pioneer in Frace. Founder the POF (French Workers' Part) . Entered te
cabinet of te government of Sacred Union in 1914 and was Minister of State.
L I S T O F B I B L I OG RAP H I C NAME S dJ
Stuck wt te SFIO aer te Communist Part broke away fom it in 1920. A
former libertarian, he espoused a particularly pedantic form of socialism.
Guillaume, James (1844-1916) . Swiss prominent in the Jura Federaton.
He preferred to be described as a collectivist rather tan "anarchist," regard
ing te latter term as somewhat exteme.
Henry, Emile (1872-1894) . French anachist, executed for terrorst bomb
atacks including indiscriminate bombing of a middle-class cae.
Herve, Gustave (1871-1944) . French rabble-rousing ant-militrist and ant
patiot editor of L Guerre Sociale prior to the Great Wa, he trned into a
super-patiot aer it broke out, chaging the name of his paper to L Vctoire.
Herzig, Georges (1857-1921) . Genevan Swiss witer who took over te run
ning of L Revoite fom Kropotkin and later wrote for the bilingua Swiss ana
chist paper L Reveil-Il Riveglio on social hypocrisy. Scating critc of bureau
cratzation in Siss tade unions.
Jacob, Alexandre (arius) (1879-1954) . Lader of a gang of anarchist house
breakers tat operated in France, Spain, Itay and Switerland. Jacob admitted
106 "jobs" tat netted te equivalent of fve million gold fancs. Ten percent o
his proceeds went to anarchist organizatons, causes and publicatons. Con
victed in 1905 and feed fom penal servitude in 1925.
Janvion, Emile. French anarchist syndicaist actve in the CGT before te
Great War, co-founder of te Internatonal Anti-Militarist Associaton (1904) .
Obsessively anti-Masonic and ant-Semitic, campagned against Masonic infu
ence in te CGT. Took te line tat bourgeois politcians had used te Dreys
Affair as a ploy to rally revolutonaries behind te Republic and began to es
pouse an anti-Republican line tat led to firtatons wit Acton Frantaise.
Jaures, Jean (18591914) . Dreysad and co-founder of te French SFO
sociaist party, Jaures beleved in evolutonay sociaism. In 1914 he was assas
sinated by a French right-winger, Roul Villain, who considered tat Jaures
had left France il-equipped to face te wa wit Germany.
Jouhaux, Leon (1879-1954) . One-tme anarchist who becae genera sec
retary of the French CGT in 1909, holding tat post untl 1940. During te
Great War he embraced te Sacred Union and aer te war he worked closely
wit the Socialist minister Abert Tomas and te Internaonal Lbor Offce.
Jover Cortes, Gregorio (1891-1964) . Member of te L Solidaros group,
closely associated wit Gacia Oliver. Durng te civil war he served wit te
Ascaso Column. A revolutonary of te old school, steet-fghter and actvist.
Joyeux, Maurice (1910-) . French anarchist, frst convcd at te age of 13.
Headed te Unemployed Council of te CGT. Involved in te fctory seizures
in Frace in June 1936. Helped re-Iaunch te French Anarchist Federaton ar
1944. Prolifc autor and believer in direct action.
Kropotkin, Peter (1842-1921) . Russian aarchist geographer. Lading ad
vocate of anarcho-communism and federaism.
284 F AC I N G T H E E N E M Y
Lapeyre, Aristide and Paul. French anarchist brothers. Printers of
IEspagne anti/ascite in Bordeau fom September to November 1937. Aistde
(1889-1974) became an anarchist trough his fiendship wit Sebastien Faure.
Very actve in feetought and ant-clercal circles (using the pen-name "Luci
fer") . He was on te staf of L Combat syndicalte in 1936 and ran the French
secton of te CNT-FAI propaganda operaton in Barcelona. Jailed in France
durng the Occupaton and narrowly escaped execution.
Latapie, Jean French metorker, syndicalist and ant-militarist active in
te CGT ad close to Aristde Briand.
Leauthier, Jules (18741894) . Assassinated the Serbian amassador in Paris
in 1893. Sentenced to penal servitde for life, he was shot dead by warders a
few weeks aer arriva on Devil's Islad during a convicts' revolt.
Lecoin, Louis (18881971) . French anarchist and pacist. Actve i the unions,
he led te capagn against affliation of te CGTU to te Profntern. Led
campaigns in favor of Sacco, Vanzeti, Durrut, Ascaso and J over. Co-founder of
te Commitee for Free Spain in 1936 and of the Sl (Internationa Aniascist
Solidarit) . Issued a "Peace Now" statement in 1939 and jailed until 1941. Cred
ited wit winning recogniton of conscientious objector status in France follow
ing a hunger stike in 1962. Nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize 1964 and 1966.
Lefrancaise, Gustave. French Communard and communist fom the 1848
revoluton.
Lepetit (1889-1921) . French anarchist syndicalist and laborer. In 1915 he was
secretry of te Internatona Action Committee against te Great War. Sen
tenced in 1917 for bringing out an underground edition of the banned Le
Libertaire. Sent on a fact-fnding mission to Soviet Russia, he was less tan
impressed ad disappeared at sea off Murmansk on the retrn journey along
wt his companion, Vergeat.
Leroux, Pierre (1797-1871) . French follower of Saint-Simon, helped pro
cla te Republic in Pais in 1848.
Leval, Gaston (1895--1978) . Pseudonym of Frenchma Pierre Robert Piller,
who fed to Spain in 1915 to escape the Great War. In 1921 he was the anarchist
groups' delegate seconded to te CN delegation sent to the Profntern foun
daton congress in Moscow. His report did much to open CNT eyes to the
reat of Bolshevsm. Spent some tme in Argentna in the 1920s. Collected
dat on collectvzaton during the Civil war i Spain. Retrning to France he
was a prolic writer on anarchism.
Levy, Albert. Member ofthe CGTleadership and teasurer of te Federation
of Bourses du Traail. Resigned aer a quarrel wit Griffethes.
Libertad, Albert (1875-1908) . Charismatc orator and center for many years
of te Pasian individuaist anarchist scene. Lunched the weekly L'narchie
in 1905.
L I S T OF B I B L I OG RAP H I C NAME S 285
Lorul ot, Andre (Andre Roulot) . French anarchi st, one-time editor of
L'narchie (Pais) before Victor Serge. Initially encouraged illegalism. Active
on the feethought wing of French anarchism.
Louvet, Louis (1899-1971) . French anarchist active in the Proofeaders'
Union in which he held offce in te 40s, 50s and 60s. Autor of A World Histor
ofAnarchy and driing force behind a number of French libertarian publica
tions.
Makhno, Nestor (1889-1934) . Ukrainian anachist revolutionary and guer
rilla leader. Lader of the "fee soviet" peasant insurgents opposed to te Whites
and to the Bolsheviks. Died in exile in Paris.
Malatesta, Errico (1853-1932) . Italian anarchist and revolutonary. Early
Internationalist and later anarcho-communist.
Malato, Charles (1857-1938) . French anarchist son of a Communard fater.
Anarchist publicist. One of the signatories to the "Manifesto of te Sixteen"
during the Great War.
Malinovsky, Roman. Russian Bolshevik leader and Okhrana agent. In 1912
Lnin elevated Malinovsky to the Bolshevik Cental Commitee.
Malon, Benoit (1841-1893) . Nineteenth-century French sociaist and Com
munard. Originaly influenced by the libertarian school he later helped form
the Possibilists. Espoused a non-sectarian, humanistc brand of socialism.
Martin, Constant (1839-1906) . French Blanquist then anachist involved in
the Paris Commune. Collaborator with Pouget.
Martin, Pierre. French anarchist teacher, one of a number of conscientous
objectors who refsed the cal-up in 1939 ad were imprisoned as a result.
Marty. Andre (lRR&1956) . French communist who cae to fe as leader of te
Black Sea mutneers in 1919. Inspector of te Interatonal Brgades durg te Spa
ish Civl War, he was a notorous Stinist. Expelled fom the French CP in 1953.
Mauricius (Rene Hemme, aka Vdamme) . French indiduaist aarchist Made
antiwar propagada during te Great Wr ad was later an enthusiast of wha
appeaed to be the libertaia revoluton in Russia in 1917.
Mazzini, Giuseppe (1805-1872) . Italian patiot and founder of te Young
It
a
l orgaizaton. Republican agitator and rebel, he was atackd by Bakunin
as an authortria, a teologian and a conservatve. Many of Mazzini's follow
ers went over to Bakunin and te Internatonal.
Mera Sanz, Cipriano (1897-1975) . Anarcho-syndicalist bricklayer largely
responsible for te CNT breakrough i te Madrid region under te Repub
lic. Very successfl military commander, he attained te rank of lieutenant colo
nel in charge of te Fourth Army Corps. In 1939 he destoyed te Commu
nists' atempt to mount a coup.
Meric, Victor. French wrter of libertarian, pacist inclinatons who devised
te International Lague of Fighters Aainst War, founded in 1926. Helped en
courage te spread of War Resisters' International, founded in Holland in 1921.
286 F AC I N G T H E E N E M Y
Merlino, Francesco Saverio (1856-1930) . Itlian lawyer who joined the
First Internatonal while very young. Acted as defense counsel to numerous
anarchists including Maatesta. In 1889 he quit the anarchist movement and
joined te Itian Socialist Part atough he remained temperamentally an
anarchist. In 1899 he launched te Rvst Critica del Soci
a
lismo in Rome. He
was a very close fiend t Malatesta and vehementy antfascist.
Merrheim, Alphonse (1871-1925) . French revolutonary syndicaist leader.
Alert to te necessit to educate te workers in economics. Ld oppositon to
the Sacred Union in the Great War and partcipated in te Zimmerwaid Confer
ence. Anti-communist.
Mett, Ida. Autor of Te Kronstadt Upring (1938) and wfe of Belgian aarcho
sdicalist Nicolas Larevitch. In 1928 she was deportd fom France for hold
ing meetngs to expose conditions for te working class in the USSR, to the
annoyace of French Communists. I 1931 visited Spain when te monarchy
collapsed.
Michel, Louise (1835-1905) . Initall a follower of Blanqui, she was an active
partcipant in te Paris Commune and was deported to New Caledonia as a
result. She became a aarchist on te long outard journey. Retrned t France
aer te 1880 amnest and became an anarchist propagandist. Helped sbastien
Faure launch L Libertaire. Died while on a lectre tour in 1905.
Monatte, Pierre (1881-1960) . Dreysard socialist who quickly became an
anarchist and sydicalist, helping Benoit Broutchou to build up te miners'
union in te Nord coalelds. Resigned fom the French CGTS steering com
mission in 1914 in protest at its acquiescence in te Sacred Union policy. Helped
launch the revolutonary CGW in 1921, but opposed te anarchist tendency.
He was a communist presence in te CG and then was expelled fom the
French CP as a Trotskyst in 1924. Lunched the revolutionary syndicalist
newsaper L Revolution prozetarenne.
Nacht, Sieged. German anachist who did much to publicize te potential
of French syndicaist practices.
Nettlau, Max (1865-1944) . Vienna-born entusiast and historian of anarchist
ideas and activities. Made well-documented examinations of the lives and
tought of Baknin, Elisee Reclus, M
a
latsta and oter anarchist thinkers.
Coming fom a weaty f he was able to devote his tme to painstaing
research, but his circumstaces were greaty reduced by infation following
te First World Wa. Atough he carried on wit his research, he had to earn
a livig now fom his atcles for newspapers ad reviews. His major works are
a tree volume Mikhael Bakunin: A Biography (London 1896-1900) , A Bibliog
raphy 0/ Anarchy (Brussels 1897, Te Early Sprng 0/ Anarchy (Berlin 1925),
Anarchim, fom Poudon to Kropotkin (erln 1931) ad Lie o/Malteta (1922)
and Eliee Reclus (Berlin 1928) .
Niel, Louis (1872-1952) . French anarchist and sydicalist who helped marry
te Bourse du Travail and te CGT Moved in te directon of cautious reform-
L I S T OF B I B L I OGRAP H I C NAME S 287
ism, a mater of change of pace rater than of objectves. Lter joined te French
socialist party, te SFIO. Compositor and, initally, anarchist. He became a re
formist and replaced Griffelhes in 1900 as secretary of the CGT He was forced
to resign on May 28, 1909, by the revolutionary syndicalist oppositon. Became
town clerk of Toulouse in 1935.
Nieuwenhuis, Domela (1846-1909) . Former Protestant minister who be
came leader of Dutch social democrats and moved towards anarchism in the
1880s. Especially active as an ant-mist.
Novomirsky (Kirilovsk) . Russian anarchist, one-tme editor of Novy Mir.
Actve terrorist in 1905-1906, he became an opponent of terrorism and advo
cate of anarcho-syndicalist acton. Lter joined the Bolshevik party and became
a Comintern ofcial.
Odeon, Pierre. French anarchist, fiend of Louis Lcoin, refsed the dra in
1929. Lter organized tansport for aid shipments to Spain during the civil war
Orobon Fernandez, Valeriano (1901-1936) . Asturian anarchist whose pre
mature death robbed the CNT of a potential leader. Drafed the resolution on
Federations of Industy at the CNT congress in 1919. Alert to te danger posed
by fascism (afer time spent working in Germany) he was especially vocal in
calling for a Revolutonary Lbor Alliance. Died of TB in June 1936.
Paepe, Cesar de (1841-1917) . Belgian Proudhonist then collectiist mem
ber of the First Internatonal. Active in the antautoritiarian International un
til 1877, then reverted to more conventional trade unionism.
Paraf-Javal. French individualist anarchist and Freemason, associate of
Abert Lbertd. Opposed syndicalism and campaigned against militarism. Lter
fell into a feud with Lbertad.
Pdluulier, ternand (1867-1901) . At frst a socialist and advocate of te
genera stike, Pellouter became an anarchist in 1893, becoming treasurer and
ten secretary of te Federaton of Bourses du Travail by 1895. Died of tber
culosis at the age of 35. Regarded as te "father" of French revolutionary syn
dicalism.
Perio, Juan (1887-1942) . Spanish anarcho-syndicalist. Signed te treintista
manifesto protesting FA interference in CN business. Represented te CNT
in the Cabalero government in 1936. Handed over to Francoists afer te fall of
France and executed for refsal to cooperate wit Falangist national syndica
ism.
Pierrot, Marc (1871-1950) . Associated with te Temps nouveaux circle prior
to te Great War. Signed the pro-Entente Manifesto ofthe Sixteen in 1916. Edi
tor and leading light of the Plus Loin anarchist review aer 1922.
Pini, Vittorio. Italian anarchist illegalist in France in the nineteenth century.
He fnded movement actiit and propaganda wit the proceeds of his crimi
nal actvtes. Convicted in 1889 and sentenced to 20 years hard labor.
288 F AC I N G T H E E N E M Y
Pouget, Emile (18601931) . French anarchist and syndicalist helped form
Textle Workers' Union. Publisher renowned for his sarca newspaper L Pere
Peinard. Fled to England in 1894 to escape an ant-aarchist crackdow, re
turning to France in 1895. Turned towards syndicaism, running te CGTs
offcial mouthpiece L Vou du Peuple and rising to deput secretary of te
CGT Witdrew fom militant activit aer 1908.
Prieto, Horacio Martinez (1902-19??) . Spanish anarcho-syndicaist, former
"pure anarchist" who came to prominence wit te Spanish Republic. General
secretary of te CNT for a time in 1936. Negotated te CNs incorporation
into te Cabalero government.
Prudhommeaux, Andre (1902-1968) . French agronomist and anachist,
worked closely wit Voline. Publisher of Te"e Libre (1937-1939) and during
the Spanish Civil War published L'Epagne Nouvelle. Actve in the French anar
chist movement, favoring a " spontaneist" approach on which Marxists and an
archists could aree.
Ramus, Pierre (1882-1942) . Rea name Rudolf Grossman. Began his politi
cal career wrtng for the German Social Democratc newspaper in New York.
Soon disagreed wth social democratic tinking and metods and became an
anachist. Became involved wit te labor movement in Austia. Moved to Ln
don in 1933. Lter he focused on te spreading of ant-militarist and Tolstoya
ideas. Interned at te start of Word Wat II. Died in August 1942 on board a
ship bound for Mexico.
Rsk, Piot. Russian Okhrana opera who destoyed te last emigre
press of te "People's Will" group in Geneva in 1886. His sensatona "discov
ery" of Russian revolutonaies wt bombs in Paris in 1890 helped reduce
French sympathy for Russian revolutionaries.
Ravachol or Francois Koeningstein (1895-1892) . Sociaist, ten anarchist.
Joined te ranks of believers in "propaganda by deed. " Carred out a number of
outrageous acts (including killing an old ma for his sangs) . Guillotined in
1892.
Reclus, Elie (1827-1904) . Broter of Elisee Reclus. Supporter of te Pars
Commune and anarchist.
Reclus, Elisee (18301905) . French geographer and anarchist teoretcian.
Oblged to leave Frace aer his opposition to te coup of December 2, 1851,
he toured Europe and Aerica. On his return (1857) he embaked upon geo
gaphical research, taveling trough Itay, Sicily, Spain, et., and published
Te Earth: A Descrption o/the Phenomena o/the Lie o/the World (867-1868).
A member of te First Internatona, he was involved in publicaton of L er du
peuple (1869) . In 1871 he was sentenced to be deported to New Caledonia as a
member of te Paris Commune, but sentence was commuted to 10 years ban
ishment. Setting in Switerland, Reclus collaborated wit L Revolte and ma
aged te newspaper L'Etendard revolutionnaire (1882) ad edited te Univer
sa Geography which earned hi a positon at te fee universit in Brussels.
L I S T OF B I B L I OG RAP H I C NAME S 289
He was a tireless traveler and published his anarchist book Evolution, Revolu
tion and the Anarchist Ideal (1898) and, in conducton wit his broter Onesime,
geographical studies on Southern Afica (1901) and China Te Middle Empire
(1902) .
Reclus, Paul (1858-1941) . Nephew of Elisee Reclus. At one time, editor of
L Revolte. Worked for a time in Edinburgh and helped his uncle with his geo
graphical writings.
Robin, Paul (1837-1912) . French anarchist educationist. Briefly in 1870 a
member of te First Internatonal's General Council -proposed by Karl Marx
- but dropped once his libertarian beliefs became known. Director of te
Cempuis orhanage and advocate of "integral education. "
Rocker, Rudolf (1873-1958) . German-born anarchist intoduced to anachism
by Johann Most. In 1892 he was deported fom Germany for "writen propa
ganda, " moving to Paris before deportation to London. Active fom 1893 on in
the Jewish libertarian workers' movement in London, editing its newspaper
Frei Arbeiter Stimme. Opposed the 1914-1918 war before deportation to Ger
many in 1918. Tere he was deported again. Returned to Berlin when the Ger
man revolution erupted, only to be jailed by Noske. On his release he helped
organize the German anarcho-syndicalists whose 1919 congress laid the foun
dations for the revival of te anarchist International Workers' Association (Ber
lin International) . Moved to the U.S. aer the advent of Nazism.
Rogdaev, Nikolai (?-1932) . Russian anarchist who became a commissar in
the post-1917 soviet health service. He died in 1932 while in exle in Tashkent.
Rosmer, Alfred (1877-1964) . French lef-wing communist with syndicalist
sympathies. Expelled fom the French Communist Part in 1924, he became a
Trotskist and a close fiend of Trotsky.
Ruhle, Otto (1874-1943) . German Marxist schoolteacher and lecturer. Elected
to the Reichstag as a Socia Democrat in 1912. Joined wt K lebknecht in voting
against war credits in 1915. Lf the party in 1916 and led the revolutionaries in
Dresden i 1918. Advocated atiparliaentary council communism. Helped launch
te KPD. Wrote ''e Revolution Is Not a Party Matter" and was expelled fom
te KD. Emigrated to Prague and thence to Mexico afer 1933. Friend but not
folower of Trotsk.
Saint-Simon, Claude (17601825) . French utopian socialist ad advocate of
manageria sociaism.
Santillan, Diego Abad de (1898) . Spaish anarchist actve in the FOR in
Argentna in the 1920s. Returned to Spain in the 1930s, becoming a force in anar
chist and CNT circles. One of the advocates of collaboraton wit other ascists
in Cataonia in 1936, he cae to revse his opinion.
Schapiro, Alexander (?-1946) . Active in Jewsh anarchist circles in Lndon at
the turn of te centry. Retrned to Russia aer the revolution, imprisoned and
released on conditon tat he never retrn, followng pressure on his behal by French
anarcho-syndicalists. Helped found and lead the I (erlin International) .
290 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
Serge, Victor. (pen name of Victor Kibaitchich) (1890-1947) . French individual
ist anarchist of Russian extracton who collaborated with the Bolsheviks before
demurring at Stainist excesses. Died in Mexico.
Souchy, Augustin (1892-1984) . German anarchist actve in te Berlin-based revo
lutonary syndicalist Internation
a
l founded in the 1920s ad a specialist in revolu
tons fom below trough workers' contol and collectivizaton.
Steimer, Mollie (Pseudony of Marte Aperne) (1897-1980) . Ukrainian-born
anarchist active in the Yiddish-language movement in the U.S. prior to Wl. De
ported to Russia in 1921 and expelled in 1923. Arrested and interned in France in
1940 but escaped to Mexico. Parter of Senya Fleshin.
Stirner, Max. (pen name of Kaspar Schmidt) (1806-1856) . German philosopher
anarchist, author of Te Ego and His Own.
Tchorbadjifeff, Nikolas (1900-1994) . Bulgarian anarchist who helped launch
the Bulgarian Anarchist Federaton in 1918. Involved in the abortve uprising tere
i 1923, later moving to Paris. Bulgarian representative in te Committee for Free
Spain. Interned along wit Arthur Koester who mentons him in Scum of the Earth.
Member of the French Resistance. One of the founders of Iztok, the Paris-based
libertarian East European review. Returned to Bulgaria a month before his death
tere in 1994.
Tikhomirov, Lev (1850-1922) . Russian revolutionary associated with the "Ld
and Lberty" and "People's Will" groups.
Tolain, Henri-Louis (1828-1897) . Pioneer of te French labor movement and
member of te First Internatonal. Became reformist and was expelled by te In
ternatona for his hostilit to the Commune in Paris. Lter a senator.
Turner, John (1864-1934) . Financial secretary of te Socialist League, 1886.
Helped form te United Shop Assistants' Union in 1889 ad was its president untl
1898. Worked with Te Commonweal Group and the Freedom Group. He was the
offcial publisher of Freedom fom May 1895 until September 1897. Helped publish
Voice of Labor in 1907. Helped re-launch Freedom in May 1930 aer its predecessor
had been wound up.
Vaillant, Auguste (1861-1894) . French anarchist who threw a bomb into the
Chaber of Deputies in 1893. Executed by guillotne.
Vaillant, Edouard (1840-1915) . French soci
a
list, Maxist, member of the First
Internatonal and Communard. Lader of the Second Internatonal.
Villain, Raoul. Right-ing yout who shot leanlaures dead in 1914, holding him
to blame for France's defenselessness in te face of German aggression. Te courts
treated Villain very lenienty.
Vivancos, Miguel Garcia (1895-1972) . Founding member of the Los Solidaros
group in 1922. Driver to Garcia Oliver during the civil war. Served with the
Ailuchos column and was adjutnt to lover. Gained renown as a naive painter
afer the Second World War.
L I S T OF B I B L I OG RAP H I C NAM E S 29 1
Voline. (en name of V sevolod M. Eichenbaum) (1882-1945) . Russian Social Revo
lutonay, then, fom 1911, anarchist. Involved in 1905 revolution. Managed te
Russian aarcho-sydicaist paper Golas Tda. Lter joined Makhno in te Ukraine.
Differed wit Makhno over te Arshinov Platorm proposal. Opposed CNFAI
enty into Spanish Republican government. Helped relaunch te French anarchist
movement aer World War II.
Walter, Karl (18801965) . Sttd working wit te Fredom Group i Lndon in
1904. In 1908, went t te Unitd Sttes wher he wrot for Mother Earth. Wrote te
Fedom Presspublished report on te Intrnatona Anachist Congess in Asterda
in 1907. Wrote sporadical y for anachist papers when he retrned to England.
Yudin. Russian anarchist: at te tme of te Russian revolution he was a member
of te united stdents.
Yvetot, Georges (18681942) . French anarchist and revolutonary syndicalist
specialising in anti-militarist action. His pacifst activit persisted into te Second
World War.
Zabrezhnev, Vladimir. Russian anarchist, attended te Amsterdam Congress
in 1907. Lter joined te Communist Part and the editorial stf of te Moscow
Izvestia.
Zhelyabov, Andrei (1850-1881) . Russian revolutionary, born a serf and later
leader of te combat wing of te "People's Will" organization. Assassinated Tsar
Alexader II in 1881.
Zhitomirsky, David. Russian revolutionary and Okhrana spy. Close fiend with
Lnin in Paris aer 1908. Remained fiend of Lnin -despite wanings fom Burtsev
-untl 1915.
Zorkine, Paul (?-1962) . French anachist involved wth te magaine Noir
et Rouge, te orga of te GAR (Anarchist Revolutonary Action Groups) fom
1956 untl his death in an accident in 1962.
292 F A C I N G T H E E N E M Y
KATE SHARPLEY LIBRARY
Comades ad Frends -
No doubt some of you will be aware of te work of the Kate Shaley lbrary and
Documentaton Cente, which has been in existence for te last eight yeas. In
1991 the Library was moved from a storage location in London to
Northamptonshire, where we are now in the process of creatng a database of the
entire collecton. A the same time, a working group has been formed to oversee
te organisaton and running of the Lbrary. Te cataloge of te Libray material
wll be published by A Press (Edinburgh) .
Te lbray is made up of private donatons fom comrades, deceased ad liv
ing. It comprises several thousand pamphlets, books, newspapers, journals,
posters, fyers, unpublished manuscripts, monographs, essays, etc. , in over 20
languages, coverng te history of our movement over te last centry It con
tains detailed reports fom te IA (A/IA ) , the Anarchist Federaton of
Britain (1945-50) , te Sydicalist Workers Federaton (1950-1979) and records
fom te anarchist publishing houses, Cienegos Press, AP and others. News
papers include near complete sets of Black Flag, Freedom, SPain and the World,
Direct Actions (fom 1945 onwards) , along wit countess oters datng back
100 years. Te Lbrary also has a sizeable collecton of libertarian socialist and
council communist materials which we are keen to extend.
Te Kte Shaley lbrary is probably te lagest collecton of aarchist mate
ra in England. In order to extend and enhace te collection, we ask alaa
chist goups ad publicatons wordwide to add our nae to teir mailng list. We
aso appeal t alcomrades and fiends to donate suitable matera to te lbrary
Al donatons are welcome and can be colected. Te Kte Shaley lbray (L)
was named in honour of Kt Shaley, a First World War anachist and at-wa
actvist -one of te countess "unknow" members of our movement s ignored
by "offcia historans" of anarchism. Te lbrary regularly publishes lost aeas
of aachist history.
Please contact us i you would like to use our facilites. To receive detas of our
publicatons, send a stamped addressed envelope to:
KSL
BM Hurricane
Lndon WCIN 3X
Englad
K. S. L.
Kate Sharley lbrary
PMB #820
2425 Channing Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
USA
ww .kateshaleyllbrary.org
THE KATE SHARPLEY LI BRARY
Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist
Organization from Proudhon to May 1968
$17.95/12.00
The finest single volume history of European Anarchism is finally available
in English in Paul Sharkey's el egant trans lation. Drawing on decades of
research, Alexandre Skirda traces anarchism as a major political movement
and ideol ogy across the 19th and 20th centuries. Critical and engaged, he
offers biting and incisive portraits of the major thinkers, and more crucially,
the organizations they inspired, infuenced, came out of and were spurned
by. Opinionated and witty, he is equally at home skewering the actions of
the early anarchist Victor Serge as he is the Paris chief of police who
organized undercover "anarchist bombers" in an attempt t infiltrate and
discredit the movement.
Skirda argucs that thc core problem for anarchists has been t create
a revol utionary movement and envision a future society in which the
autonomy of thc individual is not compromiscd by the need to take
collective action. How anarchists have grappled with that question in
theory and practice makc up the core of the book.
Bakuninist secret societies; the Interationals and the clash with llarx; the
IIIcgal ists, bombers and assassi ns; the mass trade unions and insurrections;
and, of couse, the Russian and Spanish Revolutions are all discussed
thrugh the prism of working people battling fercely for a new world free
of the shackles of Capi tal and the State.
Alexaldre SJ:irda, bOn il 1942 ofa {'j:miJiaJ father ald a Rlssialllothn;
is { tmlslator ald historial of t Rlssial ReDolltiol. Amonst his IlllIJlerOIS
eXf"ellelt 'lod'S, his edited f"olletliOIl (f essays by Nestor JlaJ:hlo, The Strugglc
Against the State and Other Essays, ald his semilal biography, Nestor
llakhno: The Cossack of Anarchy are both plblished by iK Press.
Pall Shad'ey has almost silgk-h{lIIdedly made {lv{lilable a vast body of 101-
Elglish Illa {lI/(l/thisl ''ritil. His IIllllle/VIS tralslatiols illtlde the
'Or.,S of Daliel Gleril, ltor Mrli'hlo, Jose Peimts, A ltO I io Tz, OS':a/o
Baer ald lJliJ.haiIIMh",ill.
m
,
z
ISBN 1-902593-19-7
9 781902 593197 >
AK
PRESS