#WORLD #WORLDWIDE #INTERNATIONAAL #ANARCHISM #News #Journal #Update - (en) anarkismo.net: BAKUNIN, MALATESTA AND THE PLATFORM DEBATE - The Question of Anarchist Political Organization by Felipe Corrêa and Rafael Viana da Silva (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

 The present text -the core of which was taken from the introduction that we wrote

for the French edition of Social Anarchism and Organization, by the Anarchist
Federation of Rio de Janeiro (FARJ)[1]- aims to discuss the question of the
specific anarchist political organization, based on the contributions of Mikhail
Bakunin, Errico Malatesta and the Organizational Platform for a General Union of
Anarchists, written by militants organized around the magazine Dielo Trudá, among
whom were Nestor Makhno and Piotr Archinov.
We are going to take up the contributions of Bakunin and Malatesta to establish a
dialogue between them and the Platform, trace the similarities and differences
between the proposals of anarchists who advocate an organizational dualism and
those of the Bolsheviks, and we will see the proximity of Malatesta with the
Synthesis, as well as the historical impact of the Platform, which will make it
possible to elucidate the positions that have been disseminated about this debate.

Anarchism is a political-doctrinal ideology that emerged in the nineteenth
century, with a hegemony of mass oriented strategies, especially syndicalism
(revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism). Among the fundamental
positions of "mass anarchism" are the defense of organization, of reforms as a
possible path to revolution (provided they are properly conquered through class
struggle) and of violence when associated with previously organized popular
movements. Such positions are distinguished from other minority positions
characterized by their anti-organizationism, their opposition to the struggle for
reforms and their defense of violence as a trigger for popular mobilization
("propaganda by the deed").

Those who have taken part in mass anarchism and defend organizational
dualism-concomitant organization on two levels, one political/anarchist and the
other mass/social-are not the majority, but among them there are relevant authors
with significant positions and, above all, a solid historical experience,
supported by the theoretical and practical construction of anarchist
organizations.[2]

Contributions from Bakunin
Despite the fact that, after important attempts to compile them, Bakunin's
complete works have finally been published in French[3], his writings on the
so-called "Fraternity" of 1864 and "Alliance" of 1868 -to use the terminology
proposed by Max Nettlau- are very little known.
Bakunin's mass strategy has been thoroughly discussed in relevant texts such as
Bakunin: Founder of Revolutionary Syndicalism, by Gaston Leval,[4]and several
others by René Berthier.[5]Not so much his theory of political organization-which
he addresses extensively in different documents-which is his attempt to base the
political-organizational proposals he had in terms of principles, program,
strategy and organization.

There seems to be some shame around these writings, especially among French
anarchists. It is as if they belonged to an authoritarian heritage, perhaps of
Blanquist and Jacobin inspiration, which remains in the author and should not be
brought to light.[6]

We believe that Bakunin's positions on anarchist political organization, from
1868 onwards, are fully reconciled with his mass strategy, which he proposed to
the International Workingmen's Association (IWA), and should be recognized as a
relevant part of his anarchism. Today, such positions seem to carry weight as a
pillar for fruitful reflections on the most suitable organizational model for
anarchist intervention.

Bakunin argued that the Alliance should have a dual objective: on the one hand,
to stimulate the growth of and strengthen the IWA; on the other, to bring
together all those who had political-ideological affinities with anarchism-or, as
it was generically called in that period, revolutionary socialism or
collectivism- around principles, a program and a common strategy.[7]In sum,
create and strengthen both political organization and a mass movement, which has
been called organizational dualism:

They[Alliance militants]will form the inspiring and vivifying soul of that
immense body that we call the International Workers' Association[...]; then they
will deal with issues that are impossible to discuss publicly; they will form the
necessary bridge between the propaganda of socialist theories and revolutionary
practice.[8]
For Bakunin, it was not necessary for the Alliance to have a large number of
militants: "The number of these individuals should not, therefore, be immense."
The Alliance had to constitute a political organization, public and secret, with
an active minority and collective responsibility among the members, to bring
together "the most safe, the most committed, the smartest and the most energetic,
in a word the most intimate," with groups in various countries and the ability to
decisively influence the working masses.[9]The organization had to be based on
internal regulations and a strategic program to establish, respectively, its
organic functioning and its political-ideological and programmatic-strategic
bases, forging a common axis for anarchist action.
Only "he who[has]frankly accepted the entire program with all its theoretical and
practical consequences and who, along with intelligence, energy, honesty and
discretion,[has]also a revolutionary passion" could be a member of the
organization. Internally, there should be no hierarchy among the members of the
Bakuninist political organization and decisions had to be made from the bottom
up, generally by majority (varying from consensus to simple majority depending on
the relevance of the issue), and all had to abide by decisions taken
collectively. This meant applying federalism-advocated as a form of social
organization that must decentralize power and create "a revolutionary
organization from the bottom up and from the periphery to the center"-in the
internal bodies of the anarchist organization.[10]

The Alliance should not exercise a relationship of domination and / or hierarchy
over the IWA, rather it should complement it; and vice versa. Together, these two
organizational bodies had to complement and enhance the revolutionary project of
the workers, without the submission of either party.

The Alliance is the necessary complement to the International ... But the
International and the Alliance, tending towards the same end goal, pursue
different goals at the same time. One's mission is to bring together the working
masses, the millions of workers, with their different professions and countries,
across the borders of all States, in a single huge and compact body; the other,
the Alliance, has the mission of giving the masses a truly revolutionary
leadership. The programs of one and the other, without being in any way opposite,
are different by the very degree of their respective development. That of the
International, if taken seriously, contains in germ, but only in germ, the whole
program of the Alliance. The program of the Alliance is the ultimate expression
of the[program]of the International.[11]

The union of these two organizations-one political, of minorities (cadres),
another social, of majorities (masses)-and their horizontal and permanent
organization enhance the strength of workers and increase the opportunities of
the anarchist transformation process. Within the mass movement, the political
organization makes anarchists more effective in disputes over positions. This
formation, organized and in favor of its program, is opposed to forces that are
oriented in the opposite direction and that may seek: to raise to the status of
principle any of the different political-ideological and/or religious positions;
to minimize its eminently class-based character; to strengthen reformist
positions (viewing reform as an end) and the loss of combativeness of the
movement; to establish internal hierarchies and/or relations of domination; to
direct the force of workers toward elections and/or toward strategies of change
that imply the takeover of the State; to submit the movement to parties, states
or other organizations that eliminate, in the process, the protagonism of the
oppressed classes and their institutions.

Contributions from Malatesta
Various ideas from Malatesta resemble those described previously, especially the
set of organizational proposals on the "anarchist party," the name by which he
referred to the specific anarchist organization. "Parties" of this type took
shape historically and had considerable involvement, as were the cases of the
Anarchist Socialist Revolutionary Party, of 1891, the Anarchist Party of Ancona,
of 1913, and the Italian Anarchist Union, of 1919-1920.[12]
Malatesta conceptualized the anarchist party as "the ensemble of those who are
out to help make anarchy a reality and who therefore need to set themselves a
target to achieve and a path to follow." For him, "staying isolated, with each
individual acting or seeking to act on his own without entering into agreement
with others, without making preparations, without marshalling the flabby strength
of singletons into a mighty coalition, is tantamount to condemning oneself to
impotence, to squandering one's own energies on trivial, ineffective acts and,
very quickly, losing belief in one's purpose and lapsing into utter inaction."[13]

In order for anarchists to be effective in their action, they had to establish a
common strategy and program and overcome the form of affinity groups that have no
contact with social struggles. The goal of the party was stated as follows: "We
want to act on it[the mass]and propel it along the path that we believe to be
best, but as our objective is to liberate and not dominate, we want to accustom
it to free initiative and freedom of action"[14]. Obviously that path was that of
the social revolution.

The Malatestian party is founded on revolutionary discipline and in the principle
of unity. "Without understanding, without coordination of each other's efforts
for common and simultaneous action, victory is not materially possible." But
"discipline must not be slavish discipline, blind devotion to bosses, an
obedience to the one who always speaks so as not to have to move." This is about
revolutionary discipline, which means "consistency with accepted norms and
fidelity to assumed commitments,[...]feeling obliged to share the work and the
risks with comrades in struggle"[15]. The principle of unity establishes that it
is not enough to have a platform of association that calls itself anarchist.
Although anarchists may seem united, Malatesta affirms that he does not believe
"in the soundness of organizations built upon concessions and subterfuge and
where there is no real agreement and sympathy between the members." He continues,
"Better dis-united than mis-united"[16].

Propaganda and education were fundamental activities to be carried out by the
anarchists. We "carry on our propaganda to raise the moral level of the masses
and induce them to win their emancipation by their own efforts." Of course,
propaganda should be organized and planned: "Isolated, sporadic propaganda which
is often a way of easing a troubled conscience or is simply an outlet for someone
who has a passion for argument, serves little or no purpose." For Malatesta,
"seeds sown haphazardly" had great difficulty germinating and taking root.
Rather, what is needed "is continuity of effort, patience, coordination, and
adaptability to different surroundings and circumstances." Anarchists should
occupy themselves with education, "education for freedom," "making people who are
accustomed to obedience and passivity consciously aware of their real power and
capabilities"[17]. However, he believed that propaganda and education alone were
not enough. "We would be deluding ourselves in thinking that propaganda is enough
to raise them[the people]to that level of intellectual development which is
needed to put our ideas into effect."[18]In relation to education, Malatesta
criticizes the "educationists[...]who assert that through propaganda and
instruction, the defense of free thought and positive science, with the
establishment of popular universities and modern schools, it is possible to
destroy in the masses religious prejudice, moral subjection to state rule and
belief in sacrosanct property rights"[19].

In reality, for him these initiatives were very limited: "Educationists should
see how powerless their generous efforts are." The consciousness of the masses
could not be sensibly elevated and the environment transformed "as long as the
economic and political conditions[of the moment][lasted]"[20].

Malatesta proposed organizational base building work, to be carried out daily by
anarchists:

In normal times[it is necessary]to carry out the long and patient work of
preparation and popular organization and not to fall into the illusion of
short-term revolution, achievable only by the initiative of a few, without the
effective participation of the masses. Since this preparation is carried out in
an adverse environment, do not neglect propaganda, agitation or organization of
the masses, among other things.[21]
The activities of organized anarchists would therefore be "the propagation of our
ideas; unceasing struggle, violent or non-violent depending on the circumstances,
against government and against the boss class to conquer as much freedom and
well-being as we can for the benefit of everybody"[22].
Bakunin, Malatesta and the Platform: "Anarcho-Bolshevism"?
First of all, it must be said that when Bakunin developed his praxis-and his
theory and practice of political organization-which would directly influence
Malatesta, Lenin had just been born and Bolshevism would still take many years to
emerge. Therefore, to accuse Bakuninist organizational dualism of being
"Leninist" is an anachronism.[23]
At the same time, it also seems problematic to assume that by defending
organizational dualism Bakunin, Malatesta and Lenin should be considered part of
the same current or political-ideological tradition, resembling each other to
some extent. As is known, this dualism was understood and practiced in a very
distinct way in the anarchist tradition and in the Leninist tradition, including
its Trotskyist and other variations. Any canonical text of Marxism-Leninism on
the question-for example, Lenin's What Is to Be Done?[24]-shows this clearly.
Apart from parallel work on two different levels, one of the cadre party and the
other of the mass movement, there are no major similarities.

To be concise, there are two fundamental differences that can be marked between
the organizational praxis of Bakunin and Malatesta and that of Lenin: the
internal structure of the organization and the relationship between organization
and mass movements.

In the first instance, in the anarchist political organization there is internal
democracy and decisions are made from the bottom up. It is the grassroots
organizations and the militants themselves who discuss and resolve all the
organization's issues. There is no hierarchy between the members so there is no
leadership-base division. Leninist political organization, on the contrary, is
based on "democratic centralism," which envisioned a hierarchical organizational
model, with a leadership-base division, so that although the base is consulted
for decision-making, who in fact deliberates is the leadership, including against
the positions of the base. In other words, there is no internal democracy and
decisions are made from top to bottom.

Unity of action, defended by a sector of anarchism, is often confused with
democratic centralism. What makes the difference between the two positions is not
the obligation regarding the decisions made, common in both cases, but who makes
the decisions and the way they are made. In anarchist organizations everyone
effectively participates and deliberates on all issues (sometimes through
majority mechanisms); in Leninist organizations, on the other hand, even though
the rank and file are consulted, the leadership is the one who decides and
hierarchically imposes decisions.

Secondly, the anarchist political organization functions in a complementary way
to mass movements and does not attempt to impose a relationship of hierarchy
and/or domination. Its function is to strengthen the leadership of these
movements, since in the anarchist project the masses must be responsible for
revolutionary social transformation. The organization is part of the masses and
brings together an ideologically related sector that seeks to strengthen its
position in political disputes. The Leninist organization differs in that it
believes that popular movements are only able to fight in the short term, in the
struggles for demands. Leninists believe that it is the party that must provide
movements with transformative capacity and that the party itself must lead in the
process of revolutionary social transformation. The party is conceived as a
separate sector of the masses that exerts a relation of hierarchy and domination
over them, withdrawing their class independence and protagonism.

That is why we are not in agreement with the assertion that the positions of
Bakunin and Malatesta-according to our point of view, as we will argue later,
rescued in several respects by the Platform and by various anarchist political
organizations-constitute some kind of "anarcho-Bolshevism" or carry Leninist
traits. Both Bakunin and Malatesta-and later Makhno, Archinov, Ida Mett and
others-had the anarchist political organization as one of their important topics
for reflection and established its framework within anarchist principles.

The link between anarchist organizational dualism and Leninism, which has been
established with some frequency in the past and continues to establish itself in
the present, has no historiographical foundation, not even theoretical-logical.
It seems to relate more to the self-serving motives of those who make these
claims than to a historical phenomenon.

Anyone who takes on this topic with a minimum of seriousness and intellectual
honesty will verify the erroneousness of the alleged relationship of Bakunin,
Malatesta and the Platform with Bolshevism. In the case of the Platform, its main
aspects are based on the long anarchist political tradition and its authors lived
through the experience of a concrete social revolution, dulled by the
authoritarian politics of the Bolsheviks, which makes the characterization of its
authors as anarcho-Bolsheviks more absurd.[25]

The Platform and the debate between anarchists
The Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists, written in 1926
by a group of Russians and Ukrainians exiled in France, constitutes a frame of
reference in the discussion on anarchist organization. In our view, the debate on
this document has been relatively truncated and, for certain reasons,
misunderstood by a significant part of those interested in the subject.
The result of a process of self-criticism by anarchists in the wake of
developments of the Russian and Ukrainian revolutions, the Platform was published
as a program proposal for anarchists. Divided into three major sections -general,
constructive and organizational-the Platform upholds, among other things: the
critique of capitalist society, the State and representative democracy and the
centrality of class struggle; the need for leadership of the masses for the
revolution, through class and federalist intervention; criticism of the
dictatorship of the proletariat as a period of transition; the defense of
syndicalism as a relevant means for anarchist action; the establishment of a
post-revolutionary society in which production and land have been socialized; the
creation of organs for the defense of the revolution; the formation of an
anarchist political organization programmatically based on theoretical and
tactical unity, on responsibility and federalism.[26]

Two reasons mark the misunderstanding of the Platform, especially if the recently
discussed contributions of Bakunin and Malatesta are taken into account.

Regarding Bakunin, ignorance of his texts on the Alliance has prevented
appreciating the similarities between his conception of political organization
and that of the Platform. With respect to Malatesta, it must be said that the
partial dissemination and excessive focus on part of his mail exchange with
Makhno about the Platform-specifically the first letter sent by the Italian-has
impeded a clearer understanding of his positions.

There is a third reason, in addition, which has to do with sectors that have set
the standard for debate in the world, establishing a version that many
researchers and militants hold: A significant part of the discussion about the
Platform has been monopolized by an interpretation that is dominant in European
anarchism in general, particularly French, and which is mostly critical of the
Platform.

Next we present elements for the discussion on these three relevant questions, in
order to contribute to solidifying our position.

Bakunin and the fundamentals of the Platform
We agree with researchers such as Frank Mintz when they argue that the Platform,
rather than introduce a new organizational debate among anarchists, takes up
fundamental elements of the Bakuninist strategy.[27]In this sense, Van der Walt
correctly states that "Makhno and Archinov explicitly related the Platform to the
Bakunin heritage." Quoting Colin Darch on the makhnovitchina, he states:
Bakunin's "aspirations concerning organizations, as well as his activity in the
First International give us every right" to view him as an "active partisan" of
the idea that anarchism "must gather its forces in one organization, constantly
agitating, as demanded by reality and the strategy of class struggle."[28]

Fundamental elements found in the Platform are certainly tributaries of Bakunin,
among them the social critique of capitalist and statist domination and the
centrality of class struggle, the need for the simultaneous intervention of
anarchists at both levels, anarchist organization and mass movements
(organizational dualism), the need for a violent social revolution, and in
general libertarian socialism as a proposal for a future society.

In a more detailed analysis, as much as we can find differences, there are
similarities in the main lines. The federalist functioning of the anarchist
organization, without hierarchy or domination among the members, and its
complementary relationship with mass movements, are also characteristic elements
that allow Bakunin to be related to the Platform. This is not the time to do so,
but it would not be very difficult to establish with substance and detail this
whole series of parallels.

According to this analysis and what we have mentioned above, far from innovating,
the Platform simply proposed a "return"-adapted to a concrete historical
context-to the Bakuninist organizational strategy of the post-1867 period. We
should recall that this model took shape, in theoretical and practical terms, in
other circumstances, in the most diverse times and locations, the Platform being
only one of them. For this reason, we understand that the qualifier platformist
-beyond having the merit of differentiating, among anarchists, a particular
organizational strategy-can be easily substituted by others that refer to other
authors and experiences, some of which occurred during the first great wave of
anarchism in the world.

Malatesta, the Platform and Synthesis
Analyzing the controversy around the Platform,[29]in which the debate between
Makhno and Malatesta stands out, the proximity between Malatesta and the Platform
is not as obvious as it is with Bakunin. According to what we have indicated, if
we take into account the more than six decades of Malatesta's anarchist
militancy, we can understand that at certain times his positions are closer to
those of the Platform and in others to the Anarchist Synthesis.[30]
Texts such as those published in 1897 in L'Agitazione, especially "Organization
I" and "Organization II"[31], and compilations such as Anarchist
Ideology,[32]allow us to identify positions quite similar to that of the
Platform. However, texts such as "Communism and Individualism"[33]and
"Individualism and Communism in Anarchism"[34], as well as Malatesta's
interventions at the Anarchist Congress in Amsterdam in 1907,[35]show positions
much closer to Synthesis.

In his texts closest to Synthesis, Malatesta criticizes the fact that "anarchists
of various tendencies, despite wanting basically the same thing, find themselves
in their daily lives and in their propaganda in fierce opposition to each other."
Based on this criticism, Malatesta defends the need to "reach some understanding"
and that "when agreement is not possible[it is necessary]to know how to tolerate
each other. Work together when there is consensus and when there is not, allow
others to do what they consider best, without interference"[36]. This should be
the case, since "individualist and communist anarchism is one and the same thing
- or almost," "there are no fundamental differences"[37].

At the Amsterdam congress, trying to mediate between the positions of syndicalist
anarchists and others with individualist influences, Malatesta affirms that
"cooperation is indispensable, today more than ever. Without doubt, the
association must allow individual members complete autonomy and the federation
must respect this same autonomy for its groups." If on the one hand, he says, it
is understood that it is "wrong to present the ‘organizationists', the
federalists, as authoritarians,[on the other hand]it is equally wrong to imagine
that the ‘anti-organizationists', the individualists, have to be deliberately
condemned to isolation." In short, Malatesta believed that the dispute between
individualists and organizationists was a "simple dispute of words"[38].

These and other positions allow authors to correctly claim that Malatesta
"flirted with the synthesist position on some occasions"[39]. But it is necessary
to acknowledge that there are also times when he defends quite different positions.

The debate between Makhno and Malatesta: necessary clarification
With regard to the debate between Makhno and Malatesta on the
Platform,[40]Malatesta's positions are also modified throughout the debate,
hampered by issues of text comprehension and mutual comprehension. There are some
aspects relative to context that should be pointed out: the fact that Malatesta
was on house arrest and quite removed from anarchist discussions; the problem of
translation of the Platform, done by Volin, one of its greatest opponents, who
"adjusted" it to his point of view through a series of terminological
choices;[41]a certain difference of evaluation of anarchism at that moment, which
the Russians considered much more critically than Malatesta and, consequently,
they saw more need for a significant change in their organizational patterns.
Their critical position is related to the historical experience of
Russian-Ukrainian anarchism, since their progress and defeats contributed to
reinforcing their conviction on the importance of the specific anarchist
organization and of its fundamental axes.[42]We will discuss some questions on
this debate that we consider necessary to address in more depth.
First of all, it makes sense to clear any doubts about our position: for us,
Malatesta as well as Makhno and other Russians who wrote the Platform are
anarchists, considering a historical and global approach to anarchism. Both
positions can be more or less historically identified in various anarchist
authors and episodes. Mainly in his first letter, Malatesta exaggerates and
commits misunderstandings when criticizing the Platform. There is no
justification for a statement like the one in which he says that the Platform is
"typically authoritarian" and does not constitute a document of anarchism, but
rather "a Government, a Church," which Makhno simply refused to comment on due to
its degree of absurdity. Malatesta also hints that the Platform admits that "to
organize means to submit to leaders and belong to an authoritarian, centralizing
body that suffocates any attempt at free initiative."[43]For us, there is no
doubt that the Platform is anarchist, it does not bear any relation with
governments, churches or any other type of authoritarianism, fits without
difficulty into the historical tradition of anarchism and does not assume, as its
detractors said from the beginning, a Bolshevik detour.

Second, there are unquestionable similarities between the positions of Makhno and
Malatesta. They both agree, for example, in the need for anarchists to organize
themselves in a revolutionary political organization (a "General Union" for the
first, an "Anarchist Party" for the second). They are also in agreement -despite
terminological divergences[44]- on their conception of organization as a promoter
of their ideas and practices among the masses (that's why they use terms like
"influence," "orientation," "suggestion," even "direction") and as guiding the
direction of struggles and workers' movements towards social revolution and
socialism or communism libertarian. Malatesta says:

I believe that we, anarchists, convinced of the validity of our programme, must
strive to acquire overwhelming influence in order to draw the movement towards
the realization of our ideals. But such influence must be won by doing more and
better than others, and will only be useful if won in that way.[45]
In this same sense, Makhno asserts that "anarchism is a revolutionary social
doctrine that must inspire the exploited and oppressed"[46]in the struggles for
social transformation, and as the Platform proposes, it must make "revolutionary
anarchist positions" penetrate into the movements of "workers and peasants," to
become a "pioneer" and "theoretical guide" of popular organizations in the city
and countryside.[47]The Supplement to the Platform affirms that the tools to
influence the masses should be "propaganda, force of argument, and spoken and
written persuasion"[48]. Third, it should be noted that two of Malatesta's
criticisms of the Platform are completely misplaced: the idea that the Russians
were proposing a hierarchical organization and that the Executive Committee
(despite its name, which indicates that it executes and not that it deliberates)
should control the decisions of the organization.
It was not for nothing that Makhno was surprised by Malatesta's first text and
told him: "My impression is that... you have misunderstood the project for the
‘Platform'."[49]Let us agree that it is true to some extent.

The Platform is clear about the functions of the Executive Committee:

The execution of decisions taken by the Union with which it is entrusted; the
theoretical and organisational orientation of the activity of isolated
organisations consistent with the theoretical positions and the general tactical
line of the Union; the monitoring of the general state of the movement; the
maintenance of working and organisational links between all the organisations in
the Union; and with other organisations.[50]
It is, according to our point of view, a type of secretariat that guides the
decisions made by the base of the organization.
The proposed organizational form is federalist, built by the base, from the
bottom up, so that it reconciles "the independence and initiative of individuals
and the organisation with service to the common cause." However, so that "shared
decisions"-that is, socialized among the whole membership and established
collectively-can be carried out, federalism demands that members "undertake fixed
organisation duties, and demands execution of communal decisions"[51].

There is nothing in the Platform or in documents related to it that allows for
linking it with an organizational model based on hierarchy and domination
(internal or with respect to the masses) or that allows for conceiving the
Executive Committee as a type of central committee that would decide the
direction of the General Union.

The debate between Makhno and Malatesta: real divergences
At this point we will identify issues that, taking into account the entire
debate, constitute real disagreements between the two militants. The question
that undoubtedly occupied most of the debate was the question of collective
responsibility. At first, for Malatesta the idea that there was mutual
responsibility between militant and organization ("the entire Union will be
responsible for the political and revolutionary activity of each member; in the
same way, each member will be responsible for the political and revolutionary
activity of the Union as a whole"[52]) constituted an "absolute denial of all
individual independence, all freedom, all freedom of initiative and action"[53].
In this text, for Malatesta responsibility means autonomy and independence of
individuals and groups: "Full autonomy, full independence and, therefore, full
responsibility of individuals and groups"[54].
In his first reply, Makhno claims that Malatesta always accepted the individual
responsibility of anarchist militants: "You yourself, dear Malatesta, recognize
the individual responsibility of the anarchist revolutionary."[55]His rejection
of collective responsibility would be, according to Makhno, "without basis" and
would be "dangerous for the social revolution"[56]. Makhno further relates
collective responsibility to the question of anarchist ideological influence on
the masses:

The collective spirit of its militants and their collective responsibility will
allow modern anarchism to eliminate from its circles the idea, historically
false, that anarchism cannot be a guide-either ideologically or in practice-for
the mass of workers in a revolutionary period and therefore could not have
overall responsibility.[57]
Archinov, for his part, supporting Makhno's positions and criticizing Malatesta,
reinforces the sense of collective responsibility in the following way:
The practical activity of a member of the organization is found in full harmony
with general activity and, inversely, the activity of the whole organization
cannot be in contradiction with the conscience and activity of anyone of its
members, provided that you have accepted the program on which the organization is
based.[58]
The idea is that an anarchist organization cannot be founded if not on this
principle, in the sense that the member "could not carry out his political and
revolutionary work if not in the political spirit of the Union[...]his activity
could not be contrary to that which was developed by all its members"[59].
In the following response, Malatesta is still standing his ground, going so far
as to relate collective responsibility with governments, the military that kill
rebel soldiers or the armies that decimate populations in invasions-another
completely out of place comparison, from our point of view-noting:

I accept and support the view that anyone who associates and cooperates with
others for a common purpose must feel the need to coordinate his actions with
those of his fellow members and do nothing that harms the work of others and,
thus, the common cause; and respect the agreements that have been made, except
when wishing sincerely to leave the association when emerging differences of
opinion or changed circumstances or conflict over preferred methods make
cooperation impossible or inappropriate. Just as I maintain that those who do not
feel and do not practice that duty should be thrown out of the association.[60]
Malatesta complements his criticism by saying that "perhaps, speaking of
collective responsibility, you mean precisely that accord and solidarity that
must exist among the members of an association" and emphasizing that, if this
were the case, "agreement would soon be reached"[61].
In the following response, Makhno once again affirms that "anarchist action on a
wide scale will only achieve its goals if it possesses a well-defined
organizational base, inspired and guided by the principle of the collective
responsibility of its militants"[62].

Some time later, Malatesta would go on to affirm that responsibility is
essentially individual: "Moral responsibility (and in our case we can talk of
nothing but moral responsibility) is individual by its very nature." Adding: "If
a number of men agree to do something and one of them allows the initiative to
fail through not carrying out what he had promised, everyone will say that it was
his fault and that therefore it is he who is responsible, not those who did what
they were supposed to right up to the last."[63]

In sum, it can be said that there are points of agreement and others of
divergence in this controversy between Malatesta and the editors of Dielo Trudá.
Malatesta does not relent when it comes to the idea that responsibility is
essentially individual, although he understands the need for coordinated actions
and agreement and respect for these actions and pacts on the part of the members
of an anarchist organization. For Makhno and Archinov, responsibility is
individual and collective at the same time, it necessarily binds the militant and
the organization, making them responsible to each other, and it has to do with
the guiding role of anarchism in the revolutionary process. As Malatesta himself
notes, the notion of collective responsibility and the position of full
independence and autonomy that he himself defends are incompatible.[64]

Another divergence has to do with the greater or lesser need for unification
(homogeneity) of anarchists. While the Russians advocate that the anarchist
organization must bring together the majority, if not the entire organized and
revolutionary sector of anarchists-emphasizing "the great need for an
organization that[brings together]most of the participants in the anarchist
movement"[65]-, Malatesta affirms: "Let us therefore abandon the idea of bringing
together all[the anarchists]in a single organization." For the Russians
fragmentation was the central problem, something that doesn't seem to be that
essential for Malatesta.

There are also very important differences in terms of organization-that is, to
the organic functioning of the anarchist grouping-which includes the level of
commitment and autonomy of the members and groups that belong to the organization
in relation to collective decisions and the decision-making method of
deliberation. For Makhno and the Russians, action with a clear strategy and
program was fundamental, which, in addition to anarchist principles, established
a common and unitary path for the organization as a whole: "such a role[of
anarchists in a revolution]can only be played successfully when our Party is
ideologically homogeneous and unified from the point of view of tactics"[66]. He
further states that "our Party must[...]make clear its political unity and
organizational character"[67], in a position similar to what Archinov called
"homogeneous theoretical and practical program"[68], a form of collective
deliberation with binding decision for all its members.

For Malatesta, members and groups of the organization had to have the most
complete autonomy and decisions should not be mandatory, but only recommendations
that may or may not be followed: "full autonomy, full independence and,
therefore, full responsibility of individuals and groups," so that the decisions
of the organization's congresses "are not mandatory rules but suggestions,
recommendations, proposals." Malatesta even goes so far as to elevate this
position-according to our point of view related to organizational strategy-to a
principle of anarchism, when he emphasizes the "principles of autonomy and free
initiative which the anarchists profess," certainly a doubtful conclusion from a
historical point of view.[69]

Archinov asks: "What would be the value of a congress that only issued ‘opinions'
and did not take charge of making them come true? None. In a vast movement[like
anarchism], a solely moral and non-organizational responsibility loses all its
value"[70]. Indirectly, the previously discussed issue of collective
responsibility comes up again.

When it comes to matters related to the program of anarchist organization,
Malatesta relates them more to anarchist principles than to a well-defined
strategy. Unlike what he does in the texts of 1897, he goes so far as to affirm
that the anarchist party is "the group of those who are on the same side, who
have the same general aspirations, who in one way or another fight for the same
end against common adversaries and enemies"[71]. Which is to say that the party
would be formed by the "partisans" of anarchism, almost automatically, by the
simple fact of existing.

Makhno and the Russians advocate that for the formation of a coherent strategy
and program for the anarchist organization, in case of divergence in positions,
majority voting would be adopted and the result of the deliberations would be
binding for the entire organization, which consequently must apply them. This
applies provided members decide to remain in the organization, since the right to
a split is given.

Malatesta criticizes decision-making by majority and proposes that differences
are voluntarily readjusted, by means of some type of consensus-dissent, and says
that the good sense of militancy should lead it to contribute positively to the
dynamics of organizational activities: "an adaptation[that]must be reciprocal,
voluntary and derive from the awareness of the need to not paralyze social life
by mere stubbornness."[72]For him, this means working with a broad program,
around anarchist principles, that allows each member and group of the
organization to carry out any action that in practice they judge will contribute
to that program.

Malatesta, closer to the Synthesis or the Platform?
As the complete works of Malatesta are not yet published, not even in Italian, we
will have to wait until that happens to be able to deepen the discussion on the
positions of Malatesta and be able to decide which were in the majority, which
were in the minority, to what extent the positions adopted are related to certain
periods of his life, etc. For the moment, we can conclude that, according to what
has been said, his positions are varied and allow different interpretations:
particularly in reference to the Platform-Synthesis debate, we have already
demonstrated that it is possible to link his positions without great difficulty
to one or the other camp depending on the texts and extracts taken into
consideration.
Debate: historical impact of the Platform and the dominance of the Synthesis
interpretation
The distrust of a large part of anarchists in relation to the elements that
culminated in the formalization of the Platform began in 1923, shortly after the
publication of Archinov's book, History of the Makhnovist movement.[73]Distrust
spread rapidly in anarchist networks.
Marc Mrachny, a former member of the Nabat organization who spent a few days with
the Makhnovists, in June 1923 published a series of criticisms of them in the
newspaper Via Obrera, an organ of the Russian anarcho-syndicalists published in
Berlin. Mrachny said that the role of Makhno had been overrated by some
anarchists to the detriment of the working class and that the makhnovitchina had
constituted a kind of "military anarchism." In the same issue of the magazine, he
himself wrote a review of Archinov's book, which had caused some discomfort due
to his criticism of certain "intellectual" sectors of the anarchist
movement.[74]The last chapter of Archinov's book, entitled "The makhnovitchina
and anarchism," develops some questions that will later be deepened by members of
Dielo Trudá and laid out in the Platform. Perhaps it can be said that this
contribution is at the origin of what years later would become the Platform.[75]

In March 1924 the anarchist Judoley pejoratively compared the Russian anarchists
for the first time with left-wing socialists, who act through a hierarchical
political organization. In another critical article, written by Eugène Dolinin
(Moravsky), Ukraine's free soviets are considered a form of state, which "should
be fine for ‘the most honest Bolshevik Marxists, but not for anarchists." To
Archinov's criticism that a considerable part of the anarchists did not
participate in the uprising in Ukraine, Moravsky replied that "anarchism cannot
rely on bayonets but on the spiritual product of humanity."[76]As we can see,
criticisms of the makhnovitchina, a phenomenon that arose out of the Ukrainian
popular struggle and of the anarchists of that region, are generally the result
of a misinterpretation and reflect an ignorance not only of the historical
episode in question, but even of anarchism itself. These critics were wrong when
they tried to disassociate the Makhnovists from the anarchist tradition, by
virtue of the use of revolutionary violence, since that has been used by
practically all anarchists who have been involved in revolutionary episodes in
history. This has to do with violence that has been at the same time a tool of
resistance against attacks from its multiple enemies and to promote the anarchist
revolutionary program. To these and other criticisms of the Makhnovist movement
Archinov and Makhno responded in long articles. They were responsible for causing
unpleasant polemics within international anarchism, especially European anarchism.

Criticisms of anarchist intellectual sectors were not exclusive to Archinov.
Anatol Gorelik-a Russian anarchist who went into exile in Argentina in 1922 and
contributed from Buenos Aires to Dielo Trudá-published in June of the same year,
Anarchists in the Russian Revolution. Beyond an overview of events in Russia,
Gorelik criticized the anarchist intellectuals who had isolated themselves from
the workers' movement.[77]

With the publication of the Platform in 1926 it was possible to deepen the debate
that had been taking place in relation to the Russian and Ukrainian revolutionary
process and the written contributions of its members, and above all its defenders
were able to concretize their own organizational project in better conditions.

A deep debate about anarchist organization, possibly the largest in history, took
place until the early thirties of the twentieth century. Not only did Makhno and
Malatesta participate, so did Archinov, Volin, Luigi Fabbri, Camilo Berneri,
Sébastien Faure, Maria Isidin, Gregori Maximoff, among others. While the members
of Dielo Trudá explained and deepened the lines of the Platform, other anarchists
tended to criticize it. As in the Makhno-Malatesta debate, some of these
criticisms denoted real differences and others were due to misunderstandings or
outright gross nonsense.[78]

Among the absurdities were the positions of Volin and other synthesists, who in
1927 claimed that the Platform constituted a "revisionism in the direction of
Bolshevism, which the authors hide"[79]. Despite being unfounded, several
anarchists and scholars of anarchism followed them and adopted this position.

In their attempt to concretize the organizational project, in 1927 the anarchists
of Dielo Trudá launched a call for the constitution of an international
federation following the bases of the Platform. With the aim of organizing an
international conference that same year, on February 5, 1927, they held a
preliminary meeting in Paris in which militants from Bulgaria, China, Spain,
France, Italy, Poland and Russia participated. From that meeting came a
provisional commission made up of the Chinese anarchist Chen, the Ukrainian
Makhno and the Polish Ranko, and various circulars were sent to various anarchist
groups.

 From the international conference, which also took place in Paris on April 20,
1927, some agreements emerged: the recognition of the class struggle as the most
important aspect of the anarchist idea, anarcho-communism as the basis of the
movement and syndicalism as the main method of struggle; the recognition of the
need for a general organization of anarchists based on tactical and ideological
unity and collective responsibility; and the need for a program for social
revolution.

The conference suffered a major setback: the police assaulted and arrested
everyone present, and only thanks to a campaign by French anarchists, Makhno was
not deported. Also, many groups, even the conference participants, did not try to
or failed to carry out the resolutions that had been adopted.[80]

Still, the conference yielded some practical results. In France, platformists
were responsible for the transformation of the Anarchist Communist Union into the
Anarchist Communist Revolutionary Union in 1927 and managed to make their
positions the majority in the organization, which lasted three years. They also
created the Libertarian Communist Federation, which existed between 1934 and
1936.[81]Of shorter existence was the Italian Anarchist Communist Union, also
created by platformists. Apart from these, the most relevant experience of the
period took place in Bulgaria, when the Federation of Anarchist Communists of
Bulgaria (FAKB), founded in 1919, adopted the Platform after it was published and
used it ever since to guide their political practice. The Bulgarian platformist
experience can be considered one of the great episodes of anarchism between the
1920s and 1940s; in fact, it contributed to a considerable mass movement with
rural and urban syndicalism, cooperatives, guerrillas and great youth
mobilization.[82]The Platform of the Federation of Anarchist Communists of
Bulgaria, published in 1945, reflects the direct influence of the Platform and
addresses "crucial questions in terms of tactics and organization and reflects
the form of organization in political party," orienting a movement that "had
significant clarity to defend against the Bolsheviks" but it was decimated by
Stalinism and by fascism.[83]

This debate resurfaced strongly among anarchists after World War II, most
significantly in France and Italy. The Platform influenced both the French
Libertarian Communist Federation[Fédération Communiste Libertaire](FCL) and the
Italian Anarchist Groups of Proletarian Action[Gruppi Anarchici d'Azione
Proletaria](GAAP), groups of the 1950s that coordinated in a libertarian
communist international of platform inspiration.[84]

Regarding the consequences of the organizational debate, the case of the
French-Francophone Anarchist Federation[Fédération Anarchiste](FAF) was the most
emblematic. Founded in 1945, the FAF took as its organizational foundation the
Synthesis of Sébastien Faure and had different tendencies within it:
individualists, humanists, trade unionists, libertarian communists, among
others.[85]Starting in 1950, a trend led by George Fontenis and influenced by the
Platform began to function without the knowledge of others and founded the
Organization Thought Battle[Organisation Pensée Bataille](OPB), a secret
organization whose objective was to give the FAF a revolutionary leadership,
driving away those opposed to the class struggle and social anarchism.[86]

In the three years after its founding, the OPB grew in influence and in 1953, at
the Paris congress, now without many of its members, under the influence of the
platformists the FAF became the Libertarian Communist Federation (FCL) and
adopted as a programmatic document the Libertarian Communist Manifesto of
Fontenis, also inspired by the Platform.[87]Its existence was relatively short
and between 1956 and 1957 the FCL ceased its activities, mainly because of the
Algerian war of independence in 1954-in which its militants got
involved-repression, the rise of the French Communist Party and its own mistakes.[88]

This process caused immense trauma, especially due to the exclusion of members of
the FAF, including its founders, and because of the way in which the OPB was
constituted and made use of its ideas. By the end of 1953, the FAF was
reconstituted by rekindling synthetist positions and the dispute with the FCL
dragged on to its end.[89]In addition to the incorporation of theoretical
elements of Marxism, such as dialectical materialism,[90]an already controversial
issue, the FCL was involved in very complicated episodes. The first took place in
1955, with the decision to present candidates for the 1956 electoral campaign, an
effort that was subsequently the object of self-criticism by its own members and
that at the time earned criticism from both synthesists and important platformist
sectors, like those who later formed the Anarchist Groups of Revolutionary
Action[Grupos Anarquistas de Acción Revolucionaria](GAAR) and the newspaper Rojo
y Negro. The second was proximity with André Marty, candidate in the 1956
elections together with Fontenis and others from the FCL. Marty was a former
member of the French Communist Party who during the Spanish Revolution had been
responsible for the International Brigades and had ordered the slaughter of
dozens of anarchists.[91]

In Italy, the formation of Anarchist Groups of Proletarian Action (GAAP) was
carried out by a platformist sector of the Italian Anarchist Federation. Expelled
in 1950, this sector-who criticized the reformism and idealism of its
organization of origin and advocated the creation of an anarchist party inspired
by the Platform-acted as GAAP until 1956, the year in which it merged with
Marxist groups to form Communist Action, a far-left sector of the Italian
Communist Party that subsequently contributed to the creation of the Movement of
the Communist Left.[92]

Be that as it may, both French and Italian platformism have had further
developments and influenced organizations up to the present, the vast majority of
which are inscribed in the anarchist camp.

It is not difficult to demonstrate the consequences of the analyzes of French and
Italian platformists of that period and of the generalization of its postulates
in all sectors of anarchism inspired by organizational dualism in general and in
the Platform in particular. Despite the virtues of the projects in question-there
is no doubt about the theoretical and practical relevance of some of the
contributions of the French and Italian platformists of the 1950s-it seems clear
that a significant part of them, especially the FCL and the GAAP, brought serious
problems. The mode of formation and action of the OPB, the position in favor of
elections and the proximity to an authoritarian communist of the stature of Marty
of the FCL and the fusion of the GAAP with the Marxists are examples that,
although they responded to a specific context, broke with the anarchist
principles and strategy enunciated in the Platform.

Without a doubt, they armed the adversaries of the Platform with powerful
arguments. As we have seen, the controversy surrounding the Platform was already
complicated in its time and since its publication it was accused of Bolshevik
deviation by its detractors. The French and Italian cases reinforced these
criticisms.

By refraining from making a less ideological analysis of the Platform, comparing
its fundamental elements with anarchist classics and ignoring the case of
Bulgarian platformism,[93]the Synthesists ended up generalizing these
examples-especially the so-called "Fontenis case"[L'affaire Fontenis]in
France-and turned them into paradigmatic examples of the modus operandi of
platformism.

This is how the argument was constituted that very often equates
Bakuninist[94]and platformist organizational dualism to a kind of Marxist and/or
Bolshevik deviation from anarchism, to a kind of anarcho-Bolshevism. The dominant
interpretation of the Platform exercised by the French synthesists and the
dissemination that its argumentation reached-orally and in writing-explain that
such positions will be uncritically consolidated by the world between researchers
and militants.

Concluding
Although organizational dualism has not been defended by the majority
organizationist anarchists, it has representatives of unquestionable importance
and magnitude among anarchists: Bakunin, Malatesta and the editors of Dielo
Trudá, among them Makhno and Archinov.
Toward the end of the 1860s, Bakunin carried out a theoretical and practical
praxis that includes the Alliance and International Workingmen's Association and
contributes decisively to the debate on anarchist political organization. In our
view, his positions constitute the fundamentals of the Dielo Trudá Platform.
Malatesta also held positions close to the Platform, although, as we have seen,
this does not occur in all his writings on the subject: it is not only about
differences with respect to some issues of the Platform, but also that at
distinct moments he comes close to the Synthesis position.

Taking into account the role of Bakunin and Malatesta in anarchism and that of
figures like Makhno and Archinov, it is not very fair to equate their positions
with some kind of Leninist or Bolshevik deviation and an alleged
anarcho-Bolshevism. Logically, to claim that the Platform contains authoritarian
positions implies ascribing responsibility for this to Bakunin. And yet it seems
quite evident that both are anarchists and that their positions about the
anarchist political organization are fully reconcilable with their other positions.

 From the analysis of the debate between Malatesta on the one hand and Makhno and
Archinov on the other, we can conclude the following: there is no doubt that the
positions in question are anarchist and that they share the opinion on the need
to organize anarchists on two levels-as workers in popular mass movements and as
anarchists in revolutionary political organizations- and on the duty of
anarchists to influence workers in general as much as possible. At the same time,
we consider Malatesta's criticisms misplaced, which claimed that the Platform is
proposing a hierarchical model of organization and that the executive committee
proposed by them would have the function of controlling decisions of the
organization.

Be that as it may, we can at least identify three real differences between
Malatesta and Makhno and Archinov on the following issues: individual and
collective responsibility; fragmentation and the need for union of anarchists;
level of autonomy and independence of individuals and groups in the anarchist
organization. If for Malatesta responsibility is essentially individual, for
Makhno and Archinov it is both individual and collective, so that it binds the
militant and the organization at the same time. If for Malatesta the
fragmentation of anarchists is not a problem of the first order, for Makhno and
Archinov it urgently needs to be overcome in order to allow the union of as many
anarchists as possible, provided they are in accordance with the organization's
program and strategy. If for Malatesta individuals should have the widest
autonomy and independence in groups and these groups in the federations, to
Makhno and Archinov unity of action is fundamental, even if it requires a
majority vote.

Finally, we must add that for us there is a nexus between certain positions of
Bakunin, Malatesta and the Platform that have made it possible to develop a
powerful theory of anarchist political organization and that these have served as
inspiration for important political experiences. In the specific case of the
Platform, it inspired a considerable set of anarchist political practices but, as
we have seen, the French and Italian experiences of the 1950s, despite their
virtues, offered elements for the argument of "Bolshevik deviation" that had been
sustained since the Platform was published. Considering the ideologicalized
analysis of the debate and the cases in question, in addition to the dominance of
the French interpretation, we can get an idea of why the Platform has been
considered as a Bolshevik element of anarchism or even something foreign to the
anarchist tradition. We have tried to show that this has no foundation.

Although there are reports about the reception of Dielo Trudá by Russian
anarchists who were in Rio Grande do Sul,[95]it seems that in Brazil the Platform
was not discussed even at that time nor in subsequent decades. Although there
were different anarchist positions throughout the twentieth century which bear
similarities to those outlined in the Platform,[96]it was not until the end of
the decade 1990 and early 2000 that the text had been read, translated and
discussed by Brazilian militants.[97]Those who have led the debate are the
militants involved in especifismo anarchism, influenced by the Uruguayan
Anarchist Federation, who without knowing the Platform at the time of its
formation, reached quite similar conceptions via Bakunin and Malatesta.

Without a doubt, reflection on the Platform should not be taken as an inflexible
guide for structuring a political organization. But to reject it on the false
argument that it is an "authoritarian deviation" from anarchism or that its
contributions should be confined to a specific context is to ignore all the
political debates before and after this document, which link the organizational
discussion to a long central thread. We understand that it is possible to advance
the debate on anarchist political organization if we do it jointly with other
contributions, both theoretical and practical, among others those of Bakunin and
Malatesta. To continue working on deepening this debate seems to us an urgent need.

Notes
[1]Felipe Corrêa and Rafael Viana da Silva, "Introduction à l'édition francophone."
[2]This claim is also supported by the studies mentioned above (Corrêa, Van der
Walt, De Laforcade, Viana da Silva). On organizational dualism in theory and
practice see "Organizational Issues within Anarchism."
[3]Mikhail Bakunin, Bakounine: Oeuvres Complètes[CD-ROM]. Amsterdam:
International Institute of Social History (IISH), 2000.
[4]Gaston Leval, Bakunin: fundador do sindicalismo revolucionário.
[5]See for example: René Berthier, "Bakounine: une théorie de l'organisation" and
"Postface."
[6]In recent decades, the silencing by French anarchists of Bakunin's work is
remarkable, especially with regard to the question of anarchist political
organization. Virtually none of the numerous programs of the Alliance were
included in the published books of this anarchist. Perhaps this question can be
explained by following the hypothesis that René Berthier put forward in a talk in
2014 in Brazil. For him, for a long time the French linked Bakunin to Marxism
under the umbrella of a so-called "libertarian Marxism," defended by Daniel
Guérin. Thus it can be explained, according to him, that a magazine like
Itinéraire, which dedicated its issues to the "great anarchists" of history, does
not have any issue on Bakunin. It is Berthier himself who, to a certain extent,
along with other researchers and activists, has taken up the discussion about
Bakunin's work.
[7]Mikhail Bakunin, "Letter to Morago (May 21st, 1872)." On the Alliance, see
Felipe Corrêa, Liberdade ou Morte: teoria e prática de Mikhail Bakunin, chapters
10 and 13.
[8]Mikhail Bakunin, "Letter to Cerretti (March 13-27, 1872)."
[9]Mikhail Bakunin, "Statuts secrets de l'Alliance: Programme et objet de
l'organisation révolutionnaire des Frères internationaux," "Letter to Cerretti
(March 13-27, 1872)" and "Letter to Morago (May 21st, 1872)."
[10]Mikhail Bakunin, "Statuts secrets de l'Alliance: Programme et objet de
l'organisation révolutionnaire des Frères internationaux" y "Statuts secrets de
l'Alliance: Programme de la Société de la Révolution Internationale."
[11]Mikhail Bakunin, "Letter to Morago (May 21st, 1872)."
[12]It should be noted that during his long anarchist career, which spans more
than sixty years, Malatesta defended different positions on anarchist political
organization. If in some cases it is close to Bakunin's conceptions and, as we
will argue, to those of the Platform, in other cases his positions are more
related to the Synthesis. It should also be noted that the term "party," used by
Malatesta in this period, must be placed in its historical context. It is a term
that anarchists will gradually abandon, especially after the Russian Revolution,
when it becomes more directly linked to Bolshevism and other initiatives to
conquer the state, either through revolution or electorally.
[13]Errico Malatesta, "A organização II."
[14]Errico Malatesta, "A organização II" and "Enfim. O que é a ‘ditadura do
proletariado'," p. 87.
[15]Errico Malatesta, "Ação e disciplina," p. 24.
[16]Errico Malatesta, "A organização II," p. 62.
[17]Errico Malatesta, "La propaganda anarquista," pp. 170-172.
[18]Errico Malatesta, "Programa anarquista," p. 14.
[19]Errico Malatesta, Ideología anarquista, p. 193.
[20]Ibid.
[21]Ibid., p. 31.
[22]Errico Malatesta, "Programa anarquista," p. 26.
[23]Although the Leninist party form is described in 1902 in Lenin's work, What
is to be done?, the model will not be internationally divulged until after the
Russian Revolution of 1917.
[24]Vladimir I. Lenin, O que fazer?
[25]Any serious researcher would be horrified to hear this characterization of
the members of Dielo Trudá. In the 2014 talk mentioned, for example, researcher
René Berthier (who is also a member of a synthesist organization) was clear and
emphatic when he heard it from another synthesist stating: "That does not exist."
[26]Dielo Trudá, "Plataforma Organizacional dos Comunistas Libertários."
[27]Frank Mintz, "Contexto de la Plataforma."
[28]Lucien van der Walt, Black Flame[...], p. 256.
[29]Many of the texts on the debate can be found on the Nestor Makhno Archive:
http://www.nestormakhno.info. Among the anarchists who contributed to this broad
debate are: Malatesta, Makhno and the The Platform's own authors -Piotr Archinov,
Ida Mett, Jean Walecki, Benjamin Goldberg (Ranko)-in addition to Gregori
Maximoff, Volin, Senya Fleshin, Camilo Berneri, Luigi Fabbri, Sébastien Faure and
Maria Isidin, among others. For a full compilation of the interventions in this
debate, see Felipe Corrêa (ed.), "Dossiê A Plataforma Organizacional":
https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/plataforma-organizacional.
[30]There are two homonymous historical texts that, although they have
significant differences, theoretically ground the "anarchist synthesis":
Sébastien Faure, "A sintese anarquista," and Volin, "A sintese anarquista."
[31]Errico Malatesta, "A organização I" and "A organização II."
[32]Errico Malatesta, Ideología anarquista.
[33]Errico Malatesta, "Communism and Individualism."
[34]Errico Malatesta, "Individualism and Communism in Anarchism."
[35]Maurizio Antonioli (ed.) The International Anarchist Congress: Amsterdam (1907).
[36]Errico Malatesta, "Individualism and Communism in Anarchism," pp. 14-18.
[37]Ibid., pp. 19-21.
[38]Errico Malatesta, "Intervention, 6th session," p. 96.
[39]Lucien van der Walt, Black Flame[...], p. 250.
[40]The debate was reflected in the correspondence between the two: Errico
Malatesta, "Um projeto de organização anarquista" and "Resposta de Malatesta a
Nestor Makhno," and Nestor Makhno, "Reposta a "Um projeto de organização
anarquista" and "Uma segunda carta a Malatesta." Malatesta's article "A propósito
da responsabilidade coletiva" can also be useful.
[41]Alexandre Skirda, a Russian translator who, in addition to participating in
the political debate, was in charge of the publication of the new translation of
the Platform into French, says about the original translation: "Let us remember
that Volin's first translation was described as ‘vile and boring' and its author
accused of not being ‘careful to adapt the terminology and phrases to the spirit
of the French movement' (Le Libertaire, 106, 04/15/1927). We investigated what
these accusations could refer to and found, indeed, several consciously distorted
terms: napravlenie, which means both ‘direction' and ‘orientation', was
consistently used in the former sense. The same occurs with the term rukovodstvo,
which means ‘conduct' and as a derived verb it has the sense of ‘guide, lead,
direct, manage' but it was also systematically translated as ‘direct'. The most
flagrant case is that of zatrelchtchik, which appears in the last sentence of the
Platform and means ‘instigator' but Volin translated it as ‘vanguard'. This is
how, through light brushstrokes, the deep meaning of a text can be modified."
Alexandre Skirda, Autonomie individuelle et force collective: les anarchistes et
l'organisation de Proudhon à nos jours, pp. 245-246.
[42]We can mention the case of the Nabat Confederation, which brought together
various anarchist organizations. Although the differences in analysis between
historians and anarchists themselves on the organizational conception and
anarchism of Nabat do not allow us to know for sure if it was closer to the
conception of the Synthesis or the Platform, we can affirm that, along with the
experience of the Russian and Ukrainian revolutions, it broadly contributed to
the Platform. Piotr Archinov, History of the Makhnovist Movement.
[43]Errico Malatesta, "Um projeto de organização anarquista."
[44]The discussion between Malatesta and Makhno got very complicated due to
terminological problems, to which the issues previously noted on translation
contributed.
[45]Errico Malatesta, "Resposta de Malatesta a Nestor Makhno."
[46]Nestor Makhno, "Uma segunda carta a Malatesta."
[47]Dielo Trudá, "Plataforma Organizacional dos Comunistas Libertários."
[48]Dielo Trudá, "Suplemento a la Plataforma Organizativa (Preguntas y respuestas)."
[49]Nestor Makhno, "Resposta a ‘Um projeto de organização anarquista'."
[50]Dielo Trudá, "Plataforma Organizacional dos Comunistas Libertários."
[51]Ibid.
[52]Ibid.
[53]Errico Malatesta, "Um projeto de organização anarquista."
[54]Ibid.
[55]Nestor Makhno, "Resposta a ‘Um projeto de organização anarquista'."
[56]Ibid.
[57]Ibid.
[58]Piotr Archinov, "O velho e o novo no anarquismo."
[59]Ibid.
[60]Errico Malatesta, "Resposta de Malatesta a Nestor Makhno."
[61]Ibid.
[62]Nestor Makhno, "Uma segunda carta a Malatesta."
[63]Errico Malatesta, "A propósito da responsabilidade coletiva."
[64]Errico Malatesta, "Resposta de Malatesta a Nestor Makhno."
[65]Dielo Trudá, "Plataforma Organizacional dos Comunistas Libertários."
[66]Nestor Makhno, "Uma segunda carta a Malatesta."
[67]Ibid.
[68]Piotr Archinov, "O velho e o novo no anarquismo."
[69]Errico Malatesta, "Resposta de Malatesta a Nestor Makhno."
[70]Piotr Archinov, "O velho e o novo no anarquismo."
[71]Errico Malatesta, "Um projeto de organização anarquista."
[72]Ibid.
[73]Piotr Archinov, Historia del movimiento makhnovista.
[74]Alexandre Skirda, "Polémicas en torno del libro de Archinov: Historia del
movimiento makhnovista," p. 232.
[75]Piotr Archinov, "A makhnovitchina e o anarquismo."
[76]Alexandre Skirda, "Polémicas en torno del libro de Archinov: Historia del
movimiento makhnovista," pp. 233-234.
[77]This and other writings from the author in Frank Mintz (ed.) Anatol Gorelik:
el anarquismo en la Revolución Rusa.
[78]As mentioned above, the whole debate can be found in Felipe Corrêa (ed.),
"Dossiê A Plataforma Organizacional."
[79]Volin et al., "Reply to the Platform (Synthesist)."
[80]Nick Heat, "Introdução histórica."
[81]David Berry, A History of the French Anarchist Movement (1917-1945), pp. 174-176.
[82]Lucien van der Walt, Black Flame[...], p. 258.
[83]Michael Schmidt, Anarquismo búlgaro em armas: a linha de massas
anarco-comunista, p. 40. The Bulgarian Platform appears in the appendix of this book.
[84]Nick Heat, "Introdução histórica"; José A.G. Danton, "Para pensar el
anarquismo desde nuestra realidad: sobre el Manifiesto comunista libertario," p. 19.
[85]Maurice Joyeux, "L'affaire Fontenis."
[86]Alexandre Skirda, Autonomie individuelle et force collective: les anarchistes
et l'organisation de Proudhon à nos jours, pp. 203-213.
[87]George Fontenis, Manifeste du communisme libertaire.
[88]José A.G. Danton, "Para pensar el anarquismo desde nuestra realidad[...],"
pp. 19-20.
[89]Maurice Joyeux, "L'affaire Fontenis."
[90]Alexandre Skirda, Autonomie individuelle et force collective[...], p. 343.
[91]"Organisation, pensée, bataille," in Noir et Rouge. Cahiers d'Études
Anarchistes Revolutionnaires: Anthologie 1956-1970; Cédric Guérin, Pensée et
action des anarchistes en France: 1956-1970; Maurice Joyeux, "L'affaire
Fontenis," p. 81.
[92]José A.G. Danton, "Para pensar el anarquismo desde nuestra realidad[...]," p.
20; Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici (FdCA), Anarchist communists: a question
of class, p. 107.
[93]Bulgarian platformism is quite a different example from the French and
Italian cases of the 1950s and became known in France through Balkansky's
publications. See for example this book published even by a group of the
French-Francophone Anarchist Federation (FAF): Georges Balkansky, Histoire du
mouvement libertaire en Bulgarie.
[94]Let us recall, as we have already pointed out, that the French attributed a
certain authoritarian character to an important part of Bakunin's work.
[95]Edgar Rodrigues, Renato Ramos y Alexandre Samis, Against all tyranny! Essays
of anarchism in Brazil, p. 19.
[96]For an analysis of the experiences of the forties and sixties of twentieth
century São Paulo and Río de Janeiro, see Rafael Viana da Silva, Elementos
inflamáveis: organizações e militância anarquista no Rio de Janeiro e São Paulo
(1945-1964).
[97]Dielo Trudá, "Plataforma Organizacional dos Comunistas Libertários."
Original article: "Bakunin, Malatesta e o Debate da Plataforma: a questão da
organização política anarquista." First published in 2015 at the Institute for
Anarchist Theory and History and, after, as a chapter of the book A Plataforma
Organizacional (Dielo Trudá), by Faísca Publicações (São Paulo, Brazil, 2017).
Translated by Enrique Guerrero-López

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Antonioli, Maurizio (ed.). The International Anarchist Congress: Amsterdam
(1907). Edmonton: Black Cat, 2009.
Arshinov, Piotr. "A Makhnovitchina e o Anarquismo". Anarkismo.net, 2015.[The
Makhnovshchina and Anarchism]
_____. Historia del Movimiento Makhnovista. Buenos Aires: Anarres, 2008.[History
of the Makhnovist Movement]
_____. História do Movimento Macknovista: a insurreição dos camponeses na
Ucrânia. Lisbon: Assírio e Alvim, 1976.[History of the Makhnovist Movement]
_____. "O Velho e o Novo no Anarquismo". Nestor Makh¬no Archive, 1928.[The Old
and New in Anarchism]
Bakunin, Mikhail. Bakounine: Oeuvres Complètes[CD-ROM]. Amsterdam: International
Institute of Social History (IISH), 2000.
_____. "Letter to Morago (May 21st, 1872)". Bakounine: Oeuvres Complètes[CD-ROM].
Amsterdam: International Institute of Social History (IISH), 2000.
_____. "Letter to Cerretti (March 13-27, 1872)". Bakounine: Oeuvres
Complètes[CD-ROM]. Amsterdam: International Institute of Social History (IISH), 2000.
_____. "Statuts Secrets de l'Alliance" (5 documents). Bakounine: Oeuvres
Complètes[CD-ROM]. Amsterdam: International Institute of Social History (IISH), 2000.
Balkansky, Georges. Histoire du Mouvement Libertaire en Bul¬garie. Antony: Groupe
Fresnes-Antony (Fédération Anar¬chiste), 1982.
Berry, David. A History of the French Anarchist Movement (1917-1945). Oakland: AK
Press, 2009.
Berthier, René. "Postface". Antonioli, Maurizio. Bakounine: entre syndicalisme
révolutionnaire et anarchisme. Paris: Noir et Rouge, 2014.
_____. "Bakounine: une théorie de l'organisation". Monde Nouveau, 2012.
Corrêa, Felipe. "Organizational Issues Within Anarchism". Institute for Anarchist
Theory and History, 2022.
_____. Liberdade ou Morte: teoria e prática de Mikhail Bakunin. São Paulo:
Faísca, 2019.[Freedom or Death: theory and practice of Michael Bakunin (being
translated)]
_____ (ed.). "Dossiê A Plataforma Organizacional". Institute for Anarchist Theory
and History, 2017. Corrêa, Felipe; Silva, Rafael V. da. "Introduction à l'Édition
Francophone". Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (FARJ). Anarchisme So¬cial
et Organisation. Lyon: Brasero Social, 2013.
Dielo Trudá. "Plataforma Organizacional dos Co¬munistas Libertários". Makhno,
Nestor et alli. Anarquia e Organização. São Paulo: Luta Libertária,
2001.[Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists]
_____. "Suplemento a la Plataforma Organizativa (Preguntas y Respuestas)". Nestor
Makhno Archive, 1926.[Supplement to the Organizational Platform]
Faure, Sébastien. "A Síntese Anarquista". Anarkismo.net, 2009.[The Anarchist
Synthesis]
Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici (FdCA). "Anarchist Communists: a question of
class". Anarkismo.net, 2005.
Fontenis, George. Manifeste du Communisme Libertaire. Paris: Ed. L.,
1985.[Manifesto of Libertarian Communism]
Guérin, Cédric. Pensée et Action des Anarchistes en France, 1956-1970. Lille:
Lille 3, 2000.
Gutiérrez Danton, José Antonio. "Para Pensar el Anar¬quismo desde Nuestra
Realidad: sobre el Manifiesto Comunista Libertario". Fontenis, Georges. El
Manifiesto Comunista Libertario y Otros Textos. Santiago: Pensamiento y Batalla,
2014.
Heath, Nick. "Introdução Histórica". Dielo Truda. Plata¬forma Organizacional dos
Comunistas Libertários. Nestor Makhno Archive, 1989.[Historical Introduction]
Joyeux, Maurice. "L'Affaire Fontenis". La Rue (Groupe Louise Michel), num. 28, 1980.
Lenin, Vladimir I. O que Fazer? São Paulo: Hucitec, 1988.[What is to be Done?]
Leval, Gaston. Bakunin: fundador do sindicalismo revolucio¬nário. São Paulo:
Imaginário / Faísca, 2007.
Makhno, Nestor. "Uma Segunda Carta a Malatesta". Anar¬kismo.net, 2013.[A Second
Letter to Malatesta]
_____. "Resposta a ‘Um Projeto de Organização Anarquista'". Nestor Makhno
Archive, 1928.[About the "Platform": a reply to "A Project of Anarchist
Organization"]
Malatesta, Errico. "Intervention, 6th session". Anto¬nioli, Maurizio (ed.). The
International Anarchist Congress: Amsterdam (1907). Edmonton: Black Cat, 2009.
_____. Ideología Anarquista. Montevideo: Recortes, 2008.
_____. "La Propaganda Anarquista". Richards, Vernon (ed.). Malatesta: pensamiento
y acción revolucionarios. Buenos Aires: Anarres, 2007.[Anarchist Propaganda]
_____. "A Organização I". Escritos Revolucionários. São Paulo: Imaginário,
2000.[Organization I]
_____. "A Organização II". Escritos Revolucionários. São Paulo: Imaginário,
2000.[Organization II]
_____. "Programa Anarquista". Escritos Revolucionários. São Paulo: Imaginário,
2000.[An Anarchist Programme]
_____. "Communism and Individualism". The Anarchist Revolution: polemical
articles 1924-1931. London: Freedom Press, 1995.
_____. "Individualism and Communism in Anarchism". The Anarchist Revolution:
polemical articles 1924-1931. London: Freedom Press, 1995.
_____. "Enfim. O que é a ‘Ditadura do Proletariado'". Anarquistas, Socialistas e
Comunistas. São Paulo: Cortez, 1989.
_____. "Ação e Disciplina". Anarquistas, Socialistas e Comunistas. São Paulo:
Cortez, 1989.
_____. "A Propósito da Responsabilidade Coletiva". Nestor Makhno Archive,
1930.[On Collective Responsability]
_____. "Resposta de Malatesta a Nestor Makhno". Nestor Makhno Archive, 1929.[A
Reply to Makhno]
_____. "Um Projeto de Organização Anarquista"[ou "Anarquia e Organização"].
Nestor Makhno Archive, 1927.[A Project of Anarchist Organization]
Mintz, Frank. "Contexto de la Plataforma". Anarkismo.net, 2007.
_____ (ed.). Anatol Gorelik: el anarquismo en la Revolución Rusa. Buenos Aires:
Anarres, 2007. Noir et Rouge. Cahiers d'Études Anarchistes Révolutionnaires:
Antholo¬gie 1956-1970. Paris, no date.
Rodrigues, Edgar; Ramos, Renato; Samis, Alexandre. Against All Tyranny! Essays of
anarchism in Brazil. London: Kate Sharpley Library, 2003.
Schmidt, Michael. Anarquismo Búlgaro em Armas: a linha de massas
anar¬co-comunista, vol. 1. São Paulo: Faísca, 2009.[Bulgarian Anarchism Armed]
Silva, Rafael V. Elementos Inflamáveis: organizações e militância anarquista no
Rio de Janeiro e São Paulo (1945-1964). Seropédica: UFRRJ (master's thesis), 2014.
_____. Os Revolucionários Ineficazes de Hobsbawm: reflexões críticas de sua
abordagem do anarquismo. São Paulo: Faísca, 2014.
Skirda, Alexandre. "Polémicas en Torno del Libro de Archinov Historia del
movimiento makhnovista". Arshinov, Piotr. Historia del Movimiento Makhnovista.
Buenos Aires: Anarres, 2008.
_____. Autonomie Individuelle et Force Collective: les anarchistes et
l'organisation de Proudhon à nos jours. Paris: A.S., 1987.[Facing the Enemy: a
history of anarchist organization from Proudhon to May 1968]
Van der Walt, Lucien. Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism
and syndicalism. Oakland: AK Press, 2009.
Volin. "A Síntese Anarquista". Raynaud, Jean-Marc. Apelo à Unidade do Movimento
Libertário. São Paulo: Imaginário, 2003.[Synthesis (Anarchist)]
Volin et alli. "Reply to the Platform (Synthesist)". Nestor Makhno Archive, 1927.
Related Link:

https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/2022/05/30/felipe-correa-and-rafael-v-da-silva-bakunin-malatesta-and-the-platform-debate-the-question-of-anarchist-political-organization/

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32636
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca