(en) Britain, AFED Organise! #82 - About Platformism, synthesism and the ?Fontenis affair? by Ren? Berthier

The ?Cercle d??tudes libertaires - Gaston-Leval? is a group of reflection constituted in 
the tradition of the Libertarian Sociological Center founded by Gaston Leval in 1956. Most 
of its members are militants of the F?d?ration anarchiste, but the opinions which are 
expressed represent only the personal views of their authors, as is the case in the 
following text. There is a website attached to the CEL, monde-nouveau.net ---- In a few 
months will take place an international meeting in Saint-Imier, Switzerland, to celebrate 
the 140th anniversary of the founding of the antiauthoritarian International. This 
initiative was originally taken by the Federation anarchiste (France), the F?d?ration 
libertaire des Montagnes and the Organisation socialiste libertaire (Switzerland), soon 
followed by many others. The FA and the OSL belong to the two historical ?tendencies? of 
anarchism: synthesism and platformism.

Many organizations in Anglo-
Saxon and Latin American
countries declare themselves
to be Platformists, that is to
say they adhere to Arshinov?s
platform.

It is true that the Federation
anarchiste does not declare
itself platformist but advocates
the ?Anarchist Synthesis?.
But it is not as a ?synthesist?
organization that we call for the
gathering, together with other
groups: it is as anarchists, as
federalists. In 1872, the problem
does not arise in terms of
?platformism? or ?synthesism?,
so there is no need to transpose
in the 2012 gathering problems
that did not arise in 1872. As to
say if ?platformist? organizations
will answer the call, some have
already announced that they
would come. I think it would
be an insult to our ?platformist?
comrades to think they do not
understand the value of such a
meeting, which will enable many
people to meet, to exchange
ideas and... addresses. Not
being platformists doesn?t
prevent us from meeting
comrades who claim this option.
Especially in the context that is
defined for the meeting of 2012.
The militants of the Anarchist
Federation are enthusiastic
about this project and many are
and will be mobilized. The debate
?Synthesism vs Platformism?
is far from being at the center
of their preoccupations. Their
concern is the success of the
initiative.

However, among the elder
comrades, there is not so much
a reluctance as a rejection
concerning platformism.
Unfortunately, this rejection
is largely the consequence of
the merging of (or confusion
between) two questions:
platformism itself and the
?Fontenis affair?, the latter having
in some way ?over-determined?
the former.

? Concerning platformism:
this debate started in France
in 1926 and in fact quite
quickly ended, the matter
was quite quickly settled...
and forgotten. There were
short-lived attempts to create
?platformist? groups. But the
question of platformism was
a political debate on political
options with which one may or
may not agree.

? The ?Fontenis affair?
appeared 30 years later, in
the mid 50s, it is a dramatic
event strictly limited to the
history of the French post-
war anarchist movement, in
which ?platformism? has in fact
nothing to do.
The ?Fontenis affair? in some
way revived the rejection of
platformism the French anarchist
movement had shown in the
20s and 30s, but this rejection
is linked to extremely precise
historical circumstances, and
to facts that took place a long
time ago in France and nowhere
else. Therefore, in order to
understand this rejection, It
is necessary to take these
circumstances into account,
much more than the substance
of the program developed by
Arshinov and Makhno, known as
?Arshinov?s platform?. Arshinov?s
platform itself is linked to a very
precise context, and for all I
know, Libertarian communist
organizations in France today
no longer refer to it very strictly :
they also consider it outdated.
I think the younger militants of
the FA don?t much care about
all that. Local groups of both
organizations ? FA and AL ? work
together on practical issues. If
however a certain distance is
maintained, it is absolutely not
due to theoretical disagreements
(although they exist) but to
behavioral questions. An
American anarchist group
explains their viewpoint
concerning ?platformist?
behavior with a typically Anglo-
Saxon understatement: ?While
their organizational seriousness
and commitment to mass
struggle are exemplary, an
influence of certain forms and
practice (not necessarily politics)
reminiscent of Trotskyist groups
is apparent.? (?Our Anarchism?,
First of May Anarchist Alliance.)
The important passage in this
sentence are the words between
brackets [1].

I think these American comrades
have very clearly seen that the
problem was not the Platform
itself but the ?forms and practices?
of platformist organizations ? of
some of them at least. So the
problem is much less Arshinov?s
platform itself, than the activity
of a group of militants led by
Georges Fontenis in the 50?s. In
the process, Arshinov?s platform
was sort of hijacked.

I insist on the fact that the political
debate on platformism must
be clearly distinguished from
considerations about Fontenis.

A methodological statement

Concerning Fontenis I think
it is necessary first to make a
methodological statement.

Everybody is aware that ?water
has flowed under the bridges?,
as we say in French, and that
it is about time to see what we
have in common rather than
what divides us. So the question
is:

a) Should we simply forget
about the dispute, never
mention the harm it has
provoked and act as if
everything was fine; or
b) Should we first establish the
facts, show the extent of the
trauma, and then overcome it.

I think things must be said. If you
want things to move positively,
you must openly express
contentious issues. You cannot
build the future on frustrations
and on things that are constantly
untold. I believe it is necessary
to establish facts. Only after, can
you move forward. And I insist
on the fact that all this is strictly
linked to the French context:
it certainly means absolutely
nothing to an anarchist from
America ? North, Center or
South ? or elsewhere.

The corollary of all this is the
necessity for both sides to make
a critical analysis of the events.
A militant of the Anarchist
Federation recently wrote in Le
Monde libertaire:

?One might be seduced by
the thesis of a mythologized
Georges Fontenis, a sort of
scapegoat for the failures and
the divisions of the anarchist
movement, the alibi for some
of his followers who rejected
on him alone a somewhat
cumbersome balance-sheet.
For if Fontenis certainly held
the lead in this, nothing would
have been possible without
the blind obedience on the
part of his accomplices or
the disturbing passivity and
carelessness of the militants of
an organization claiming anti-
authoritarianism [2].?

An older militant, who had been
a witness of the events, wrote
much earlier:

?For thirty years, there has been
a myth in our community. This
myth is about the ?Fontenis
affair?. A myth based on one
man whose presence among
us was relatively short, six or
eight years at most, and who
exercised authority only for half
of that time. For activists who
succeeded each other, Fontenis
was the ?bad guy?, the ?werewolf?
of the fable, ?the ugly one? of the
tragedy, ?the Antichrist? who not
only frightened one generation,
but also the following generations
who had not known him but
who recalls him whenever an
ideological dispute shakes our
movement. The character does
not deserve such an ?honor?,
nor such consistency in this
?classical? role all human groups
invent to get rid of the weight
of their ?sins? and blame ?Satan?
for their errors. I find ridiculous
this use of ?the Fontenis case?
by a number of our comrades to
explain or justify disagreements.
(...) And if to exorcise the devil
you just need to talk about him,
as the good fathers say, then
let us talk about the Fontenis
case [3]!?

Another author, who for a long
time had been a member of the
F?d?ration anarchiste before he
started an academic carreer,
writes that ? in spite of the
expectations of its initiators, the
debate platform/synthesis
not only did not contribute to the
achievement of the unity of the
movement, but increased even
more the confusionism within
the ranks of the libertarians and
finally hampered the necessary
work of revision of the traditional
anarchist positions made indeed
necessary by the situation ?.
The author adds that because
it was forgotten that what was
at stake was only two options
among others, the debate froze
still, provoking a crack leading
to a very serious crisis in the
French anarchist movement, a
? crisis that never really has been
overcome even today, of which
the most striking example is the
organizational and ideological
confusionism of the present-day
Anarchist Federation, a sort of
hybrid monster, half platformist
and half synthesist ? [4].

Obviously, there is no one-
sidedness in the approach of
the question from the FA.But the
same thing can be said about
Alternative libertaire:

?In France the debate died down
only in the 90s. Ren? Berthier
or Gaetano Manfredonia
proposed de-passionate
approaches of the question.
The very synthesist Federation
anarchiste (FA) has in fact taken
its distances with S?bastien
Faure?s catechism. The Union
des travailleurs communistes
libertaires (UTCL), created in
1976, had on its side quickly
evolved towards transcending
the platform of which it retained
the spirit more than the letter.
Alternative libertaire remains in
this continuity [5].?

Fontenis? ?coup d??tat?

Georges Fontenis was a
member of the FA who, with
friends of his, organized a
fraction, a conspiracy inside
the Federation Anarchiste, a
?coup d?Etat? in order to take
control of it and to take control
of its paper, Le Libertaire. Once
they achieved their project, they
excluded at first all those who
did not agree with them and
then part of the members of
their own fraction ? an attitude
quite consistent with ultra-
sectarian and paranoid groups.
Characteristic also of such ultra-
sectarian groups is the quantity
of contemptuous expressions
used to qualify their anarchist
opponents.

This happened in the early
50?s [6]. The problem is that
Arshinov?s platform and the
?Fontenis affair? were so to
speak merged in the opinion of
many of the French anarchists of
the time. Wrongly, in my opinion,
because Fontenis made some
choices which would certainly
not have been approved by
Arshinov and Makhno.

I have particularly in mind
he was a revolutionary but
because he was an
ultra-stalinist. In
Fontenis? alliance with an
authentic Stalinist called Andre
Marty, former head of the
International Brigades in Spain,
appointed by Stalin, known for
his crimes during the civil war,
and nicknamed the ?Butcher of
Albacete? because he ordered
assassinations of members
of the International Brigades
which took place in that Spanish
city [7]. Marty was also known
in Spain for the murder of many
anarchists and POUM militants.

Strangely, in 1955, Le Libertaire,
which Fontenis and his friends
controlled, widely opened its
columns to Marty. I suppose
many anarchists outside France,
who don?t bother about details,
don?t know that Andr? Marty
had been expelled from the
Communist party not because
he was a revolutionary but
because he was an
ultra-stalinist. In 1945,
he had been Number 3 in the
French Communist party. Marty
was not a victim of Stalinism.
The Libertarian Communist
Federation, successor to the
Federation Anarchiste, passed
unanimously a resolution
declaring that the electoral
battle was a form of class
struggle and that taking part in
elections became an option [8].
In the elections of January 1956,
Fontenis appeared with Andr?
Marty at his side. The ?Alliance?
between Fontenis and Marty was
a catastrophic failure: in terms
of votes, of course, but also
because the organization was
ruined. I can say without much
risk that Makhno and Arshinov
would not have approved this
kind of drift...

By 1956 Moscow had begun its
destalinization policy. Marty was
much too strongly marked as a
Stalinist. So what do we have ?
Fontenis and his followers make
friends with an hyper-Stalinist
ex-cacique of the Komintern,
expelled 4 years earlier from the
Communist Party, a murderer
of anarchists, POUM militants
and International Brigade
volunteers. The alliance of
Fontenis with Marty has nothing
to do with a tactical alliance
with a revolutionary militant (or
group) [9], it simply is a totally
irrational choice: Fontenis
thought he could manipulate
Marty and attract communist
party militants.

Fontenis had methodically
organized a fraction whose
objective was to take control
of the Federation Anarchiste.
Founded in 1950, this fraction
was acting within the FA and
was called OPB (Organisation
Pens?e-Bataille, that is ?Thought
& Battle Organization?). This
organization aimed very openly
at fighting the ?synthesist?
orientation of the Anarchist
Federation of the time.

I think that activists who claim
to be libertarian communists
and oppose synthesism
have every right to express
themselves, to develop their
theses, and to try and create an
organization that matches their
approach of anarchism. What
Fontenis can be blamed for is
not expressing his views, nor
creating an anarchist communist
organization according to
his own views, but to have
destroyed from within an existing
organization. Nobody says
the Anarchist Federation was
perfect, but at least it had been
existing. Besides, after a few
years of undercover preparation,
Fontenis? taking control of the FA
lasted hardly three years, and
when it ended he had excluded
almost everyone, including
most of his own friends, and Le
Libertaire had lost practically all
its readers. After the disastrous
affair of the election, Fontenis
left a void behind him. A desert.
Fontenis was not a visionary
militant who anticipated the
perfect model of anarchist
organization, who had a
prophetic glimpse of the future
anarchist program; he was a
megalomaniac manipulator
who destroyed the only existing
anarchist organization, built
nothing at its place and left a
desert behind him. Such an
attitude is not honorable. The
destruction of the Federation
Anarchiste is not a claim to fame
to the credit of Fontenis and his
friends.

It took years afterwards to rebuild
the Federation Anarchiste.
But I insist on the fact that
libertarian communism can in
no way be equated to Fontenis,
that libertarian communism
as a theory and practice, as
a legitimate section of the
libertarian movement, is in no
way impaired by the actions of
a man whose misdeeds have in
fact lasted only three years.

A mythical construction

Fontenis could very well have
said: I do not agree with the FA,
I shall build something else, and
those who agree with me can
follow me. I am sure that some
of the militants of the FA would
have followed him. The fate of
libertarian communism in France
would probably have been totally
changed. For if the Fontenis
episode has greatly undermined
the F?d?ration Anarchiste, the
latter recovered anyway, after
a time. The Fontenis episode,
however, has also severely
undermined the future of
libertarian communism itself ? in
France I mean. Whatever may
say those who, in France, paint
him with glowing colors and
show him as a model, he has
been a disaster for libertarian
communism as a whole.

Today, the main representative
organization of libertarian
communism in France is the
result of a scission in the FA
dating from 1970, and then
from an exclusion from this
split. This organization today
has a monthly paper and has
only very recently purchased
local premises in Paris. In other
words, we can say that for over
40 years, libertarian communism
has barely made any progress
in France. Do I have to say that
there is nothing to be cheerful
about this situation ?

There has been a mythical
construction around the three or
four catastrophic years during
which Fontenis had seized the
power, corresponding to a more
or less conscious desire to have
a hero; but Fontenis certainly
is not the Bakunin of the 20th
century. No doubt that thousands
of miles away and 60 years later,
the myth may seem attractive,
but if we make an assessment,
what do we have? A small
group of men took control of
an organization, turned it away
from the principles on which it
was based, made an alliance
with one of its worst enemies,
cleaned it out of its members,
ruined it financially and drove
the readership of its publication
to practically nothing, and then
walked away, leaving those who
remained to sweep the debris.
Because that?s what happened.

There was on anarchistblackcat
a revealing, if not interesting,
exchange of views (in English)
between what seemed to be a
young Spanish-speaking militant
and a French anarcho-syndicalist
?old-timer?. It all started because
the young man qualified as ?shit?
an extremely moderate and
totally non-polemic article on
Fontenis (translated to English)
originally published in Le Monde
Libertaire [10]. Three interesting
facts can be noted concerning
this exchange of views:

1. The obvious cult of
personality developed around
Fontenis. I quote the young
Spanish-speaking fellow:

?Fontenis fought all his life
for giving consistence to the
revolutionary movement along
libertarian lines, fighting not
against ?ideas? (as the Joyeux
group did), but against the
Nazism, Francoism, French
imperialism. He never hesitate
in make alliance with other
fighters against the oppresion,
or searching a risky way for
achieveing the goals of the
social revolution, thinking
that better make mistaking
doing that being in the correct
making nothing, but for
some ?anarchos? that is an
aberration. They prefer the
edition of cultural papers, many
propaganda that only read
themselves and talking talking
talking about non-senses. They
are very happy: they are never
going to ?treason?. Yes, they
will never do any social change.
But that is of no importance, of
course.?

In a rudimentary way, this
opinion reflects quite well the
platformist opinion concerning
the Anarchist Federation.

2. The image of the Anarchist
Federation conveyed by some
Fontenis groupies. I quote the
French ?Old-timer?:

?Another thing that amazes me
is the image certain anarchists
have of the French Anarchist
Federation. If we listen to
them (or read them), the FA is
a bunch of hazy sycophants
languidly discussing about
the sex of angels, airing ideas
with no connection with reality,
publishing ?cultural papers?
intended to no one else but
ourselves, and ?talking, talking,
talking about non-senses?,
passively watching through the
window the real world going
by: nazism, francoism, French
imperialism, the exploited, the
oppressed, the unemployed
and the homeless reduced to
simple ?ideas?. And, of course,
taking ?inorganicity as a
virtue?, which is probably how
C. names the FA?s alledged
refusal of organization.

The ?old-timer? concludes
recalling that ?these vaporous
anarchists who are opposed
to organization have achieved
quite some things?, such as
a weekly paper, a radio, a big
bookshop in Paris, and others
in different towns, a publishing
house, etc.: ?So I would like C.
to tell me how on earth such
inconsistent people can do all
this ? not mentioning organizing
an international gathering in
2012.?

3. The third fact which is
revealed is that the personality
cult is largely based on
ignorance. ?C.?, the young
fellow, says:

?Georges Fontenis has
the qualities of a genuine
social revolutionary. He
was devoted since he was
young to build revolutionary
movement, thinking about its
REAL problems in its time
and moment (Libertarian
Communist Manifiesto, for
example, was written for the
FA of the 50s). ?Non conforme?
to the communist libertarian
movement and the revolutionary
left at the beginning of the XXI
Century) and strengthening
links between who fight. Its
legacy will perdure.?

?C.? obviously doesn?t know
that by the time he had written
Non conforme (2002), George
Fontenis had become a serious
burden for Alternative libertaire,
the organization of which he
was a ?historical? militant. Two
prominent leaders of Alternative
libertaire wrote about this book:

?Alas, if Georges Fontenis
always has a concern for
?breaking taboos? he does not
do it in Non conforme with
much relevance. The exercise
turns out into a search for an
iconoclastic posture which
most often misses its target,
when it does not altogether
go astray. The purpose is
confused and ambiguous on
certain social issues. Ultimately,
Georges Fontenis wants to
ask non conform questions but
the ambivalent writing of his
answers might lead readers to
conclusions too conform to... the
dominant ideology.? (Alternative
libertaire, d?cember 2002.)

This statement, written in AL?s
magazine, drove Fontenis furious.

At least, as far as they are
concerned, the militants of
Alternative Libertaire don?t lull in
the cult of personality...

If you push aside all the
caricatured (and sometimes
childish) aspects of the ?Fontenis
affair? ? secret organization,
Leninist-type fraction, incredible
over-estimation of his own
capacities, threats to assassinate
?traitors?, etc. ? we can, 60 years
later, take into account that
one of the motivations behind
Fontenis? attempt in the 50s was
the observation of the divisions
and of the inefficiency of the
F?d?ration anarchiste.

The ?Fontenis affair? no longer
determines the attitudes of both
parties with regard one another,
and it is a very good thing. The
?Fontenis affair? is history. But
history is something that must
be taken into consideration
under the condition it does not
paralyze positive action. The
anarchists from other countries
are not concerned with this
debate and they certainly don?t
understand it.

?Organizational and strategic obsession?

For the intermediate generation
of activists of the FA, such as
mine ? those who started their
activity in the late 60s and in the
early 70?s ? it was not so much
Fontenis himself the problem
as the libertarian communist
groups who claimed more or
less his legacy. They were
characterized by a high degree
of sectarianism and dogmatism.
In addition, Daniel Guerin had
developed his theses about
?libertarian Marxism?, and
libertarian communist activists,
who wanted at all costs to bring
?rigor? and ?cohesion? to the
anarchist doctrine, believed that
they would find a remedy for the
deficiencies they perceived in
the anarchist doctrine by aping
Marxist language, especially
Trotskyite. This attitude, I think,
merely revealed the specific
deficiency of these activists
concerning their own libertarian
authors[11].

But efficiency and cohesion are
relative notions. All depends
what your aims are. Constantly
insisting on ?rigor?, ?efficiency?,
etc. doesn?t necessarily make
you more rigorous or efficient. For
we have seen too many groups
claming ?coherence?, ?rigor? and
?cohesion? but never growing
beyond a membership of 50 or
60 and splitting or excluding in
the name of ?coherence?, ?rigor?
and ?cohesion?, but with the
words ?working class? never off
their lips.

A good illustration of what many
French anarchists consider as
?organizational and strategic
obsession? can be found on the
website of a US anarchist group,
Miami Autonomy & Solidarity.
When I speak of ?organizational
and strategic obsession?, I don?t
mean I am against organization
and strategy, I mean that
the level of reflection and
theorization on these questions
must correspond to the level of
membership: what can we do
with the forces we have? Once
given the objectives, and they
can be very ambitious ? for
example creating an anarchist
mass organization ? I don?t see
the point, if we are 50, to discuss
endlessly about world revolution
strategy. The question should
rather be: ?How can we reach a
membership of 100??

Miami Autonomy & Solidarity
published a text written by
Scott Nappalos which seems
to me characteristic of this
tendency, ?Towards Theory of
Political Organization for Our
Time? (Part I). It deals with the
necessity of ?regroupment?: the
author is convinced that ?in this
time, we are witnessing a broad
convergence on practices and
concepts in organizations which
began at different starting points
and with different traditions?: but
he observes ?strong unevenness
within organizations, and
internally most organizations
have people moving in different
directions?. The solution lies in
a ?substantial transformation of
existing orientations and forces?:

?Inevitably this would
require conflict, splits,
and rupture of existing
organizations into distinct
tendencies that at present battle
only internally. This is actually
to be welcomed, as it would clarify
our directions, and alleviate
some of the periodic internal
paralysis.? (underligned by me.)

?This is a risk, but it is a
necessary risk?, says Nappalos;
and naturally all this is done
in the name of the proletariat:
?In such a time, organizational
and ideological loyalties should
be re-assessed in favor of the
interests of the proletariat and
the movement as a whole.?
I am perfectly aware that the
opinions found in blogs and on
websites do not necessarily
express the level of thought of a
political movement as a whole,
but ?Towards Theory of Political
Organization for Our Time? is
a long elaborate text in three
parts, not just the spontaneous
expression of a blogger.
In the name of rigor, cohesion,
unity of thought, the author
welcomes conflicts, splits and
rupture: this is what we, in France,
have experienced with Georges
Fontenis in the 50s; but it is
most of all the illustration of the
permanent temptation existing
among those militants who want
to be better royalists than the
king, as we say in France, and
who over-interpret platformism
and transform it into a caricature
? precisely what Fontenis has
done

The paradox is that when
you stick to the letter of the
strategic considerations of some
anarchist militants, you have
the impression that they are
talking about an organization
of thousands and thousands of
members. It is the impression
I had reading Nappalos. His
text reminds me of these
two German revolutionary organizations
(AAUD and AAUD-E) who decided to merge
in 1931 (a bit late...) to form the
KAU [12]. When you read the
discourse, the accounts that
were made of this apparently
considerable event by the
council communists themselves,
you have the impression that
the fate of the world proletariat
was at stake, that the colossal
forces of the planetary revolution
were uniting to beat those of
the world reaction. In fact the
first organization had 343
members and the second
57. It seems that some
anarchists have inherited
from council communism
an overestimation of the
importance of discourses.
There is something
comic (or pathetic) about
advocating splits in
microscopic organizations
because of disagreements
on the strategy of world
revolution.

?Most respectfully comrade,
having gone through enough
?conflict, splits, and rupture?
over the past near 37 years, I
sadly do not really find this to
be healthy: ?conflict, splits, and
rupture of existing organizations
into distinct tendencies that at
present battle only internally.
This is actually to be welcomed,
as it would clarify our directions,
and alleviate some of the
periodic internal paralysis.? (...)

?The willingness to want to
engage in those sorts of struggles,
to split organizations and create
bad taste in folks mouths is not,
in my opinion, ?worth it?. It stands
a greater chance of not creating
the ?possibly creating a higher
form of organization than we
have seen in decades in North
America.? Whatever that higher
form of organization may be.
?Folks should come together or
go apart based on commonalities.
And folks should come together
or separate in a comradely way
when those commonalities are
no longer there. ?Conflict, splits,
and rupture? are not a way to
build and have long lasting
results well beyond the moment
of political separation.?

I must say I feel much sympathy
for this comrade. And I would
like to remind that there
never has been an important
anarchist movement when there
wasn?t first an anarchist mass
organization. This raises the
(apparently unsolved) problem
of the relationship between
anarchist organization and class
organization, which seems at
the center of the preoccupations
of American ? North and South ?
anarchists.

Nappalos vs synthesism

In the 2nd part of his
text, Nappalos deals with
?synthesism?. There is much
truth in what he says : it is not
a theory. But what Volin meant
by synthesism was not at all the
same thing as what S?bastien
Faure made of it. As much as
Makhno and Arshinov, Volin
was aware of the flaws of the
anarchist movement of the
time and wanted to change it.
Volin, Makhno and Arshinov
shared the same initial idea: the
necessity to unify the anarchist
movement which was divided
and inefficient. The difference
was in the method to reach unity.
The ?platformists? considered
that anarcho-communism was
the only anarchist movement,
individualism being a bourgeois
ideology [13] and anarcho-
syndicalism not being a doctrine
but a simple method of action.
Volin considered that unity could
be reached through an effort of
theoretical clarification implying
a collective reflection between
all the currents of the movement.
Volin?s approach does not
correspond to what is meant
today by ?synthesism?. He didn?t
want the different branches of
anarchism to live side by side
indefinitely, he thought that after
a debate they would merge
into something different and
superior ? which is precisely
the meaning of a ?synthesis?.
In Volin?s synthesis, there was
something dynamic, things were
to evolve. On the contrary, when
S?bastien Faure published ?La
Synth?se anarchiste? in 1928,
he developed a very static point
of view, advocating the simple
cohabitation of the different
currents of anarchism without
any debate nor clarification. It
is this version of ?synthesism?
which has prevailed, but strictly
speaking it is not a synthesis.
S?bastien Faure?s version of
synthesism is a patch stuck on
the inner tube of a tyre.

Nappalos is also right when he
says that ?no one calls himself
or herself a synthesist?. I never
heard anybody calling himself
a synthesist. But whatever
truth there may be in what
Nappalos says, the major
mistake he makes is to give
too much credit to discourses
without observing the facts. In
the FA there are differences of
opinions but they practically
never are the consequences
of certain comrades being
anarcho-communists and others
being anarcho-syndicalists or
individualists. Our congresses
are not places where you see
permanent clashes between
anarcho-communists, anarcho-
syndicalists or individualists,
leading to paralysis, they are
places where militants are
most of the times in fairly polite
opposition concerning practical
matters, sometimes in extremely
vigorous opposition. These
differences of opinions exist
because people simply don?t
always agree with each other.

Obviously Nappalos sees the
French Anarchist Federation
as an organization allowing
?for varying contradictory
tendencies to all exist in the
same organization without any
fundamental unity?. But besides
the fact that in the FA there are
no individualists (I never met
any, at least) [14] but anarchist-
communists and anarcho-
syndicalists, or militants who are
neither, or both ? that is, simply
anarchists with no hyphen ?,
when I observe facts I see
that these tendencies are not
contradictory: on the contrary
they practice an extremely
efficient COLLABORATION. At
the risk of seeming insistent, we
are the ones who have a weekly
paper, a radio, etc.

There is something definitely
paternalistic in Nappalos?
attitude who considers
synthesism as limited to ?lower
case ?a? anarchists? (whatever
that means), developing
?organizational patriotism? (it
is well known that platformist
organizations never develop
?organizational patriotism?).
Even more, ?synthesist?
organizations limit their activity
to unessential questions such
as ?sub-culture?, ?activist
networks?, ?protest politics?,
?anti-globalization and anti-war
movements?, where they have a
?productive role to play? ? thank
you.

Nappalos sticks to concepts
90 years old and is convinced
that the alledged ?synthetic?
organizations today have not
evolved; that reality has had no
effect on them; that the practices
of these organizations strictly stick
to his 90 year-old representation
of synthesism [15].

The debate on platformism
The debate on platformism
is a debate on theory, on
organization, on tactics and
strategy. But it is also a debate
on the context (political,
economic, sociological) in which
it might be most valid. That also
means that before forming an
authorized opinion we, Western
European militants, and more
precisely French militants, have
a great lot to learn concerning
the situation in Central or South
America, for instance, or even
Northern America.

It must be noted that whatever
we militants of the Federation
anarchiste think about the
Platform, it is mostly the same
thing as what Alternative
libertaire thinks! The conclusion
is that the viewpoint our both
organizations have on this issue
is probably determined by the
identical contexts. And we must
not exclude the possibility that
in other contexts, platformism
might be the solution. I can
hardly imagine, for instance,
anarcho-syndicalism developing
in places where there is no, or
practically no, working class,
practically no industry, etc.

It is significant that when a Nefac
interviewer asked Alternative
Libertaire, a French ?platformist?
organization, why there were so
few references to Platformism
in their literature, the answer
was that the Platform is part of
their ideological references but
they don?t make a fuss about it
because the text, written in 1926,
is obsolete and not adapted
to the present-day situation
in France. The only thing the
interviewed member of AL
retains from the Platform seems
to be the necessity to organize:

?Arshinov?s Platform and
?platformism? are indeed a part
of our ?ideological baggage?. But
we?re not attached to them in a
dogmatic way. We think that part
of the text, written in the 1920?s,
is now obsolete and is not
adapted to the political realities
we live with in France today.
That is why we rarely make
references to ?The Platform? or
to platformism. We identify with
the spirit of platformism, and
say so, but we don?t identify
with every word written in the
original platform! We are still
convinced of the importance of
anarchists being organised, and
to also have a clear political and
strategic line. To that effect, yes,
we are platformists [16].?

Obsolescence of the Platform
? at least in France ? and
necessity to organize are two
things with which we have been
agreeing for a long time. I don?t
even understand why anarchists
have to constantly repeat that it
is necessary to organize. To me
an unorganized anarchist is a
contradiction.

The debate on Platformism took
place in France in the mid 20s.
Unless I am mistaken, I think
the ?platform? was ?discovered?
in England in the early 70s
and in the Americas in the 90s.
So there is a clear anteriority
in France. Most French and
Italian anarchists, including
libertarian communists, ? I?m
thinking of Malatesta ? strongly
opposed the platform which
was misunderstood and raised
somewhat hysterical reactions.
Arshinov clearly said that the
?platform? was a project, and
could be discussed. It is most
unfortunate that the anarchist
movement of the time did not
take advantage of this opening.

Once again, we must consider
the context of the late 20?s.
I think the condemnation by
Makhno and Arshinov of the
flaws of the anarchist movement
of the time was largely correct.
About the time the Kronstadt
uprising was suppressed and
when the Makhnovist movement
was crushed, a French anarchist
individualist, Andre Lorulot,
made a conference on ?Our
enemy, the woman?, in which
he claimed that women were
frivolous and prevented their
men from being activists [17].
The minutes of the time say that
attendance at this conference
was so important that there were
people outside the room. An old
comrade told me that during this
conference, May Piqueray, a well
known anarchist and feminist
activist, bestowed the lecturer a
vigorous slap. There was also in
the anarchist movement people
who opposed the reduction of
working hours because that
would have diverted the workers
from the revolution...

These aspects of the French
anarchist movement of the 20s
might have shocked Makhno
and Arshinov, but the movement
could absolutely not be reduced
to that.

Conceptions that are 90 years old

Arshinov?s platform was written
in 1926, and S?bastien Faure?s
theory of synthesist anarchism
was written in 1928 in response
to the platform. We can?t,
the international anarchist
movement can?t stick today
to the debate in these terms,
because we are talking about
conceptions that are 90 years
old : perhaps should we consider
the possibility of reconsidering
the terms of the debate... I think
that neither side can refer to
ideas and forms of organization
90 years old without considering
adaptations. I think that in fact,
in the meantime, the two schools
of thought have come closer.

In retrospect ? and after 90
years you can serenely look
backwards ? what first motivated
Makhno and Arshinov was that
they realized the inability of the
French anarchist movement
to take decisions. I must add
that this was absolutely not the
case in Spain, for instance. So
it?s not a congenital matter to
anarchism. The Spanish CNT
had a million members in 1930
and to reach this point instances
had necessarily existed in
the organization in which the
guidelines were discussed and
voted and decisions taken.
These instances did not exist in
the French anarchist movement
(and Italian, I think: Malatesta
said that a general assembly
was simply a meeting where
the different points of view were
expressed). Remember that
the 1907 anarchist international
conference which took place
in Amsterdam reached to
absolutely no decision.

But these instances did exist in
the Unione Syndacale Italiana,
an active anarcho-syndicalist
organization crushed by
Mussolini.

So if the Arshinov platform
brings something new to the
French anarchist movement
(and Italian), it brings absolutely
nothing new to the Spanish
anarcho-syndicalist movement
? and the anarcho-syndicalist
movement in general, including
French. In fact, if you read the
statutes of the CGT-SR, a French
anarcho-syndicalist organization
created in 1926, the same year
as Arshinov?s platform, you
find a set of federal structures
in which members discuss
and vote on policy decisions.
The statutes of the CGT-SR
are at least as ?authoritarian?,
if not more, as what you read
in Arshinov?s platform... It
is significant that in 1926,
Arshinov?s platform created in
the French anarchist movement
an outburst of protestations
while the Statutes of the CGT-
SR ? more ?authoritarian? in my
view ? left everybody silent.

So we can say that the
diagnosis made by Makhno
and Arshinov was right. But
Arshinov?s platform brought
nothing really new as compared
with what already existed at the
time. If no-one objected to the
?authoritarianism? of the statutes
of the CGT-SR, but did so for
Arshinov?s platform (written the
same year) it is, in my opinion,
simply because Arshinov?s
platform was addressed (very
naively, I would say) to the
anarchists, while the statutes
of the CGT-SR concerned the
anarcho-syndicalists ? which
suggests that there was then a
deep gap between the anarchist
movement and the French
working class. And here we
touch another point stressed
by Makhno and Arshinov: the
relative lack of involvement of
the French anarchist movement
of the time in the working class.
Right or wrong, this is in any
case how Makhno and Arshinov
seem to have perceived things.
This probably explains that what
was denied by the anarchist
movement was accepted by the
anarcho-syndicalist movement:
because it was not the same
people who were involved.

Unfortunately, Makhno didn?t
understand anything about
revolutionary syndicalism,
about anarcho-syndicalism. He
should have turned to them.
In the 20s, the working class
anarchist movement was in the
syndicalist movement. Makhno
and Arshinov unfortunately didn?t
realize it. They were looking for
an alternative to bolshevism
and didn?t understand that
anarcho- syndicalism was that
alternative [18].

Two main things must be noted
concerning the ?Anarchist
Synthesis?.

1. As it was conceived in
1928 by Sebastien Faure ?
distorting the idea of ???synthesis?
originally developed by Volin ? a
?synthesist? organization must
include what Faure pointed out as
the three schools of anarchism:
the individualist, anarchist-
communist, and syndicalist
schools ? all of them supposed
to work together in harmony.
In fact, the individualist school
has so to speak disappeared
today. I?ve personally never met
any since the late 70s [19]. So
what practically remains is an
organization in which anarchist-
communists and anarcho-
syndicalists work together.
In fact, this distinction strictly
doesn?t matter any more. I never
heard a comrade ask another
comrade: ?are you a libertarian
communist or an anarcho-
syndicalist?? The distinctions
are gradually receding in the FA
itself.

2. The tradition was that decisions
were to be taken unanimously. I
don?t know where this tradition
comes from, but it?s like that.
This system was not established
because it was supposed to be
?anarchist?, for I know for sure it
did not exist before the ?Fontenis
affair?. I think it was established
after, as a guarantee against a
new Fontenis. This system still
is valid today, theoretically if not
in practice. Practically, it means
that a decision might be taken
if it is sufficiently vague, and
of such a nature as to create a
general agreement. But when
you come to something practical,
decision-making can be difficult
or impossible because it
inevitably creates all sorts of
disagreements. Theoretically,
one person opposing a decision
can paralyze all decision-
making.

Decision-making

Is the principle of unanimous
decision-making a utopian
vision? Can everyone really be
united in a symbiotic, almost-
mystical union? The question
is certainly interesting from a
psychoanalytical point of view.
However, the arguments in
favor of this system are not
totally without consistency. This
practice implies that the different
viewpoints in presence be
seriously debated and that their
supporters take the time to argue
for their opinions, thus avoiding a
brutal vote where 51% win over
49%. To us, this type of decision
appertains to the parliamentary
system. Secondly, it requires
that the different points of view
make concessions so that an
agreement can be reached on
the broadest consensus.

Today, unanimous decision-
making has been subjected to
a serious relativisation in the
Federation Anarchiste. After
a thorough discussion, the
oppositions content themselves
with what we call a ?friendly
abstention?, that is, they do not
oppose the decision, but the
groups opposed to the decision
are not required to apply it.
But even in that case, the non-
application of decisions concern
very few people because, as
I said, a thorough debate has
previously reached to a large
consensus. So in this system,
you never have 51% against
49% ? which to me is a form
of violence ? but a very small
number of persons disagreeing
with everybody else.

I would add one essential thing.
I have been a union militant in
the labor movement for several
decades, and proceeding to
the ?classical? majority vote in
order to make a decision does
not shock me more than that.
However, my experience in the
trade union movement and in
the anarchist movement leads
me to one conclusion: the
majority vote is a system that
is ideally suited to deal with
current, ordinary, ?everyday?
issues. The unanimous vote,
with the restriction of ?friendly
abstention?, is ideal when it
comes to discussing matters of
principle.

For instance if a majority of
members of the Federation
Anarchiste decided to put up
candidates for parliamentary
elections, I suppose there would
be at least one vote against it on
behalf of anarchist principles. If
this principle had prevailed in
Fontenis? time, anarchists would
not have stood for election next
to a Stalinist assassin.

Moreover, those who are
skeptical and surprised by the
unanimous vote system don?t
need to make all a fuss about
it, because it has a natural limit.
This system can operate in an
assembly of 50 or 100 individuals
representing an organization of
400 members, for instance. But
when the F?d?ration anarchiste
reaches 100 000 members, I
think it will be time to imagine
another system...

The question in that case is to
avoid clinging obstinately to a
decision-making system that
prevents the organization from
growing.

The refusal to implement
a decision with which one
disagrees does not lead to
inefficiency, and it is entirely
consistent with libertarian
federalism. I perfectly remember
an interview of a member of
Alternative libertaire where the
autonomy of their local groups
was acknowledged [20], so I
assume they function the same
way as we do. This is far away
from the strict application of
platformism...

It is in the State system of logic,
of which Leninism is the most
extreme form, that we see that. If
you read Proudhon or Bakunin,
you?ll see that any structure
adhering to a federal organization
has the right to secede. Here, in
this case, it is not secession but
a simple disagreement, which
is, by definition, not necessarily
definitive.

We must keep in mind that the
members of the organization
have a minimum of sense of
responsibility. It is a matter of
confidence. Individuals or groups
who disagree are not enemies.
In an anarchist organization,
we are still supposed to
have a comprehensive and
convergent general outlook.
Otherwise, it is no use staying
in the organization. This type
of practice is quite at odds with
what people are used to... but
it does not mean that we are
necessarily wrong. I think this
system prevents the constitution
of fractions within the FA, and
reduces the risk of splitting.
Fractions in an organization are
as many mini-?political parties?
who seek for a majority: it is the
introduction of parliamentary
system in the organization. With
our system, I am convinced that
in the long run, everyone wins.

It is in the Leninist system that the
minority is obliged to implement
decisions with which they
disagree. It?s pretty perverse, I
think. Our system, in my opinion,
has more efficiency. You rarely
correctly apply a decision with
which you disagree, especially
when it is forced upon you. It?s
not a question of ?authority? or
?anti-authority?, it is a simple,
plain question of common sense.
But it is certain that if people
are constantly disagreeing on
everything, all the time, they had
better go somewhere else...


Such a thing did happen in the
FA. About ten years ago, some
groups have left, on matters
of substantive disagreement
? which is legitimate. But it
never appeared as a split, with
the devastating psychological
effects that it implies. They
simply de-federated themselves
and formed groups that
remained relatively marginal and
local. Recently the possibility
to negotiate their return was
considered by the FA, and
in this perspective was also
contemplated the possibility
to reconsider synthesism. The
question was raised within the
FA but it finally was dropped
because in fact these groups are
either collapsing or shifting to
Council Marxism.

I think the reducing distance
between ?classical? anarchism
and platformism in France comes
from the fact that decision-
making in the FA has become
clearer and more responsive.

The inability of the anarchist
movement to take decisions was
undoubtedly one of the reasons
that motivated Makhno?s and
Arshinov?s approach. Obviously,
the other reason that motivated
them, 90 years ago, was that the
libertarian movement of the time
had appeared to them, with some
exceptions, as a conglomeration
of wacky anarcho-individualists,
anarcho-vegetarians, anarcho-
nudists, anarcho-this and
anarcho-that. Right or wrong,
they also regarded a great part
of the anarchist movement as a
bunch petty bourgeois, and they
openly said they did not want to
have anything to do with them. If
instead of coming to France they
had landed in Spain, there would
never have been an ?Arshinov
platform?. In Spain, it was
not necessary... The Spanish
anarcho-syndicalist movement
would simply have absorbed
them.

St. Imier: a great opportunity for debate

The meeting in St. Imier will
provide a great opportunity
for debate. There is nothing
like a direct conversation to
exchange views. Personal
relationships that might
develop are extremely
important. There is no doubt
that convergences could
be considered, but we are
skeptical about pompous and
sententious initiatives, with
great initial statements, press
conferences and great closing
statements. Practical and
pragmatic initiatives, modest
steps of which we can see the
effects seem more realistic.

We are suspicious of this form
of artificial cohesion that seems
to make things look square and
monolithic while inside it cracks
everywhere. It is essential that
each group or organization
keep its autonomy, which does
not exclude a maximum of
coordination. The circumstances
to which the various libertarian
organizations are confronted are
extremely varied, much more,
perhaps, than we can imagine.
An international organization
should first help explain this
diversity.

I think it is about time the
libertarian movement organized
on an international level. I
remain convinced that the
?platformism? referred to by
many groups outside of France
is something which has been
reviewed by local contexts, that
it is not something dogmatic.
The reference to the platform
corresponds to the legitimate
need to take distances from
the most extravagant forms of
anarchism, and probably in the
first place from individualism
and the refusal to organize.

It is of course no coincidence
that the international gathering
of St. Imier will take place at
the same time as the congress
of the International of anarchist
federations. The coincidence
of dates is intended to highlight
the need for an international
organization. The St. Imier
gathering will give a great
opportunity to discuss these
questions. The French FA does
not intend to interfere in the
way the Canadian or Brazilian
libertarians are organized,
for example. We don?t care
whether they are ?platformists?
or ?synthesists?. The diversity
of contexts justifies the diversity
of approaches. But we ask
the same understanding from
others. However, if the anarchist
movement in one particular
country does not develop or
recedes because of a permanent
internal crisis, for instance, we
can collectively wonder why and
consider solutions.

Still, we all agree, however, on
the fact that the working class, the
working population as a whole,
must organize autonomously in
order to build a society without
exploitation and oppression. It is
time to imagine an organization
that is not based on outdated
dogmatic conceptions but on an
uninhibited and open federalism.

February-March 2012

[1] Now that the Saint-Imier gathering is over, I can mention one very typical case

[2] of ?platformist? behavior that particularly irritates the militants of the Federation 
anarchiste. I discovered on Wikipedia
an article on a Swiss group, the Organisation socialiste des montagnes, which claims to be 
the main organizer of the
International gathering of Saint-Imier. It is a pity they haven?t mentioned the Federation 
anarchiste, which is, with the Saint-
Imier anarchist group, the initiator of the project, the main financial contributor and 
the pilar, in terms of militants, of the
project. (24-08-2012) For the English translation: 
http://monde-nouveau.net/IMG/pdf/Parcours_Fontenis_traduc_anglaise.
pdf

[3] Ibid

[4] Gaetano Manfredonia, ? Le d?bat plate-forme ou synth?se ?, Itin?raire n? 13, Voline, 
1995. Let us note that Manfredonia,
who definitely knows what he is writing about, considers the F?d?ration anarchiste as 
?half platformist, half synthesist?.

[5] Guillaume Davranche : ? 1927 : Avec la Plate-forme, l?anarchisme tente la r?novation. 
? http://www.alternativelibertaire.
org/spip.php?article1596.

[6] The F?d?ration anarchiste was changed into the F?d?ration communiste libertaire in 
1953. The FCL collapsed in 1956.

[7] We can observe today attempts made by nostalgic crypto-post-Stalinists to rehabilitate 
Andr? Marty, presented as
a victim of ill-intended right-wing authors. Unfortunately some anarchists fall into this 
manipulation, including Fontenis
groupies. If Marty was not that bad a guy, Fontenis was right to make an alliance with him.

[8] An analysis ? from inside ? can be found in a text written by Christian Lagant, 
militant of the Kronstadt Group of the FCL.
The Kronstadt group had published in 1954 a Memorandum 
[http://www.fondation-besnard.org/IMG/pdf/Memorandum_du_
groupe_Kronstadt.pdf] criticizing the activity of Fontenis and his fraction (OPB). Lagant 
left the FCL at its May 1955 congress
and published in 1956 an article analyzing the electoral strategy of the FCL. (? La FCL et 
les ?lections du 2 janvier 1956 ?
Noir et Rouge, n? 9) [see : http://monde-nouveau.net/spip.php?article389]. It has been 
said and written that the opposition
between Fontenis and Lagant was founded on personal, not political motives. Reading the 
?Memorandum du groupe
Kronstadt? and Lagant?s article proves the contrary, for the arguments which are developed 
are definitely political. Besides,
I knew Lagant, we were in the same CGT union, and that fellow was unanimously considered 
as having an extreme moral
rectitude, I would even say he was pathologically honest. He suicided in 1978.

[9] It is of course impossible to know for certain what Makhno would have thought of 
Fontenis? ?alliance? with the Stalinist
Andr? Marty, but the following information might give a idea: He wrote in 1932 in a 
Russian anarchist paper in the US: ?In my
mind, the FAI and the CNT must have (...) groups of initiative in each village and each 
town, and they must not fear to take
control of the revolutionary, strategic, organisational and theoretical direction of the 
worker?s movement. It is obvious that they will have to avoid uniting with political 
parties in general, and with the bolchevik-communists in particular, for I suppose that 
their Spanish equivalents will be the good imitators of their masters.? (Quoted by 
Alexandre Skirda, Les cosaques de la libert?, p. 330, ?d. JC Latt?s.)

[10] ?Parcours d?un aventuriste du mouvement libertaire ?, Le Monde libertaire n? 1604, 
16-22 septembre 2010.
(http://www.monde-libertaire.fr/portraits/13723-georges-fontenis-parcours-dun-aventuriste-du-mouvement-libertaire-1/2)
English version : ? Journey of an adventurist of the Libertarian movement ?, 
http://monde-nouveau.net/spip.php?article371

[11] This imitation of Trotskyism by the French libertarian communists used to make it 
virtually impossible to distinguish them from Trotskyites. They constantly tried to commit 
themselves with the Trotskyites through alliances, joint communiqu?s, joint events, etc. 
In short, a lot of visible signs that showed their proximity to the Trotskyites... and 
their distance from the anarchist movement.

A comrade in my union was, in the late 70s, was a member of the political bureau of the 
Ligue communiste r?volutionnaire,
the major trotskyite organisation. At that time Alternative Libertaire did not yet exist, 
it had another name, UTCL (Union des travailleurs communistes libertaires). I asked my 
friend his opinion about our anarcho-communist comrades. He aswered
that they were nothing but a tendency within the Ligue communiste.

[12] Respectively : Allgemeine Arbeiter Union Deutschlands, Allgemeine Arbeiter Union 
Deutschlands-Einheitsorganisation,
Kommunistische Arbeiter-Union.

[13] A point of view Bakunin shared.

[14] I must modify this opinion for I very recently realized there is at least one 
individualist, a comrade I?ve known for years,

who does a very good militant job in the Federation anarchiste. We never had the 
opportunity to discuss the matter. Maybe
I?ll have to reconsider my point of view on the question. (24-08-2012)

[15] For a critical analysis of platformism and synthesism, see Ren? Berthier, ?Le?ons 
d?octobre?: http://monde-nouveau.net/
spip.php?article30437

[16] http://fdca.it/fdcaen/international/al.html

[17] See http://monde-nouveau.net/spip.php?article140 for an analysis of this conference.

[18] I recently read a lot of platformist documents published by North and South American 
groups. In many of these texts
anarcho-syndicalism seems to be seen as a sort of radical version of unionism, but the 
essence of anarcho-syndicalism
is missing, that is, the convergence of vertical (industrial) and horizontal 
(geographical) structures and activity. During its anarcho-syndicalist period, the French 
CGT (created in 1895), was precisely the fusion of the federation of unions and of the 
federation of ?Bourses du Travail? (local structures grouping the unions on a geographical 
level ? [Workers centers?]).

Anarcho-syndicalism is precisely defined by the fact that it dedicates a great part of its 
activity to non-work-place problems: housing, schools, transports, culture, etc. Same 
thing with the Spanish CNT (created 1911): when the Spanish comrades created unions in a 
new place, they also created a ?uni?n local?, a library, sometimes a school, etc. All this 
activity was strictly linked with the general activity of the CNT. Ignoring (deliberately 
or not) this ?horizontal? activity of anarcho-syndicalism makes it naturally easy to 
criticize the absence of... horizontal activity. Practically, a really functioning 
anarcho-syndicalist organization ? that is having a real ?horizontal? activity ?, would 
not only enter into competition with political parties, but also with ?specific? anarchist 
organizations..
.
[19] The only individualist anarchist I met, in the 70s, was a member of my CGT union, he 
paid his membership fees, came to
the general assemblies, etc. and was not a member of the F?d?ration anarchiste!


[20] ?We respect the autonomy of all local AL groups?, says the Alternative Libertaire 
militant interviewed by the Nefac (above
mentioned).