One hundred years ago, a group of Russian anarchists in exile in France published *The Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists *. In this text, they sought to reform anarchism in light of its failures during the Russian Revolution. Five years of controversy ensued. The story of the Platform, however, does not end there. Its resurgence in the 1950s, then the 1970s and 2000s, testifies to the persistence of a debate on the very nature of anarchism: a cultural milieu or a political movement ?
The trauma of the First World War, the experience of the Russian Revolution, and the failure of the revolutionary wave of 1919-1920 in Europe led to profound questioning of the workers' movement.
Anarchism was not spared, and several attempts at theoretical and practical renewal emerged from 1919 onward, whether with Raymond Péricat's " first Communist Party " or with Georges Bastien's Libertarian Communist Federation of the North [1]. In Italy, the journal Pensiero e Volontà, edited by the elderly Malatesta, Fabbri, and Camillo Berneri, challenged Kropotkin's orthodoxy. The last of these attempts, the Platform of Russian Anarchists in Exile, published in June 1926, was the most accomplished and ambitious. It was also the one that would unleash the most controversy.
In the 1920s, France was a haven for persecuted revolutionaries from all over Europe, and among them, it was undoubtedly the Russian and Ukrainian anarchists , basking in the glory of their participation in the greatest revolution of modern times, who dominated discussions. These included Voline, Piotr Archinov, Ida Mett, and Nestor Makhno, the former commander of the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine. They formed the Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad and edited the journal Delo Truda (" The Cause of Labor ").
The Delo Truda offers an uncompromising assessment of the anarchist movement, condemning the fragmentation and disorganization that, in Russia, led to its downfall. Seeking to remedy this, the group published a 16-page pamphlet in June 1926 entitled " Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists ," subtitled " Project . " Its French translation-by Voline-demonstrates the desire to immediately bring the debate beyond the Russian exile community and engage with the international libertarian movement. This booklet became the starting point of the controversy.
Since the Russian invasion, Ukrainian authorities have incorporated Nestor Makhno into the national narrative, emphasizing his struggle against Russian domination while downplaying the anarchist, internationalist, and anti-statist character of the Makhnovshchina. Thus, a revolutionary experience based on the autonomy of workers and peasants has been partially reinterpreted to serve an authoritarian government.
DR
A text that reflects the spirit of the times
The Platform was well received within the Anarchist Communist Union, the French organization to which Makhno and Archinov would soon join. The organization itself was undergoing significant change. Almost simultaneously with the publication of the Platform , it adopted, at its congress in Orléans, a manifesto with a strong libertarian communist slant. A year later, the UAC would officially adopt the theses of the Platform at its congress in Paris at the end of October 1927. On this occasion, it renamed itself the Revolutionary Anarchist Communist Union (UACR).
The UAC had been developing this approach for several years, the majority growing weary of seeing some of its groups infiltrated by anarcho-individualists who joined the organization " as tourists ." It is now explicitly stated that the UACR " does not accept individualist anarchists into its ranks, even those who support the organization " [2]. The organization reaffirms its federalist character ; regular dues become the norm ; an administrative commission is appointed to oversee the implementation of congress decisions.
This transformation, however, will come at the cost of a split. It must be said that, eight months before the congress, a violent controversy had erupted in Le Libertaire , the UAC's weekly newspaper.
" Bolsheviks " versus " dilettantes "
As early as February 1927, an individualist, Maldent, accused the Platform of wanting to " Bolshevize " anarchism [3]. He drew a sharp retort from Pierre Le Meillour, a metalworker from the UAC known for being rather rough, who mocked the " dilettantes " [4]. " Bolsheviks " versus " dilettantes ": the essential terms of the debate were thus established, and they would hardly change thereafter.
The controversy intensified in April 1927 with a 40-page pamphlet commonly known as *Reply to the Platform *, co-signed by Voline, among others [5]. Its polemical tone reiterated the accusation of the " Bolshevization " of anarchism. Every point of the Platform was dissected and refuted. The class character of anarchism ? It was denied, anarchism also being a " humanitarian and individual " concept . The constructive part of the Platform ? It was a disguise for the state's " transitional period " with a Leninist twist. The organizational principles were likened to barracks discipline. Even the armed defense of the revolution, inspired by Makhno's epic-this is the meaning of the word " Makhnovshchina "-was condemned. The authors of the Response see in this the " creation of a leading political center, of an army and a police force at the disposal of this center, which means, in essence, the inauguration of a transitional political authority of a state-like character " [6].
Finally, the Response develops an idea, already expressed by Voline for some years, but which would become widespread. Anarchism was divided into three currents: libertarian communist, anarcho-syndicalist, and individualist. The objective should be to reconcile them to produce a " synthesis " that would form the basis of modern anarchism [7]. But until this work of theoretical synthesis had been carried out, there should be absolutely no anarchist organization.
After the publication of this booklet, the controversy escalated. Widely reported in the anarchist press, it continued until 1931.
Group of anarchists around Nestor Makhno (bottom right), his partner Galina Kouzmenko (next to him) and Piotr Archinov standing in the middle.
szru.gov.ua
Birth of Synthetism
Makhno and Archinov easily dismiss accusations of Bolshevism-let's not forget the prestige of the " Makhnovshchina ," which fought against both the White and Red armies. More importantly, they attack Voline's fundamental postulate: the existence of three currents within a single anarchist family. For them, if anarchists belong to any family, it is exclusively to that of the workers' movement, its values, its struggles, and its class organizations. Individualists are situated outside the workers' movement, and therefore outside anarchism. The passages in the Response concerning the necessary theoretical synthesis are nothing but dilatory rhetoric: " Instead of threatening us for the hundred and first time with producing a thorough theoretical work, wouldn't the authors of the Response do better to begin this task, develop it, and then present it in opposition to the Platform ? " Archinov fumes.
In the end, the platformists denounce in the Response a fictitious opposition, motivated solely by a lazy resistance to the " organizational spirit " .
After the split within the UACR, those opposed to the Platform regrouped in a relatively shadowy Association of Anarchist Federalists (AFA). Their leader, Sébastien Faure, attempted to give it doctrinal substance by publishing a foundational text in 1928: The Anarchist Synthesis . In this 16-page pamphlet, Faure compared anarchism to " what, in chemistry, is called a compound[...]: anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian communism, and anarchist individualism. Its chemical formula could be S2, C2, I2. Depending on events, the environment[...], the proportions of the three elements are bound to vary.[...]S3, C2, I1 ; or S2, C3, I1 ; or even S1, C2, I3[...]." But the fact remains that these three elements[...]are made to combine and, by amalgamating, constitute what I call: "the Anarchist Synthesis " [8].
This somewhat puerile conception is a distortion of Voline's thought. While the Russian recognized that a clarification of anarchism was necessary (but not using the platformist method), Faure believes that such clarification is undesirable. Not without a certain sentimentality, he extols the eclecticism that his model seems to definitively freeze in its current state.
Voline had invented the term " synthesis ". With Sébastien Faure, " synthesism " was born.
The UACR, for its part, would not remain a platformist for long. The approach was appealing, but in practice it proved too rigid for a small organization then experiencing its most severe period of hardship since its founding. It abandoned the Platform at the 1930 congress. The controversy itself died down around 1931. It was subsequently overshadowed by other concerns: the rise of fascism, the Popular Front, the Spanish Revolution, and the war.
After the climb to the Wall of the Federals on May 30, 2026, UCL went to pay tribute to Nestor Makhno, whose cinerary urn is located in the Père-Lachaise cemetery.
UCL Paris North-East
Overcoming and persisting the debate
By 1931, the debate surrounding the Platform seemed to have been buried. Completely ? Not quite. For the controversy wasn't limited to the clashes between Makhno, Archinov, and Voline. To grasp its underlying causes, one must consider the main arena of the confrontation: the UAC and its weekly newspaper, Le Libertaire . The context of the years 1925 to 1930, marked by a sharp decline in labor struggles and the workers' movement, was ripe for internal strife. In Le Libertaire , vengeful articles followed scathing replies. The polemic went far beyond the exegesis of the Platform : it revealed a much deeper divide, one that touched upon the very nature of anarchism.
It's important to understand that the controversy of the time-which, even today in some countries, hasn't been fully resolved-stems less from the content of the text itself than from a recurring question facing anarchism: whether it should be a political movement or a cultural milieu. This debate predates the Platform , but the Platform gave it its definitive form.
This is undoubtedly why it would enjoy such a long legacy. This Platform , which everyone thought was buried in 1931, would be regularly exhumed thereafter. And each time, it would be less for its content than to distinguish itself from the communitarian and marginalist morass in which anarchism had sometimes become bogged down. The young libertarian communists of the French and Italian FA rediscovered it with fervor in 1949-1950. The founders of the Revolutionary Anarchist Organization (ORA) in 1965-1967. Those of the British ORA waited until 1973 to read it [9]. It would be brandished again by the young libertarian organizations that would be created in the Americas during the 1990s. " We are platformists !" " thus proudly announced Rupture , the French-language periodical of the Canadian Nefac in October 2001. In the 2020s, a German organization close to UCL adopted an explicit name: Die Plattform.
In France, the debate only subsided in the 1990s. René Berthier and Gaetano Manfredonia proposed dispassionate approaches to the issue [10]. The highly synthesisist Anarchist Federation actually distanced itself from Sébastien Faure's catechism. The Union of Libertarian Communist Workers, founded in 1976, quickly evolved towards transcending the Platform, retaining more of its spirit than its letter. At Alternative Libertaire, we sometimes jokingly called ourselves " post-Platformists . " The UCL (Union of Libertarian Communist Workers) followed in this tradition.
Guillaume Davranche (UCL Montreuil)
This article is a slightly revised version of the one published in Alternative libertaire in 2007.
The Platform: a goal, a method
The Platform is composed of three parts: a " general part ", on capitalism and the strategy to overthrow it ; a " constructive part ", on the libertarian communist project ; an " organizational part ", on the anarchist movement itself.
I. The " general section " asserts that anarchism is not " a beautiful fantasy or an abstract philosophical idea , " but a revolutionary workers' movement. It proposes an analytical framework based on materialism and the class struggle as the driving force of history. In a revolutionary situation, the anarchist organization must offer guidance " in all areas of the social revolution:[that of]new production, that of civil war and the defense of the revolution, consumption, the agrarian question, etc. On all these questions and on many others, the masses demand a clear and precise answer from the anarchists. " The challenge is to " link the solution to these problems to the general conception of libertarian communism . "
II. The " constructive part " proposes precisely a project for a transitional society. Industrial production should follow the model of the federated soviets. Regarding consumption and the agrarian question, the Platform distances itself from Lenin's " war communism ," which consisted of plundering the countryside to feed the cities: " It will be the revolutionary peasants who will establish[...]the exploitation and usufruct of the land. No external pressure is possible on this issue. " The Spanish Revolution, ten years later, would provide practical answers to this question, on which the Platform remains cautious. As for the defense of the revolution, the model-though not explicitly mentioned-is that of the Makhnovshchina: " class character of the army , " " volunteerism , " " free discipline , " " complete submission of the revolutionary army to the working and peasant masses . " This is something that would also be found in the libertarian militias of the summer of 1936.
III. Finally, the " organizational section " outlines four " fundamental principles " for an anarchist organization:
1. The " theoretical unity ": for a break with the " puzzle " aspect of the UAC, which must clearly define itself as libertarian communist.
2. " Tactical unity ": that activists act in concert, not in a scattered or contradictory manner.
3. " Collective responsibility " is a call for self-discipline and a break with militant consumerism.
4. With " federalism ", a federal body, subject to an imperative mandate, must ensure the implementation of congress decisions.
To validate
[1] David Berry, A History of the French Anarchist Movement 1917-1945 .
[2] Le Libertaire , November 19, 1927.
[3] " Bolshevization of anarchism ", Le Libertaire , February 10, 1927.
[4] " The dilettantes storm the 'platform' ", Le Libertaire , March 25, 1927.
[5] The fact that Voline was both the translator of the Platform and its main critic caused a stir at the time. He was accused of a biased translation, intended to give the text an authoritarian tone. In his 1987 study, Alexandre Skirda, a Russian speaker, confirms that Voline's translation was indeed tendentious.
[6] Quoted in Alexandre Skirda, Individual Autonomy and Collective Force , 1987.
[7] Gaetano Manfredonia, " The Platform/Synthesis Debate ", Itinerary no. 13.
[8] Sébastien Faure, La Synthèse anarchiste , 1928.
[9] " Anarchist communism in Britain, 1870-1991 ", Organise! no. 42, Spring 1996.
[10] René Berthier, " On the 80th anniversary of the Russian Revolution ", Le Monde libertaire , December 18, 1997.
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?1926-La-Plateforme-aux-origines-de-l-anarchisme-organise
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten