In May 1952, the FA adopted, for the first time, clear political orientations.
The libertarian communist tendency triumphed after painful internal struggles.There were to remain deep resentments, but it was a stage in the constitution ofthe contemporary libertarian communist current. ---- In the history of thelibertarian communist movement, the year 1953 is often remembered as a startingpoint: the Anarchist Federation then published the Manifesto of LibertarianCommunism , held a mutation congress and, at the end of the year, renamed itselfLibertarian Communist Federation. ---- It is less known that if this new startwas possible, it was because at that time the infighting within the FA was over.In May 1952, at the congress of Bordeaux, the libertarian communist tendency hadprevailed over the " liberal-radical " tendency, as would characterize it aposteriori a protagonist of this struggle, Georges Fontenis [1].How did we get here ?Founded in 1945, the FA was not homogeneous. However, until 1948 it hadexperienced a prosperous period, a pole of protest in a society suffocated bypatriotic consensus. From 1945 to 1947, the country had indeed been ruled by atripartite SFIO-PCF-Christian Democracy government.The CGT itself, dominated by the Stalino-reformist alliance, had done everythingto maintain social peace and stifle the strikes. During this period, only theextreme left - Trotskyist, anarchist and revolutionary syndicalist - pushed forthe class struggle.The rupture of the governmental pact in 1947 and the beginning of the Cold Warhad changed everything, and the return of the PCF to the struggles hadmarginalized the extreme left. Hence, from 1950 onwards, increasingly heatedpolicy debates.Among the Trotskyists, it was the strategy of entry into the PCF that causeddebate, and caused the split of the PCI in 1952. Among the anarchists, it was theassertion, conflicting but determined, of a libertarian communist orientation,which had to burst the AF.Within the FA, two sensitivities coexisted, opposed by a fourfold divide:political, sociological, generational, geographical.The liberal-radical sensibilityThe first sensibility came from an anarchism that was less political thanindividual and cultural, embodying " an angelic and somewhat mumbled 'purity' "wrote Maurice Joyeux [2]. These members saw the FA not as a political movement,but as an " environment " - to use an expression of the individualist André Arru- where to flourish " as an anarchist ".ARISTIDE LAPEYRE (1899-1978), craftsman hairdresser from Bordeaux, was close toSébastien Faure, whose " synthesis " he espoused. It is one of the tenors ofthe sensitivity that Fontenis will qualify a posteriori as " liberal radical ".This liberal-radical sensibility was based mainly on the groups of Bordeaux,Toulouse and Marseilles. Among its main animators, we found the Bordeauxhairdresser Aristide Lapeyre (51 years old in 1950), the Marseille VRP André Arru(39 years old), another VRP, Maurice Laisant (41 years old), a small boss,Georges Vincey (50 years old) and proofreaders like André Prudhommeaux (48) andLouis Louvet (51).This group, close to the pure pacifism defended by Louis Lecoin in his reviewDéfense de l'homme , was a follower of Sébastien Faure's Synthesis , whichpostulated that, in order to be a " common house " for the most diversecurrents, the anarchist organization should be limited to a simple " agreement "without a program. They therefore systematically opposed the FA going furtherthan the very limited and ecumenical Declaration of Principles adopted byconsensus at the 1945 congress.The libertarian communist sensibilityA second sensibility, politically more demanding, saw itself as renovating the FAand wanted to make anarchism a revolutionary force capable of competing withStalinism in the proletariat. Claiming libertarian communism, it wished to adoptmore concrete orientations than the Declaration of Principles , was sorry for thepoverty of the theoretical production of the FA, was irritated on its Spanish innside.GEORGES FONTENIS (1920-2010), Parisian teacher from the Resistance, was secretaryof the Libertarian Youth in 1945, then of the FA from 1946 to 1950. He is thefigurehead of the libertarian communist sensibility within the FA .It is this sensitivity that provided the bulk of the volunteers to take on thefederal mandates, but also all the innovations and strategic reflections: the "managerial strike " defended by Maurice Joyeux [3]; the economic study of theSpanish Revolution, by Gaston Leval; the fight against colonialism, with MohamedSaïl; the attempt, in 1948-1949, to federate the union lefts outside the CGT andFO [4]; militancy for a " third proletarian front " (neither Washington norMoscow) [5]; the defense of a revolutionary pacifism [6] against the purepacifism " a little soft " and " paved with good intentions " [7]so common inthe libertarian movement.We found, in this second sensitivity, active trade unionists such as themetalworkers Maurice Joyeux (40 years old in 1950), Gil Devillard (26 years old)and Maurice Lavorel (39 years old), the Narbonnais mason Louis Estève (47 yearsold), the teacher Georges Fontenis (30 years old) or employee Suzy Chevet (35years old). But it also had self-taught intellectuals of a certain stature likeCharles Ridel (36 years old) and Gaston Leval (55 years old), without forgettingthe florist Henri Bouyé (38 years old) or the veteran Mohamed Saïl (56 years old).Henri Bouyé (here in 1952), after leading the anarchist network in the Parisregion during the Occupation, was one of the founders of the FA in 1945.Supporter of a solid organization, he is hostile to the " radical liberal "tendency by Arru and Lapeyre. However, attached to a fairly traditionalanarchism, he also disapproves of the young libertarian communists of GeorgesFontenis, who want to transform the FA.There were, however, many nuances between them and them. Some (Joyeux, Bouyé),although supporters of solid structures, stuck to a fairly traditional anarchismin substance. Conversely, the young people around Fontenis did not hesitate todraw on Marxism for elements of theoretical renewal and recognized theiraffiliation with the Organizational Platform of Makhno and Archinov. From 1945, the " epistolary lobby "The FA's internal struggles began in 1945, with the constitution of an informalfaction- Maurice Joyeux would describe it as an " epistolary lobby " - around AristideLapeyre and André Arru, the main figures of liberal-radical sensibility. From1945 to 1948, this lobby coordinated to " condition the congress " of the FA " onproposals drawn up outside of it " [8].Exasperated by these manoeuvres, a rival fraction, led by Georges Fontenis andSerge Ninn, organized itself in 1950. The aim of this fraction, calledOrganization Pensée Bataille (OPB), was to " redress" the FA. And for that,judged its twenty activists, it was necessary to put an end to the conciliatoryattitude which, since 1945, had allowed the " mud " and the " nullists " [9], asthey nicknamed them, to sabotage the organization. From now on we would go to theconfrontation; we would act like a hussar; it would be " them or us ".The libertarian communist faction: the OPBThe OPB, during its brief existence, made several political mistakes. To beginwith, it adopted a somewhat infantile conspiratorial form, reminiscent of theBakuninism of yesteryear, with solemn statutes, a clandestine organization chartand plan of action.A pointless clandestinity, insofar as the group formed by Fontenis and hisfriends was completely identified, and that it waged most of its battle in broaddaylight, in the congresses, in Le Libertaire and in the FA internal bulletin.Then, the OPB was fundamentally lacking in tact, showing itself to be " impatientand sometimes clumsy " [10], which could antagonize, including in thelibertarian communist sensibility.Finally, out of provocation and to distance itself from anarchist folklore, theOPB twisted the stick the other way ; it affected a " workerist and proclamatorystyle " reminiscent of Leninism, and appropriated " ambiguous terms, such as'party' or 'avant-garde' " which could only confuse the sympathizing movement andalienate potential allies like Gaston Leval , Maurice Joyeux and his groupLouise-Michel/Paris 18 e , or Maurice Fayolle and his group from Versailles.Despite everything, in the struggles of 1950-1952, the OPB fraction showed itselfto be clearly more effective than the liberal-radical " lobby ", for three reasons.The first was sociological and geographical: younger, more active and moreestablished in the Paris region, the members of the OPB formed a homogeneous andclose-knit group.The second was organizational: the " epistolary lobby " wanted a weak FA ;consequently its members snubbed federal life, wrote little in Le Libertaire andhardly sold it. Quite the opposite of the OPB activists who, over-motivated,animated the national collective and kept the newspaper alive.The third reason, finally, and not the least, was that the libertarian communistorientation was in reality the majority in the FA: once the OPB spurred it on,this majority clearly asserted itself at the Lille congress (1951), thentriumphed at the Bordeaux Congress (1952).A banal democratic victory, in short, from which Georges Fontenis, in hisMemoirs, drew this disillusioned conclusion: " If the creation of an organizedtendency was an excellent response to the underhand struggle waged by the no lessorganized tendency[...]wreckers and dilettantes, what did we need to give it acharacter of clandestinity which will be much reproached to it and which,finally, will have been useless?» [11]Clarification within the FAA change in the voting system within the FA, adopted two years earlier,accelerated the victory of the OPB. At the 1950 congress, on the proposal of theLouise-Michel/Paris 18th group , it had in fact been decided that there would nolonger be one vote per group, whatever its size, but one vote per member.This system (" voting by mandate "), which gave the advantage to the largestand most dynamic groups, was to reveal the libertarian communist preponderancewithin the FA.To the great displeasure of the liberal-radicals, the Congress of Lille, in May1951, adopted the orientations of the " third revolutionary front " and the "management strike ".While, annoyed, several minority groups threatened to leave the FA, theletter-writing lobby changed tack and gave impetus, under the name of Commissiond'études anarchistes (CEA), to an " inside-outside " trend - that is, saybringing together FA and non-FA militants - to fight the majority orientations[12]. Wasted effort.During the congress at the end of May 1952 in Bordeaux, yet a bastion of AristideLapeyre, the libertarian communist majority was even clearer than in Lille and,for the first time, the FA adopted a text of general orientation defining whatshould be the anarchist intervention in the social and union movement [13]. TheCEA then launched a divisive bulletin, L'Entente anarchiste .This one did not have time to cause a split: certain groups left of themselvesthe FA (Asnières, Paris 13th , Le Mans, Marseilles, Angers-Trélazé, Paris 18th ); others were expelled by the majority of the FA because they had refused todistance themselves from the Anarchist Entente (Versailles, Bordeaux, Toulouse) [14].The rupture was consummated. In the following months, the majority was to renameitself Libertarian Communist Federation (FCL), while the minority was to regroupand reactivate the acronym FA. As for the OPB, its goal having been achieved, itproceeded to its self-dissolution.The FCL then had its own life, its struggles, its mistakes - a poor candidacy forthe legislative elections of January 1956 in Paris 13th - and its moments ofgreatness - its full commitment to the struggle for Algeria's independence. Itwill be dismantled by the repression of the French State in 1957, and several ofits militants will be imprisoned... but that is another story.Guillaume Davranche (UCL Montreuil)To validate[1] Georges Fontenis, Changing the world. History of the libertarian communistmovement (1945-1997) , Le Coquelicot/Libertarian Alternative, 2000.[2] Maurice Joyeux, Under the folds of the black flag. Memories of an anarchist ,volume II, page 83.[3] " At the vanguard of the revolution: the managerial strike ", Le Libertairen°223 to 227 (April 7-May 5, 1950).[4] Read on this subject " 1948: The anarchists reluctantly join the CGT-FO ",Alternative Libertaire , April 2008.[5] " Why the "3rd front " ? », The Libertarian , October 20, 1950.[6] " From invertebrate pacifism to revolutionary pacifism ", editorial in LeLibertaire , March 11, 1949.[7] Maurice Joyeux, op. cit. , page 112.[8] Maurice Joyeux, " The Fontenis Affair ", La Rue n° 28, 1st quarter 1980.[9] Georges Fontenis, op. cit. , page 59.[10] Georges Fontenis, op. cit. , page 106.[11] Ibid .[12] What is the difference between a trend and a fraction ? The first is public; the second is secret.[13] " Our Seventh Congress. Resolution on the orientation and tactics of the FA ", Le Libertaire , 5 June 1952.[14] Resignations and exclusions are traceable through individual entries in theMaitron dictionary.https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?1952-le-vent-tourne-au-congres-anarchiste-de-Bordeaux_________________________________________A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C EBy, For, and About AnarchistsSend news reports to A-infos-en mailing listA-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten