(en) Brazil, Introduction to the French edition of "Social Anarchism and Organisation" (fr, pt)

By Felipe Corr?a da Silva and Rafael Viana Report this post to the editors -- Written 
introduction to the French edition of the document "Social Anarchism and Organisation" 
Federation of Rio de Janeiro (FARJ). Seeking a dialogue with the French-speaking public, 
the text takes the discussion of organizational Bakunin and Malatesta and passes by the 
debate on the Platform of Delo Truda, resuming the debate Malatesta, Makhno. Also takes up 
the key elements of the proposed especifista anarchism, with a brief history of the 
organization process in Latin America, and points out elements that have been updated 
since the adoption of the document FARJ in 2008. capa_programa_farj.jpg ---- Rejoice 
greatly in the effort of fellow French and Swiss, who were involved in the translation, 
and now the publication of Social Anarchism and Organization, the Anarchist Federation of 
Rio de Janeiro (FARJ) document with which we have been deeply involved in both the design 
as in the discussion, along with other members of FARJ.

With the English translations - being also briefly published as a book in the United 
States - and in Spanish, we hope this document will continue to be widespread in other 
countries.

The text in question seems quite didactic and self-explanatory for the understanding of 
comrades from other countries. However, we believe it is necessary to return briefly to 
the classic debate on the question of anarchist organization, deepen some issues that have 
been discussed in Brazil and other countries, and finally update some elements that have 
been discussed after the publication of the document.

BAKUNIN, MALATESTA AND ORGANIZATION The Anarchist

Social Anarchism and Organization, as the reader will notice, is a programmatic document 
of an anarchist political organization: asserts a certain anarchist conception and 
discusses its history in Brazil, briefly discusses principles and elements of 
macro-strategic involving: finalist objective, critical structural capitalism and the 
state, and fundamental strategy from organizational dualism (mass organization and 
revolutionary political organization). The document emphasizes precisely the question of 
the specific anarchist organization, providing a deeper understanding of this subject, 
from theories and practices developed by organizations Especifists Latin America. It is 
therefore a document that discusses political and ideological principles of anarchism, as 
well as the positions of key strategic Especifists anarchists and, therefore, rests on the 
relevant part of the classical anarchists.

As shown Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt in Black Flame: the revolutionary class 
politics of anarchism and syndicalism - which carry out an analysis of the theoretical and 
historical anarchism taking into account all its trajectory across five continents - 
anarchism, as a ideology-political doctrine that emerges during the nineteenth century, 
had hegemony of mass strategies, especially the revolutionary unionism of intent 
(revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism). Among the fundamental positions of 
the "anarchy of the masses" are: the defense of the organization, the reforms as a 
possible way for the revolution (if duly won the fight) and the use of violence as a 
result of popular movements previously articulated, such positions are distinguished from 
other , common, albeit minority: antiorganizacionismo, a position contrary to the 
struggles for reform and violence used as a trigger for popular mobilization ("propaganda 
by the fact").

Those who formed part of the anarchy of the masses and who defended the organizational 
dualism most were not, however, among them are relevant authors, and significant 
positions, primarily a solid historical experience, based on theoretical and practical 
construction of anarchist organizations. Among the anarchists who defended this notion of 
organizational dualism, which were the major influences in the development of "anarchism 
especifista" the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU), the process of its creation in the 
1950s, are Mikhail Bakunin and Errico Malatesta. The conceptions of both authors are 
interesting to discuss.

In relation to Bakunin, despite his complete works have recently been published in French 
- in the 2000 edition of the IIHS Amsterdam after major attempts to compile a significant 
part of his work, as was the case with the issue of Champ Libre - their written about the 
so-called "Brotherhood," 1864, and "Alliance", 1868, to use the terminology proposed by 
Max Nettlau are scarcely distributed. The strategy masses of Bakunin has been widely 
discussed in the relevant texts as, for example, Bakunin: founder of revolutionary 
syndicalism, of Gaston Leval and several other Ren? Berthier. However, his theory of 
political organization, widely addressed in written documents in order to support - in 
terms of principles, program, strategy and organicity - their political and organizational 
proposals are discussed little or nothing. There seems to be, especially among French 
anarchists, embarrassment these writings, as if they formed part of an authoritarian 
heritage, perhaps inspired Blanquist and Jacobin, who remained at the thought of the 
author and should not be brought to the fore.

It seems that the positions of Bakunin on anarchist political organization, from 1868 
onwards, can be reconciled fully with its strategy of mass, proposed to the International 
Workers Association (IWA), and thus be considered a relevant part of anarchism . The key 
to this understanding, we believe, goes through some elements that are sustained by 
anarchism especifista and presented in this document FARJ.

Bakunin argued that the Alliance of Socialist Democracy (ADS) should have a dual purpose: 
on the one hand, encourage the growth and strengthening of AIT [1], on the other, unite 
around principles, a program and a common strategy, those who had political and 
ideological affinities with anarchism - or, as is generally called at the time, 
revolutionary socialism or collectivism. [2] In short, create / strengthen a political 
organization and a movement of masses:

They [the militants ADS] form the soul inspiring and enlivening this immense body we call 
the International Workers Association [...], then it will take up the issues that are 
impossible to be addressed in public - they will form a necessary bridge between 
propaganda of the revolutionary socialist theories and practice. [3]

For Bakunin, the ADS does not need to have a very large number of militants, "the number 
of these individuals should not therefore be immense", it should be a political 
organization, public and secret, the active minority with collective responsibility among 
members , to gather "members safest, most devoted, the most intelligent and the most 
energetic, in a word, the most intimate," nucleated in several countries, with conditions 
decisively influence the working masses. [4] The organization should have based on a 
common rules and a strategic program, which would establish, respectively, its organic 
functioning, their bases and political-ideological-programmatic strategies, forging a 
common axis for anarchist activity. Could become a member of the organization only "one 
who has frankly accepted the whole program with all its theoretical and practical 
consequences which, along with intelligence, energy, honesty and discretion, have yet 
revolutionary passion". [5] Internally the political organization bakuniniana there is no 
hierarchy among the members and decisions are made from the bottom up, usually by a 
majority (ranging from consensus to a simple majority, depending on the relevance of the 
question), and all members Accepting the decisions taken collectively. This means applying 
federalism - defended as a form of social organization, they must decentralize power and 
create "a revolutionary organization from the bottom up and the circumference to the 
center" - the internal bodies of anarchist organizing. Externally, the ADS should not 
exert dominance relation and / or hierarchy on the AIT, but complement, the reverse would 
be true. Together, these two instances would complement and organizational design 
potencializariam revolutionary workers without the submission of any party.

The Alliance is the necessary complement to the International ... - But the International 
and Alian ? ?a, tending to the same end goal, perse ? Guem while different goals. One's 
mission is to gather the working masses, the mi ? lions of workers, with their differences 
in occupations and countries, across borders of all States, in one immense body and com ? 
pact, the other, the Alliance is mission to give the masses a really revolutionary 
direction ? ary. Programs within and without, without in any way rem ? opposites, are 
different by the degree of their respective development. The Inter ? national if taken 
seriously, con ? tains the germ, but only in germ, the whole pro ? ma Alliance. The 
Alliance program is explained ? cation of the last [program] of the International. [6]

The union of these two organizations - a policy of minorities (frames), other social 
majorities (pasta) - and its horizontal articulation and permanent potentiate the force of 
workers and increase the chances of the process of social transformation purposes 
anarchists. Within the mass movement, the political organization would more effectively to 
anarchist positions in dispute and the construction of a revolutionary project. She 
contraporia, neatly and in favor of their program, the forces acting on distinct meaning 
and seeking: to raise the status of the principle of the different political and 
ideological positions and / or religious minimize their eminently classist, strengthen 
reformist positions (which see the reforms as an end) and the loss of militancy movement, 
establish internal hierarchies and / or relations of domination, directing the force of 
workers for elections and / or change strategies involving the seizure of State, tying the 
movement to Parties, States or other organisms that derive, in this process, the role of 
the oppressed classes and their institutions.

Many of the ideas of Malatesta resemble those previously exposed [7], in particular, a set 
of propositions about organizational "anarchist party" - the name used to refer to the 
specific anarchist organization. "Parties" of this type took shape historically and relied 
on their participation, as were the cases of the Socialist Revolutionary Party Anarchist, 
1891, the Anarchist Party of Ancona in 1913 and the Italian Anarchist Union, 1919-1920.

Malatesta conceptualized the anarchist party as "the set of those who want to contribute 
to make Anarchy, and, consequently, need to set a goal to reach and a ways to go." For 
him, "remain isolated, acting or wanting to act each on their own, without understanding 
with others, without preparing yourself without bundling the weak forces of the isolates, 
means condemning the weakness, wasting your energy on small acts ineffective, rapidly 
losing faith in the goal and fall into complete inaction. "[8] For anarchists could be 
effective in their action, should establish a common strategy, a program and overcome the 
form of affinity groups without contact with the struggles social. The purpose of the 
party is so clear: "we want to act on it [mass] and impel it to the way we believe is the 
best, but as our goal is to liberate and not to dominate, we habituate it to free 
enterprise and the free action . "[9] This path would of course be the social revolution.

The party Malatestan should be based on the revolutionary discipline and join criteria. 
"Without understanding, no coordination of efforts of each to a common action and 
simultaneous victory is not physically possible", but "discipline should not be a 
discipline slavish, blind devotion to chiefs, an obedience to the one who always says not 
to move. " It is a revolutionary discipline, which means "consistency with accepted ideas, 
fidelity to commitments, [...] feel compelled to share the work and the risks with fellow 
fight." [10] The join criteria state that is not enough, as the platform of association, 
self-identifying as an anarchist; still wanted to see what all anarchists together, 
Malatesta says: "do not believe in the soundness of organizations made to force 
concessions and restrictions, where no sympathy among members and actual agreement. " He 
continues: "It is better to be disunited than united evil". [11]

The propaganda and education would be key activities to be undertaken by anarchists. "We 
propaganda to raise the moral level of the masses and lead them to win for themselves 
their emancipation." However, this propaganda need to be organized and planned, 
"propaganda isolated, casual, which is constantly to soothe his conscience or simply to 
vent the passion to argue, serves little or nothing. " For him, "seeds sown the wind" 
would have significant difficulty germinate and establish roots. It would thus be "a 
continuous, patient, coordinated, adapted to different environments and to different 
circumstances." Anarchists should also invest in education, "to educate for liberty", 
"raising consciousness of their own strength and ability of the men who are accustomed to 
obedience and passivity". [12] However, the propaganda and education alone would not be 
sufficient. "Enganar?amos to think that advertising is enough to elevate them [men] to the 
level of intellectual and moral development necessary to achieve our ideal." [13] In 
relation to education, criticizes the "educationalists" who "believed and still believe, 
however, that by reason of spreading education, to defend the free-thinking, positive 
science etc., or founding modern schools and popular universities, can destroy the masses 
religious prejudice, subjection to the moral domain state, the belief in the sacro-saints 
rights of property. " These initiatives would be very limited, "the educationists should 
thus see how powerless are your generous efforts." The consciousness of the masses could 
not be significantly high and the environment would not be transformed 'during the current 
economic and political conditions ". [14]

So Malatesta proposes to carry out the groundwork and organizational, to be carried out 
daily by the anarchists: "normal times", he says, is necessary to "carry out the work and 
extensive patient preparation and popular organization and not fall into the illusion 
Revolution in the short term, feasible only by the initiative of a few, without sufficient 
participation of the masses. In this preparation, as long as it can be held in an adverse 
environment, there is, among other things, propaganda, agitation and organization of the 
masses, which should never be ignored. "[15] The activities of organized anarchists would 
therefore "propaganda of the ideal; organization of popular forces, continuous fighting, 
peaceful or violent, depending on the circumstances, against the government and the 
owners, to gain maximum freedom and well-being for all." [16]

In short, one can point out two fundamental differences between the theory of 
organizational Bakunin and Malatesta and one that will be developed by Lenin. The 
anarchist political organization has internal democracy and decisions are made from the 
bottom up, and not through the "democratic centralism," which provides only for 
consultation bases and decision making from the top down, the dome hierarchical bases. 
Furthermore, the anarchist political organization works in a complementary way to the mass 
movements and has no reporting relationship and / or domination over them, their function 
is to strengthen the role of these movements, since the masses should be responsible for 
the transformation social revolutionary. Not considered, as in Leninism, popular movements 
have only capacity for short-term struggles, the party must equip them for long-term 
capacity and himself starring in the transformation.

DECK THE DEBATE AND ORGANIZATION Anarchist

Although "The Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists" - written by a 
group of Russian exiles in France in 1926 - has not directly influenced the emergence of 
especifismo FAU [17], as its organizational proposal was inspired by basically Bakunin and 
Malatesta, this document and the discussions that followed it constitute a milestone in 
the discussion of anarchist organization.

In our view, the debate on the platform has been relatively truncated and, for a few 
reasons, misunderstood by a significant part of the anarchists. Two reasons can be pointed 
out, especially in relation to contributions placed the writings of Bakunin and Malatesta. 
Regarding the first, the lack of knowledge of their texts on the ADS has prevented many 
anarchists to notice the similarities between the conception of political organization of 
Bakunin and Platform. Regarding the second, the partial disclosure and excessive focus on 
only part of the exchange of correspondence between Makhno and Malatesta on the Platform 
prevented clearer understanding of the positions of Malatesta. Let us see some elements of 
this important discussion.

Shared with researchers such as Schmidt, van der Walt and Frank Mintz [18], the platform, 
much more than introduce a new organizational debate among anarchists, incorporates key 
elements of the strategy bakuniniana. Schmidt and van der Walt claim that "Makhno and 
Arshinov explicitly linked inheritance Bakuninist Platform". Citing C. M. Darch on 
makhnovitchina, they state: "The aspirations of Bakunin 'on organizations as well as their 
activity in the First International gives us every right' to see it as an" active advocate 
"of the idea that anarchism 'should join forces in an organization in constant agitation, 
as required by the strategy and the reality of the class struggle. '"[19]

Key elements found in the Platform are certainly tributaries of Bakunin. Among them the 
critical social and statist capitalist domination and the centrality of class struggle, 
the need for an intervention of anarchists simultaneously on two levels, the anarchist 
organization and mass movements, the need for a violent social revolution and the outline 
of libertarian socialism as proposed future society. Even in a more detailed analysis, we 
find differences, there are similarities in the big lines. The functioning federalist 
anarchist organization without hierarchy or domination between members, and its 
complementary relationship with the mass movements are also striking elements that enable 
us to relate Bakunin and Platform. This is not the time to do so, but it would be possible 
without major difficulties, establish all these parallels in more detail. Thus, as we 
understand it and according to what we mentioned earlier, the platform, away from 
innovating, simply proposes a return to organizational strategy bakuniniana of the 
post-1867. For this reason, we understand that the adjective "plataformista", yet it has 
the merit of differentiating among anarchists, clear organizational strategy, could be 
smoothly replaced by others, which made reference to other authors, experiences, some of 
which presented in the first great wave of anarchism in the world.

By analyzing the controversy waged around the platform [20], which stresses the debate 
Makhno-Malatesta, Malatesta-platform approach is not evident, unlike what happens with 
Bakunin. As put by taking into account the more than six decades of anarchism of 
Malatesta, there are times when their positions are closer to the platform, and others, of 
Synthesis. Texts such as those published in 1897 in L'Agitazione in particular "The 
Organization I" and "II The Organization" [21], and compilations as Anarchist Ideology 
[22], allow us to identify positions quite similar to the Platform. However, texts as 
"Communism and Individualism" [23], "Individualism and Communism in Anarchism" [24], as 
well as interventions Malatesta Anarchist Congress in Amsterdam in 1907 [25], make it 
possible to find the nearest locations Synthesis.

In the texts closer Synthesis, Malatesta criticizes the fact that "anarchists of various 
trends, despite wanting basically the same thing, they are in their daily lives and in 
their propaganda, a fierce opposition to each other." Advocates from that criticism, the 
need to "come to some understanding" and "when the agreement is not possible, [...] how to 
tolerate each other. Work together when there is consensus and where there is no allow 
others to act as they think is best without interference. "[26] This should be done 
because the" communist and individualist anarchism is only one thing, or almost the same 
thing "; "There are no fundamental differences". [27] At the Congress of Amsterdam, trying 
to broker the positions of anarchists and syndicalists with other influences 
individualist, Malatesta said: "cooperation is essential, now more than ever. Undoubtedly, 
the combination should allow members to complete individual autonomy and federation must 
respect the same autonomy to their groups. "On the one hand he understands to be" wrong to 
present the 'organisationalists', the Federalists as authoritarian "other," is also wrong 
to imagine that the 'antiorganizacionistas' individualists, have deliberately condemned to 
isolation. "The dispute between individualistic and organisationalists would be a" simple 
contest of words ". [28] These and other positions allowed authors like Schmidt and van 
der Walt affirm that Malatesta "flirted with synthesist position on some occasions". [29] 
The authors also acknowledge that, despite this, there are times that defends very 
different positions.

Regarding the debate between Makhno and Malatesta on the Platform [30], the positions of 
Malatesta also change throughout the debate, truncated by some issues of context and 
mutual understanding. Some issues related to the context should be scored here: the fact 
Malatesta being under house arrest (domicile coatto) and quite away from discussions 
anarchists, the problem of translating the platform that held by Volin, one of his biggest 
opponents, dealt with " adjust "to their point of view a number of terms [31], a certain 
difference in the evaluation of anarchism in the period, with the Russians much more 
critical Malatesta, so the position of the Russians claimed to be necessary a more 
significant change in organizational patterns anarchist. This critical position is also 
related to the historical experience of anarchism Russian / Ukrainian in their progress 
and failures contributed to reinforce the importance of specific anarchist organization 
[32] and its main axes. We consider it important to discuss some issues in this debate.

Firstly, we should point out that, for us, no doubt, both Malatesta, as Makhno and other 
Russians who wrote the Platform are anarchists taking into account historical and global 
approach of anarchism, both positions can be more or less identified historically in 
several episodes and authors. Malatesta, especially in his first letter, exaggerates and 
makes mistakes in his critique of the Platform. There is no reason for your assertion that 
the platform is "typically authoritarian" and what constitutes a document of anarchism, 
but "a government, a church," a statement that Makhno refused to comment, silly that was 
his size. Malatesta also implies that the Platform admits that "organize itself means 
submitting to the chiefs, joining a body authoritarian and centralizing all that stifles 
free enterprise". [33] For us, there is no doubt that the Platform is anarchist and not 
relates to governments, churches or any kind of authoritarianism; falls, therefore, 
without any difficulty, within the historical tradition of anarchism.

Secondly, there are undeniable similarities between the positions of Makhno and Malatesta, 
who agree, for example, on the need for anarchists articulate into a revolutionary 
political organization ("general union" for the first, and "anarchist party" to second). 
Both also agree, except the problematic terminology involved [34], that anarchists should 
design their organization in order to promote their ideas and practices among the masses 
(and for that use terms like "influence", "guidance", "cue" or same "direction") and thus 
guided the direction of workers' struggles and movements for social revolution and 
socialism / communism libertarian. Malatesta said: "I believe that we, anarchists, 
convinced of the validity of our program, we must strive to acquire a huge influence and 
attract the movement for the realization of our ideals. But such influence must be 
obtained by more and better than others, and will be useful only if we get in that way. 
"[35] Makhno similarly argues that" anarchism is a revolutionary social doctrine that must 
inspire the oppressed and exploited "[36] in the struggle for social change, or, as 
proposed by the Platform, must penetrate the" revolutionary anarchist positions "in the 
movements of" workers and peasants "; establish itself as a" pioneer "and" theoretical 
guide "popular organizations of town and country. [37] The "Supplement Platform" states 
the tools to influence the masses must be "propaganda, the strength of opinion, the 
argument by the word and writings". [38]

Thirdly, we must put two of the critical Malatesta Platform are completely misplaced: the 
Russians were proposing a hierarchical organization and the Executive Committee (despite 
its name, indicating that it performs and not act) should control decisions the 
organization. There was nothing that Makhno was surprised with the first text Malatesta, 
saying: "My impression is that you do not understand the design of the 'Platform'" [39], 
which, admittedly, in some measure true. The platform is clear with regard to the 
functions of the Executive Committee: "the implementation of decisions taken by the Union 
with which they are entrusted; theoretical orientation and organizational activity of 
isolated organizations consistent with the theoretical positions and the general tactical 
line of the Union; monitoring the general state of the movement and the maintenance of 
labor relations and organizational among all organizations of the Union, and with other 
organizations. "[40] It is, in our view, a kind of secretariat forwards the decisions 
taken the basis of the organization. The organizational form is proposed federalist, built 
the base, from the bottom up, combining "the independence and initiative of individuals 
and organization which serve the common cause." However, for the "shared decisions" - ie, 
socialized among the set of militancy and established collectively - can be carried out, 
federalism requires that the militants "assume fixed organization duties and requires the 
implementation of shared decision making." There is nothing in the Platform and the 
documents related to it that allows to relate it to a model of hierarchical organization 
nor conceive the Executive Committee as a kind of central committee would decide the 
direction of the General Union.

Fourth, we identify issues that, actually, taking into account the whole debate are 
disagreements between the real militants.

The question, no doubt, occupied most of the debate was the collective responsibility. For 
Malatesta, at first, the idea that there would be a mutual responsibility between militant 
organization ("throughout the Union will be responsible for the revolutionary and 
political activity of each member, and each member will be responsible for the 
revolutionary and political activity of the union" [41 ]) would be an "absolute denial of 
all individual independence and freedom of initiative and action". [42] Responsibility for 
Malatesta, means, in this text, autonomy and independence of individuals and groups: 
"Total autonomy, full independence and therefore full responsibility of individuals and 
groups ". [43] Makhno in his first answer, says Malatesta always accepted the 
responsibility of individual anarchist:" yourself, dear Malatesta, admits the individual 
responsibility of the revolutionary anarchist "[44 ]; their rejection of collective 
responsibility would be to Makhno, based on "lack of foundation" and "dangerous for the 
social revolution". [45] Makhno also relates to the question of collective responsibility 
anarchist ideological influence of the masses: "the collective spirit and collective 
responsibility of its militants to allow modern anarchism eliminate their circles the 
idea, historically false, that anarchism can not be a guide - either ideologically or in 
practice - for the working masses in a revolutionary period, and therefore could not 
require full responsibility ". [46]

Arshinov, strengthening the positions of criticizing Makhno and Malatesta, reinforces the 
sense of collective responsibility as follows: "the practical activity of a member of the 
organization is naturally in harmony with the general activity, and conversely the 
activity of the entire organization could not be in contradiction with the consciousness 
and the activity of any of its members, if he accepted the program that founded the 
organization ". [47] An anarchist organization could only be based on this principle, 
since each member" not could accomplish its political and revolutionary but the political 
spirit of the Union "and" their activity could not be contrary to what was written by all 
its members ". [48] In response following Malatesta relativizes and, although claiming to 
be possible to relate collective responsibility the military who kill rebel soldiers, 
armies decimating populations invasions and governments - another comparison, in our view, 
completely inappropriate - takes: "I support the view that anyone who associates and 
cooperates with others for a common cause shall: coordinate their actions with their 
teammates and do nothing to prejudice the action of others, and therefore, the common 
cause; respect agreements made - except when they want to leave the association for 
differences of opinion, changed circumstances or conflict over methods chosen make 
cooperation impossible or inappropriate. Thus, I argue that those who do not feel or 
perform such duties must be expelled from the association. "[49] He complements his 
relativization saying that" perhaps talking about collective responsibility, you refer 
precisely to the agreement and solidarity that must exist among members of an association 
"and emphasizing that if that were the case," then we would reach agreement ". [50] 
Makhno, the following answer, reaffirms that" large scale anarchist action can only 
achieve results if it has a basic organizational well-defined, inspired and guided by the 
principle of collective responsibility of the militants ". [51] Malatesta even states, 
some time later, that responsibility is essentially individual," moral responsibility (as 
in our case can only treat themselves of moral responsibility) is individual by its very 
nature ". [52] And again:" If men who stood in line to do something, some of these, 
missing its commitment, the initiative does fail, everyone will say that he is the culprit 
and therefore responsible, not those who have to end all they had to do. "[53]

In short, we can say that there are some other points of agreement and divergence of this 
controversy between Malatesta and writers Delo Truda. Malatesta not relinquish that 
responsibility is essentially individual, even though it understands the need for 
coordinated action, agreement and respect these actions and these agreements by members of 
the anarchist organization. To Makhno and Arshinov, the responsibility is individual and 
collective, necessarily linked militant organization, making one responsible for the 
other, and relates to the guide function of anarchism in the revolutionary process. There, 
as the note itself Malatesta [54], a mismatch between the notion of collective 
responsibility and position of complete independence and autonomy that he defends.

Another difference relates to the greater or lesser need for unification of the 
anarchists: while the Russians argue that the anarchist organization should meet most, if 
not all the organized sector and revolutionary anarchists - emphasizing the "great need 
for an organization that [ meet] the majority of participants in the anarchist movement 
"[55] -, Malatesta says:" abandon, so the idea of ??bringing together all in one 
organization. " While the Russians fragmentation was a central issue seems not to be the 
same Malatesta.

There are still very important differences in relation to the organic nature - ie the 
organic functioning of this group of anarchists - which involves the level of commitment 
and autonomy of states and groups that belong to the organization in relation to 
collective decisions and the method used for decision making. To Makhno and the Russians 
would be essential to work with a clear strategy and a program that more than anarchist 
principles, establish a common path and unit for the whole organization, "this role [in 
the anarchist revolution] can only be played successfully when our party is ideologically 
homogeneous, unified from the point of view of tactics ". [56] Makhno also states:" Our 
party must [...] define its political unity and its organizational character "[57]; 
position similar to that Arshinov called "homogeneous theoretical and practical program" 
[58], which, collectively decided, would be compulsory for all its members. For Malatesta, 
all members and groups of the organization should have the most complete autonomy: 
decisions would not be mandatory, but only recommendations that might or might not be 
followed: "full autonomy, full independence and therefore full responsibility of 
individuals and groups" , and the decisions of this congress organization "are not 
mandatory rules but suggestions, recommendations, proposals." Malatesta arrives even 
elevate that position - in our view related to organizational strategy - the condition of 
principle of anarchism, when emphasizing the "principles of autonomy and free initiative 
that anarchists profess" [59], which does not seem true. Arshinov asks: "What would be the 
value of a congress that would only give 'opinions' and not be in charge of carrying them 
in life? None. In a vast movement, a moral responsibility only and non-organizational 
loses all its value. "[60] addresses, indirectly, the issue of collective responsibility 
previously discussed.

When it comes to matters related to the program of anarchist organization, Malatesta 
relates more to the anarchist principles than with a well-defined strategy. He even says, 
distinctly texts 1897, the anarchist party is "the set of those on the same side, which 
have the same general aspirations, which in one way or another fight for the same purpose 
against common adversaries and enemies" , ie, the party would be formed almost 
automatically, simply because there are anarchists, "supporters" of anarchism. Makhno and 
the Russians argue that, for the conformation of a coherent strategy and a program of 
anarchist organization, in case of divergence in the positions we adopt majority voting, 
and the entire organization completely linked to the deliberations and thank you fulfill 
them - decide to stay in the organization, as there is full right division. Malatesta 
critical decisions by majority and suggests that the differences are adjusted voluntarily, 
through a certain kind of consensus, dissent, which depend on the good sense of militancy 
in contributing to the progress of organizational activities: "adaptation [that] must be 
reciprocal and voluntary stem from an awareness of the need not paralyze social life by 
sheer stubbornness. " It is for him to work with a broad program around anarchist 
principles, enabling each group member and the organization put in place any actions they 
deemed to be contributing to this program.

As the complete works of Malatesta are not yet published, even in Italian, will have to 
wait until this is done to deepen the discussions on the positions of Malatesta: which 
were majority, which were minority, if these positions can be related to specific periods 
of his life etc.. What can be concluded, for now, is that, as stated, there are various 
positions that allow different interpretations, specifically with regard to the debate 
Platform Synthesis, one may, without much difficulty, to approximate their positions in 
one or another field .

With regard to anarchism especifista, we can say that the positions of Malatesta who most 
influenced the FAU were those that the approach of Bakunin and Platform. These positions 
Malatesta, added to Bakunin's own design and produced by FAU, had and still have 
significant influence on anarchism especifista of Brazil and therefore in FARJ. However, 
even seemingly not having direct influence on the formation of FAU, the platform was 
translated into Portuguese from the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Gaucha Anarchist 
Federation (FAG). Both the platform as some texts that relate to the debate were published 
in 2001 by the former Libertarian Struggle Collective at the time part of our chain. [61] 
We can say that between the Especifists Brazilians in general, and in particular FARJ, 
Platform had some influence, though it can not be identified as predominant.

A PROPOSAL OF ANARCHISM "especifista"

Social Anarchism and Organization is a document that helps to understand what is being 
called anarchism "especifista" - terminology generally adopted by organizations in Latin 
America that have a common understanding of anarchism and position themselves as a chain 
endowed with coherence strategic. However, for a proper understanding of this current, it 
is necessary to make contact with documents of other organizations that were instrumental 
in its construction, especially FAU and FAG, founded in 1995.

In a text written jointly between FARJ Organization and Anarchist Libertarian Socialism 
(OASL) of S?o Paulo, called "Elements for a History Reenactment of Our Current" [62], 
reports the organizational process in Brazil after the military dictatorship, since the 
early 1980 and experiences developed in the 1990s, some of which pointed to a return to 
the field of anarchists organized popular movements and social struggles. Between 1994 and 
1995, the contacts maintained with the FAU, FAG and the foundation construction process 
called Brazilian Anarchist were fundamental to the development of our chain in the 
country, with the founding of a national organization - Libertarian Socialist Organisation 
(OSL) - that worked between 1997 and 2000, giving way later to clusters of trend of 
Popular Resistance, which aggregated anarchists and other independent sectors and 
combative movements in different regions of the country. In 2002, the Forum of Organized 
Anarchism (FAO) anarchists sought to reorganize in order to build a new national 
organization, this time more calmly, in a process that ebbs and flows between, managed to 
stabilize in 2009 and forge the foundations for the foundation of the Brazilian Anarchist 
Coordination (CAB), a congress in 2012, with delegated organizations in seven states of 
the country, which became members of the coordination, and other states in the process of 
articulation. This is certainly a huge step consolidation especifista anarchism in Brazil, 
in this period, different works were developed. Today, we can say that the CAB has labor 
militancy and social integration in various movements: labor, community, and rural 
student, integrating significant part of the social struggles of the twenty-first century 
in the country, has, moreover, the work of local and national advertising which develops 
permanently, including the magazine Libertarian Socialism and the newspaper of the same 
name. Even modestly, Especifismo has enabled the return of anarchists organized popular 
movements and social struggles in Brazil.

To find an agreement between the organizations that make up the CAB about what anarchism 
is especifista, believe to be the "Declaration of Principles CAB" the best source. [63] 
This document provides 18 points of agreement and a general strategy, shared by and 
organizations summarized below. The CAB argues: the conception of anarchism as an ideology 
/ doctrine that combines thought and action that anarchism should be in permanent contact 
with the class struggle and directly involved with the popular movements and social 
struggles, trying to resume his role, a supported the notion of class domination, which 
includes wage labor and exploited by other individuals (workers of the city and 
countryside, peasants, precarious and marginalized); social revolution and libertarian 
socialism as final objectives, the need of the organization on two levels, political 
(anarchist organization) and social (social movements, trade unions etc..); 
complementarity between organization and anarchist movements and thus differentiates the 
organization of active minority (working shoulder to shoulder and stimulates the popular 
movement) the vanguard (which works ahead of the movement and has respect of hierarchy and 
domination in relation to it), the priority in the work of organizational base (create and 
participate in popular movements), the ethical foundation of anarchist organization, 
conducting propaganda fertile soil, the using the logic of "concentric circles", which 
regulates the rights and duties of the militants; clear criteria for admission; 
self-management and federalism for the internal workings attempt at consensus, and it is 
not possible, the adoption of the position of the majority, the work with theoretical 
unity, ideological and programmatic (strategic / action) - a line is built collectively 
and all contribute with their work in particular, the emphasis on militant commitment and 
collective responsibility, the work of militants in the construction and participation in 
movements Popular and internal activities. The general strategy of anarchism especifista 
based on the notion that the agents of social change movements are popular, so the 
anarchists, through their organizations, functioning as starter / motor these struggles 
must empower your organization, buildup of strength , application of advanced forms of 
struggle, aiming to achieve the revolution and libertarian socialism.

As noted, this notion of anarchism involves, in addition to a specific understanding of 
anarchism itself, choices quite clear regarding the questions being debated by anarchists 
historically. In discussions between organisationalists versus antiorganizacionistas, the 
Especifists arise in the field organisationalist defending the organizational dualism, ie 
the organization at two levels. In the debates between those who advocate and those who 
oppose the struggle for reforms, Especifists place alongside those who maintain that the 
reforms, depending on how they are earned, may lead to a revolutionary path. In debates on 
the role of violence in general, the Especifists agree that violence rarely works as a 
trigger (as in the case of advertising the fact) can, by itself, generate popular 
movements and revolutionary processes. Discussions amongst the best way to articulate 
anarchist organization, the Especifists position themselves in favor of programmatic 
models, with the highest level of commitment and organicity, and not as flexible as are 
generally organizations sintetistas.

Some fundamental differences can be pointed out in relation to other anarchist 
organizations. The primary focus in what we call "social work" (creation of militancy and 
popular movements) differentiates Especifists other anarchists, who prioritize the work of 
propaganda and education, these jobs generally for Especifists are valued and should be 
conducted within a broader context of the manifestations of the class struggle. 
Cooperativeness well defined, with clear levels involving rights and duties, 
differentiates Especifists organizations generally little organic, do not know who / how 
many militants, which of them are able to stand in that instance and that do not have 
built-in functions (secretariat etc.) and external (social work) well defined. These 
"levels of engagement" are defended by Especifists a way to reconcile, in accordance with 
the positions of the militants themselves, rights and duties facing the organization; it 
is an attempt to reconcile the commitment to participate. The Especifists excel in 
commitment and responsibility to its members, which differentiates them from taking on 
tasks that allow organizations and not perform, starring irresponsible acts among other 
practices unfortunately common "libertarian universe." Regarding the method of decision 
making the Especifists defend the attempt at consensus, and it is not possible, the 
adoption of the position of the majority. The arguments questioning the consensus and 
showing how it can become something authoritative are made explicit in the text FARJ. 
Another difference that can be noted is that, in the case of decisions by voting - a fact 
that applies to all decisions of anarchist organization, whether congressional, federal, 
etc. of own nuclei. - The consolidated position is the position of the organization and is 
necessarily followed by the whole of militants; Especifists differentiates it from other 
organizations whose collective decisions are only recommended and may or may not be 
followed by the collective. This process aims to establish basic guidelines outlined by 
militancy, such as theoretical unity, understanding of anarchism, action strategies, etc.. 
Obviously this is a process in permanent construction, but it is relevant to point out 
that for the Especifists, you can not work with people who have completely different ideas 
(and sometimes contradictory) of anarchism, the way to understand the society and of the 
general actions to follow.

The term anarchism "especifista" or simply "especifismo" show only one name to cover this 
set of positions. The term was coined by FAU, largely due to mean those who defended the 
need for a specific anarchist organization. The historical practice, as well as the 
theoretical and ideological discussions, have forged its contents which, as we understand 
it today represents the set of positions placed above. All this shows that Especifismo is 
not something restricted to the Latin American reality. As put by FAU own elements 
connected to the so-called "third world" undoubtedly contributed to a clear position about 
the popular movements and anti-imperialist struggles, for example. However, as we will 
demonstrate, this conception organizational anarchism is not tied to Latin America, is 
structural, cyclical, geographically or historically. It is a conception of anarchism, we 
understand, can be very useful in other locations.

ELEMENTS IN PROCESS UPDATE

First of all, it is very important to take into account that Social Anarchism and 
Organization is not a type of document order, but falls within a broader context. In the 
process of the 2008 Congress, when it was produced and discussed the FARJ did not, yet, 
part of the Forum of Organized Anarchism (FAO), which would become, in 2012, the Brazilian 
Anarchist Coordination (CAB). It is worth noting, too, that this document was not the 
product of an intellectual detached from political practice. This program was formalized 
FARJ from experience modest but concrete, militant movements in homeless, landless, 
community, involving the entire organization in their discussion. During the process of 
disclosure, several organizations Especifists constituted in different regions of the 
country, some stimulated directly by FAO and others that emerged from local processes 
themselves, influenced by especifismo. Most of these organizations is, or is in the 
process of integrating the current CAB.

It is relevant to point out at this point some developments related to this document that 
have been conducted within the FARJ and also during the process of interaction with other 
organizations that currently comprise the CAB. If at first, this program FARJ was 
important for the debate on pro-anarchist organizations in some states of Brazil, the 
experiences of other locations also directly influenced the political culture and the 
internal debates of FARJ in a collective learning that today is quite valued. Devote 
ourselves to briefly discuss three such aspects: the design of social classes, the notion 
of popular power and process nucleamento specific organization.

Before that, however, it is important to point out that the very notion of anarchism and 
its chains has been discussed not only in FARJ, but also in other organizations of the 
CAB. A debate has deepened these issues took place during 2012, with a discussion of the 
concepts of theory and ideology, which will be formalized in a text the next issue of 
Libertarian Socialism. Through this discussion, became clearer the role of anarchism as an 
ideology and the difference between this notion of ideology / doctrine and the question of 
theory, which is related to science. If the first is what should be the first one which is 
necessarily or possibly. At the same time, the very term "social anarchism" has been used 
less frequently, by reason of the essentially social character of anarchism (involving a 
class perspective in popular movements and social struggles), however, emphasize need to 
highlight this issue, specifically contexts in which there is a strong presence of 
imaginary "individualistic" / anti-organisationalist about anarchism or the ideological 
debate goes through lines more rudimentary, albeit necessary.

By resorting to the theory of center-periphery relations Rudolf de Jong, one can say that 
the definition of social classes used by FARJ not allowed adequately distinguish 
domination in general class domination. If, through it, it was possible to identify a 
diverse set of potential revolutionary subjects - employees of the city and the 
countryside, peasants, precarious, marginalized and poor in general - were included, too, 
gender, race and nationality that go beyond the notion of social classes, even if these 
issues are related to them. In short, relate domination and social classes requires 
distinguishing the class domination of other types of domination.

These elements have been discussed and should be formalized in a more precise position in 
Congress 10 years FARJ, to be held in 2013. Identifies itself in different social 
theories, such as those produced by Alfredo Errandonea in his book Sociology of Domination 
[64], that social classes can not be defined only from the notion of exploitation need to 
be based on the notion of domination which includes, in addition to holding other types of 
domination. Use this notion to define social classes and distinguish domination in general 
and class domination requires a theoretical model to design two large sets of classes, the 
ruling classes and the dominated classes, or classes oppressing and oppressed classes. If 
the ownership of the means of production, and the consequent exploitation certainly is a 
criterion for the elaboration of this notion of social classes, other economic criteria, 
such as the ownership of capital, wealth, are also critical, as well as political 
criteria, which involve political-bureaucratic domination and physical coercion and thus 
ownership of the means of administration, control and coercion; cultural elements as the 
sale and ownership of the means of production of knowledge and information also have 
relevance. This position requires some adjustments in relation to this text that are 
related to the complexity of modern capitalist society, the term chosen to designate this 
set of dominated / oppressed class relations, "exploited classes" will probably have to be 
adjusted to something more encompassing scope, which take account of the potential 
revolutionary subjects mentioned above. Likewise, the term "dominant class" used to refer 
to the wide range of dominant / oppressive also need to be adjusted to cover a wider range 
of grades, in particular rich Bourgeois (owners), managers large companies, but also 
managers of the state as governors, top military and judges, as well as a significant part 
of the owners of the major media (media), religious leaders and those who monopolize 
knowledge strategically. Other types of domination, such as gender domination, domination 
ethnic / racial and national domination (imperialism) relate to the domination of class, 
but it can be summarized, at the same time, the end of social classes does not imply 
automatically solve these other types of domination.

When Social Anarchism and Organization was written, the discussion of popular power was 
also not significantly developed and had FARJ in doubt regarding the use of the term. Over 
time, discussions were held and it was assumed that the transformation strategy proposed 
by FARJ constituted a broad process of building popular power, after meaningful 
discussions on what other organizations the then FAO were important, there was a 
significant attempt to take positions on our conception of power, differentiation between 
power and domination, and the adoption of the notion of popular power as a process of 
transformation capacity for achievement and social force in search of permanent increase 
of this strength class basis in order to consolidate it on the enemy forces of the ruling 
class, in short, it was to conceptualize this process as the construction of popular 
power. Therefore, the chapters discuss organizational and social power, and social 
movements and grassroots organization are directly linked with the notion of building 
popular power that today FARJ share with other organizations. Ultimately, we can say that 
the concept of "popular organization" used in the document has been replaced by "people 
power", enriched by ideas formulated about power. The positions nationally formulated in 
the text "Designing Our People Power" [65] CAB include the current conceptions of FARJ.

Another relevant aspect which now begins to have a more meaningful discussion within the 
FARJ is the question of how to articulate and organize the specific anarchist 
organization. Much of what has been formalized in the document FARJ involves practices 
that were carried out by the organization since its founding. When theorized on the 
concentric circles, the fronts, the fundamental activities, much of it was already 
practiced. There is theorized nucleamento on the issue of the organization and its 
operation federalist, since FARJ had no cores. The practice of consolidating and 
articulate, through self-management and federalism, a set of cores - a practice associated 
with various other organizations CAB - have been the subject of debate, and in a not too 
distant future, will also be formalized in order to deepen the elements of Anarchism and 
Social Organization.

Finally, we point out other aspects that have been on the agenda: the historical reading 
of anarchism in Brazil, it has been emphasized relevant experiences between the years 1940 
and 1960, little known by the militants at the time, along with class discussion, there is 
a whole issue method of analysis, social theory and theory of history which also has 
guided the discussions and conjectural and structural analyzes, the concept of "social 
movement" has been, in some cases, replaced by terms such as "popular movements" or 
"movements mass ", as covering also the unions - although Social Anarchism and 
Organization have sought to give meaning to this term, this may not have been fully 
understood by readers, has also deepened discussions about political culture related 
largely to construction practices / cultural policy pursued in other regions of the 
country, the very notions of "especifismo" have been deepened and formalized best, of 
course, the very work of FARJ have changed since 2008, as well as organizing their fronts. 
If the program FARJ not represent all of the discussions and the accumulations especifismo 
he undoubtedly has its degree of influence on the theoretical and practical contributions 
of this current.

Anarchism AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION IN FRENCH

We therefore welcome once again the issue of this document relevant FARJ in French and 
hopefully he can contribute to the discussions. If, on the one hand, France was to 
militants Latinos, always a source of material and inspiration, as it has a vast 
production (involving authors, activists, historical facts etc..) That has always 
contributed to the Brazilian anarchism, perhaps this it's time to can reciprocate with 
some of our understanding of anarchism and organizational our proposal.

We would like to emphasize the organizational foundations of especifismo Hispanic forged 
primarily in the work of Bakunin and Malatesta, and can not be therefore summarized the 
"Platformism". Knowing most of the theoretical controversies and practices of anarchism 
the French-speaking world, we invite readers to perform a mind reading open document FARJ 
and seek an understanding of their fundamental arguments without prejudice. The 
especifismo formulated here is not a mechanical reflection Platformism Europe; has 
similarities, of course, but we must reiterate that, for us, a platform refers to the 
organizational strategies of Bakunin and has relationships with some of the propositions 
of Malatesta. Our design has no incorporation Marxist, Bolshevik or anything of that sort. 
As noted, it seems relevant to the world speaks French better understand Bakunin's 
writings dealing with anarchist political organization, especially subsequent to 1867 that 
are present in the complete works, have had limited circulation. We should also consider 
that you can not relate mechanically Platform and what constituted historically 
Platformism Europe - particularly with regard to the process of conflict and division that 
involved the French Anarchist Federation - and what constitutes contemporary European 
Platformism . How to put the assertion Malatesta, that the platform does not have 
historical roots in anarchism, seems a complete misnomer, so it should be considered, 
along with all the material political-organizational produced by these and many other 
anarchists, that rate is so quiet and from practical results, effectiveness and 
appropriateness of either organizational model. We can say that, in our view, the 
synthesis can not be considered a single path for the anarchist organization and shows up 
historically quite problematic. We recommend that you evaluate the arguments presented in 
Social Anarchism and Organization within these frameworks. We believe, in this sense, as 
Schmidt and van der Walt that:

The position Bakuninist, which advocates a political organization with sharing analysis, 
strategy and tactics, coordinated action and organizational discipline seems to be the 
most effective approach. Through the coordinated activity, promoting common positions on 
the present and future tasks and grouping of militants around a program, it provides the 
basis for a coherent and consistent work, targeting limited resources to key issues and 
advocacy and expanding the influence of anarchism. This approach, which refers to the 
Alliance, which was expressed by the Platform, is probably the only means by which 
anarchism can face the strong influence of major political parties, as well as the 
nationalist ideas, and other statists and ensure that " new faith "of anarchists provides 
a guide to the struggle of the popular classes. [66]

We invite all interested countries of French-speaking read this document and discuss their 
possible applications in other contexts.

As we say in these parts of Latin America: Ethics, commitment, freedom! Arriba them that 
Luchan! Fighting, create, popular!

* Age militant Anarchist Federation of Rio de Janeiro (FARJ) when Social Anarchism and 
Organization was produced; currently is militant Anarchist Organisation Libertarian 
Socialism (OASL) of S?o Paulo.

It ** militant Anarchist Federation of Rio de Janeiro (FARJ) and participated with the 
whole of this document with militancy.

Notes 1. The greatest achievement of concrete historical militants who were involved with 
the ADS was the creation of AIT in countries where it did not exist and the establishment 
of new sections of the International where she was already in operation; such were the 
cases of Spain, Italy, Portugal and Switzerland, as well as cases in Latin America, 
stimulated by correspondence. Correa, Felipe. Emergence and Brief Historical Perspective 
of Anarchism (1868-2012). Sao Paulo: Spark Virtual Library, 2013.

2. BAKUNIN, Mikhail. "Letter to Morago of May 21, 1872." In: CD-ROM Bakounine: Completes 
ouvres (CD-BOC), IIHS Amsterdam, 2000.

3. BAKUNIN, Mikhail. "Letter to Cerretti of 13-27 March 1872." In: CD-BOC

4. BAKUNIN, Mikhail. "Secrets de l'Alliance Status: Programme et objet de l'organization 
des fr?res r?volutionnaire internationaux". In: CD-BOC. BAKUNIN, Mikhail. "Letter to 
Cerretti of 13-27 March 1872." In: CD-BOC. BAKUNIN, Mikhail. "Letter to Morago of May 21, 
1872." In: CD-BOC.

5. BAKUNIN, Mikhail. "Secrets de l'Alliance Status: organization de l'Alliance des fr?res 
internationaux". In: CD-BOC. Idem. "Secrets de l'Alliance Status: Programme et objet de 
l'organization des fr?res r?volutionnaire internationaux". In: CD-BOC.

6. Idem. "Letter to Morago of May 21, 1872." In: CD-BOC.

7. It should be noted that during his long career anarchist, which spans over 60 years, 
Malatesta argued different positions about the anarchist political organization. In some 
cases they are close to the concepts of Bakunin and, as we argue, the Platform, in other 
they have more to do with Synthesis. The especifismo was forged on the first.

8. MALATESTA, Errico. "The Organization II." In: Revolutionary Writings. Sao Paulo: 
Imaginary, 2000, p. 55-56.

9. Idem. "Anyway," What is the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat. " In: Anarchists, 
Socialists and Communists. Sao Paulo: Cortez, 1989, p. 87.

10. Idem. "Action and Discipline". In: Anarchists, Socialists and Communists, p. 24.

11. Idem. "The Organization II." In: Revolutionary Writings, p. 62.

12. Idem. "La Anarchist Propaganda". In: RICHARDS, Vernon (ed.). Malatesta: pensamiento y 
acci?n revolutionaries. Buenos Aires: Tupac, 2007, p. 170-172.

13. Idem. "Anarchist Program". In: Revolutionary Writings, p. 14.

14. Idem. Anarchist ideology. Montevideo: Clippings, 2008, p. 193.

15. Ibid, p. 31.

16. Idem. "Anarchist Program". In: Revolutionary Writings, p. 26.

17. Juan Carlos Mechoso, founder and militant s Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU) said 
in an interview that the platform does not "circulated in advance of the FAU." Mechoso, 
Juan C. "La Estrategia del Especifismo". In: Anarkismo.net, 2010. 
[Http://www.anarkismo.net/article/18368] However, states have moved "material Balkansky 
and Bulgarian Federation". The Federation of Anarchist Communists Bulgarians (FAKB), as 
demonstrated by Michael Schmidt, had direct influences Platform. SCHMIDT, Michael. 
Anarchism Bulgarian Weapons. Sao Paulo: Spark, 2009.

18. SCHMIDT, Michael; VAN DER WALT, Lucien. Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics 
of anarchism and syndicalism. Oakland: AK Press, 2009.MINTZ, Frank. Context of her 
platform. In: Anarkismo.net, 2007. [Http://www.anarkismo.net/article/5953]

19. SCHMIDT Michael; VAN DER WALT, Lucien. Black Flame, p. 256.

20. Much of the debate texts are in Nestor Makhno Archive [http://www.nestormakhno.info]. 
Among the anarchists who contributed to this broad debate are: Malatesta, Makhno and the 
authors of the Platform - Piotr Arshinov, Ida Mett, Jean Walecki, Benjamin Goldberg 
(Ranko) -, and G. P. Maximoff, Volin, Senya Fleshin, Camilo Herneri, Luigi Fabbri, 
S?bastien Faure, Maria Isidin and others.

21. MALATESTA, Errico. "The organization I". In: Revolutionary Writings. Idem. "The 
Organization II." In: Revolutionary Writings.

22 Ibid. Anarchist ideology.

23 Ibid. "Communism and Individualism." In: The Anarchist Revolution: 1924-1931 polemical 
articles. London: Freedom Press, 1995.

24 Ibid. "Individualism in Anarchism and Communism." In: The Anarchist Revolution.

25 Antonioli, Maurizio (ed.). The International Congress Anarchist: Amsterdam (1907). 
Edmonton: Black Cat, 2009.

26 Ibid, pp. 14 18.

27 Ibid. "Individualism in Anarchism and Communism." In: The Anarchist Revolution, p. 19 21.

28 Ibid. "Intervention, 6th Session". In: Antonioli, Maurizio (ed.). The Anarchist 
International Congress, p. 96.

29 Michael SCHMIDT; VAN DER WALT, Lucien. Black Flame, p. 250.

30. The whole of this correspondence is: MALATESTA, Errico. "A Project of Anarchist 
Organisation" or "Anarchy and Organization"; "Response Malatesta Nestor Makhno", which can 
be found in Nestor Maknho Archive 
[http://www.nestormakhno.info/portuguese/mala_reply_pt.htm] and MALATESTA, Errico. 
Authoritarianism and anarchism. Sao Paulo: Imaginary, 2004. MAKHNO, Nestor. "Response to 
'A Project of Anarchist Organisation'" 
[http://www.nestormakhno.info/portuguese/mala_reply_pt.htm # Makhno], "A Second Letter to 
Malatesta" [http://www.anarkismo.net/article / 25241]. The article "The Purpose of 
Collective Responsibility" [http://www.nestormakhno.info/portuguese/mala_reply_pt.htm 
malatesta3 #] can also be helpful.

31. Alexandre Skirda, Russian translator, was responsible for the publication of the new 
translation of the Platform to the French, and part of the debate that surrounds it, the 
question of the translation of the original platform, he says: "Let us remember that the 
first translation was made by Volin challenged to be 'bad and heavy', the translator not 
having 'taken care of adapting the terminology, phrases to the spirit of the French 
movement'. [Le Libertaire 106, 04/15/1927] We seek to know they could apply these 
reproaches and found, indeed, several terms consciously deformed: napravlenie, which means 
both 'direction' and 'guidance' was systematically used in the first sense; ditto for 
rukovodsvto verb, meaning 'conduct', and the verb which it originated, 'guide, lead, 
direct, manage,' was also systematically translated as 'rule'. The case is even more 
striking in the last sentence of the Platform, zastrelchtchik, meaning 'instigator', was 
translated by 'cutting edge'. So it was that, for light brushwork, the deeper meaning of 
the text could be changed. "SKIRDA, Alexandre. Autonomie et Individuelle Collective Force: 
les anarchistes et l'organization from Proudhon to nos jours. Paris: A. S., 1987, p. 245-246.

32. We can mention the case of the Nabat Confederation, which brought together various 
anarchist organizations. Despite the differences in analysis between historians and 
themselves anarchists on the design and organizational anarchism of Nabat, who do not 
allow us to even know for sure if she was approaching over the design of synthesis or 
platform, we can say that she, together with the experience of the Russian Revolution and 
Ukraine, contributed to the outline of the Platform. Cf Archinov, Piotr. Historia del 
Movimiento Makhnovist. Buenos Aires: Tupac, 2008.

33. MALATESTA, Errico. "A Project of Anarchist Organisation".

34. The discussion between Malatesta and Makhno was also quite truncated by terminological 
problems; translation issues identified previously contributed to it.

35. MALATESTA, Errico. "Response Malatesta Nestor Makhno."

36. MAKHNO, Nestor. "A Second Letter to Malatesta."

37. Delo Truda. "Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists" Nestor Makhno 
Archive [http://www.nestormakhno.info/portuguese/platform/org_plat.htm]

38. Idem. "Supplement a la Organisational Platform (Pregutas y respuestas), Nestor Makhno 
Archive [http://www.nestormakhno.info/spanish/supporg.htm]

39. MAKHNO, Nestor. "Response to 'A Project of Anarchist Organisation'."

40. Delo Truda. "Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists".

41. Ibid.

42. MALATESTA, Errico. "A Project of Anarchist Organisation".

43. Ibid.

44. MAKHNO, Nestor. "Response to 'A Project of Anarchist Organisation'."

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Arshinov, Piotr. "The Old and New in Anarchism." Nestor Makhno Archive
[http://www.nestormakhno.info/portuguese/velho-novo.htm].

48. Ibid.

49. MALATESTA, Errico. "Response Malatesta Nestor Makhno."

50. Ibid.

51. MAKHNO, Nestor. "A Second Letter to Malatesta."

52. MALATESTA, Errico. "The Purpose of Collective Responsibility."

53. Ibid.

54. MALATESTA, Errico. "Response Malatesta Nestor Makhno."

55. Delo Truda. "Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists".

56. MAKHNO, Nestor. "A Second Letter to Malatesta."

57. Ibid.

58. Arshinov, Piotr. "The Old and New in Anarchism."

59. MALATESTA, Errico. "Response Malatesta Nestor Makhno."

60. Arshinov, Piotr. "The Old and New in Anarchism."

61. MAKHNO, Nestor. Anarchy and Organization. Sao Paulo: Fight Libertarian, 2001.

62. OASL; FARJ. "Elements For a Historical Reenactment of Our Current". In: Anarkismo.net, 
2012. [Http://www.anarkismo.net/article/23068]

63. CAB. "Declaration of Principles of the CAB." In: Anarkismo.net, 2012.

[Http://www.anarkismo.net/article/23024] 64. Errandonea, Alfredo. Sociology of her 
domination. Montevideo / Buenos Aires: Nordan / Tupac, 1989.

65. CAB. "Our Conception of People Power." In: Anarkismo.net, 2012. 
[Http://www.anarkismo.net/article/23022]

66. SCHMIDT Michael; VAN DER WALT, Lucien. Black Flame, p. 263.

Related Link: http://www.farj.org