narc IS G. P. MAXIMOFF G. P. MAXIMOFF The development of anarcho-syndicalist ideas on working class organisation and the revolutionary struggle for the libertarian reconstruction of society, from the 1st international to the 1930's. A defence of Anarcho-syndicalism against 'Platformism' and 'Synthetical' anarchism. Being in the main a critique of 'Platformism' I also included are the following documents: ORGANISATIONAL PLATFORM OF A GENERAL UNION OF ANARCHISTS by 'The Dielo Trouda Group' THE REPLY by 'several Russian Anarchists' THE MALESTAlMAKHNO EXCHANGE OF LETTERS ON THE 'PLATFORM' MONTY MILLER PRESS SYDNEY REBEL WORKER PAMPHLET .8 - PUBLISHING HISTORY - CONSTRUCTIVE ANARCHISM G. P. Maximoff First published in RUssian in 1930. complied from articles written for the Ruas.lan language organ of the IWW In Chicago GOlOS TRUZHENIKA (Voice of the Toiler). edited by Maxlmoff. Translated into' English by Ada Slegel and published by the 'Maximoff Memorial Publishing Committee', Chicago 1952. DOCUMENTS :- 1. ORGANISATIONAL PLATFORM OF A GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF ANARCHISTS. P. Arshlnoff, N. Makhno, I. Mett, Valevsky, Linsky First published in Russian & French in 1926 by the DIElO TRUDA (Worker's Cause) group in Paris. First English translation published by 'Organisation of Revolutionary A~rchlsts'.,(ORA), London 1971. Later revised editions Issued by 'Anarchist Workers Assoc­ iation'(AWA), 1975 & 1977. 2. 'REPLY' BY SEVERAL RUSSIAN ANARCHISTS TO THE 'PLATFORM' - Vollne, Sobot, Fleshln, Steimer. Roman & Ervantlan. First issued in French, Paris 1927. First English translation by Abe Bluesteln, Included in his FIGHTERS FOR ANARCHISM (Libertarian Publishing Group), Minneapolls 1983 - a memorial volume on two of the authors, Mollle Steimer and senya Fleshln. 3. THE MALATESTA I MAKHNO EXCHANGE The original review 'A Plan for Anarchist Organisation' by Malatesta was published In the bi-lIngual French & Italian paper Il RISVEGllO (The Reawakening), Geneva Det 1927. First full English translation appeared in 'Freedom',London, and an abridged version In 'Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review' '5, Orkney 1980. The letter of Makhno and Malatesta's reply were published In IL RISVEGLlO, Geneva Dec 1929. The English translations appear here for the first time. This Edition of collected documents published 1988 by MONTY MILLER PRESS Printed by BLACK CAT PRINTERS. Distributed by JURA BOOKS 110 Crystal Street Petersham, NSW 2049, Australia (02) 550 9931 [email protected] INTRODUCTION Contrary to what one might have expected from rising to the level of organisation of the mBllel (Russ­ the key role of RussIans in the early history of the Ia could only acquire a syndicallst movement after doctrine of revolutionary anarchism, Russian anarchIsm the February revolution) the organisational forms of disappeared from the scene soon after the death of Russian anarchism - small groups and circles - did Bakunin and did not reappear until the 1905 revolution. not make for differentiation between individualism Thus when anarchism did reappear in Russia there and anarcho-<:ommunism. were formidable competitors already on the scene: In thla situation the Impact of the revolution could the social democrats of bolshevlk, menshevlk and only be to further disintegrate a movement that was intermediate tendencies and the socialist revolutionar­ never Integrated or coherent. Once the revolution ies. Both of these parties had consolidated themselves was underway propaganda for construction would have some years earlier, out of movements and tendencies to take over from demands for destruction If anarch­ whlcb themselves had roots in the revolutionary move­ Ism was to have any Influence at all. This necessItated ment of the 1870's and 1880's. Both of them had clearly d1stlngullhlng between IndlvlduaUsm and comm­ natural constItuencies - the workers In the one case unism. However at the same time there arose' for and the peasants in the other (although these were non-Individualists the question of tactics and strategies not completely separate groups) - Into which revolution­ In an ongoing revolution. This led to a clear separation ary anarchism would bave to make inroads to succeed. between the anarcho-commumsts with their focus Thus anarchism had an even more unfavourable outlook on the problem of organising the consumption of the than that other unsuccessful late starter, RussIan "masses", and the syndicaUsts with their focus on liberalism, which at least could look to an Influential, the problems of the revolutionary fighting and post­ If narrow, natural support base amongst the better­ revolutIonary productive organisation of the "workers". off intel1lgentsla, commercial and Industrial middle Anarcho-communism, lacking any clear tactical or classes and enllghtened nobl1lty. It Is no accident strategic bases, then split between simple armed oppos­ then that the two best known anarchist chroniclers ition to everything "statlst" and collaboration with of the Russian revolution came to anarchism from (aod subordination to) the bolabevlk party. Anarcho­ other movements after the 1905 revolution - Arshlnoff syndicalism, more coherent in Its organisational, tactic­ from bolshevism 'and Vollne from the Socialist Revolu­ al and post-reyolutionary ideas than the other variants, tionaries - and It Is also no accident that both of also faced problems with the emergence of the factory them conceived revolution In the most extreme terms committees wblch had no place In the original syndical­ possible. With Its natural terrain already occupied 1st scheme of things, but these problems were. at by other movements, extremism was really all Russian least surmountable within Its own umvene 01 ideas. anarchism had to offer. At times of revolutionary Despite this syndicalism was born and fated to ~,pn excitement this could lead to a rapid growth In the a minority tendency In a trade union movement domin­ movement but If, as in 1917, the larger and more ated by menshevlks and a factory committee move­ established revolutionary groups adapted their own ment with strong links to the bolshevlks. qitation to the 'mood of the ntasses their rapid grow­ Within the sad chronicle of Russian anarchism only th would swamp the anarchlats. one eplaode stands out: that of the Makhnovlst move­ By themselves these factors would have ensured ment In the Ukraine (1918-1921). The anarchist-led that the anarchist· movement remained small - In partisans achieved brUliant mUitary successes qainst 1917/18 it numbered perhap$ 10,000 with syndlcaUst the Germans, Ukralnian nationalists and White armies delegates representing perhaps 75,000 workers at trade and for a long period withstood the attacks of the union and factory committee conferences - but other Red Army when the latter turned on them. Behind factors were also at work to make It weaker yet. the partisan lines the anarchlsta tried to spark off From the start there was a division between Individual­ an Independent social and political organisation of Ists and communists within anarcbism but this division the liberated areas and to re-organlse the anarchist had a rather different meaning under Russian cond­ movement. (Ultimately both these attempts were to itions from what It would have today or elsewhere fall: the war of movement prevented the consolid­ then. The Individualists tended towards "terror without ation of base areas and the anarcho-syndicallsts remain­ motive" whilst the left-Wing of the anarcho-commun­ ed aloof from the projected unification of the anarch­ Ists endorsed expropriation by armed detachments Ist movement. The inautrectionary army remained but the difference was not great and in anti-state the dominant factor In the altuatlon.) Insurrectionary propaganda the two could easily run It Is hardly surprlllng that reflection on the com­ togetber. 1be difference between the two was over plete political failure of Russian anarchism In general the organisation (or lack of it) of future society but and the relative mUitary succeas of Its Ukrainian not neceuarlly In the understanding of revolution­ wing in particular should bave led some anarchists or at least Its destructive phue. Since also the RUII­ towards a demand for tighter and more disciplined ian anarcbo-communllts remained at the level of qit­ organisation. Nor Is It surprising that amongst the ation and propaganda amongst the mBllel rather than protagonists of such organisation should be the leader -3- and the chronicler of the Ukrainian movement. The anarcho-syndicallsm and platformIsm Is of value also unfortunate thing was that faced with two succeasful for its elaboration of the develoP')ent of the construct­ examples - the bolshevlk party and the anarchist army­ Ive program of anarcho-syndica1lsm from within the Arshlnoff, Makhno and their" group produced an organis­ 1st International up till the reformation of the I.W.A. ational platform and politics Incorporating the main In 1922. features of both. ThIs alienated the anarcho-syndlcal­ The main purpose of this pamphlet Is to repubUah ISts, who were organisationally serious but with totally the Ideas expressed In Maxlmoff's long article. How­ different organisational and political conceptions, and ever, so that a new generation can examine all sldea who In any cue bad their own International organ­ of this critical debate In the history of revolutionary Isation. the LW.A. (International Workers Association). anarchism, we have decided to Include the other prim­ and It failed to attract the anarchcH:ommunlsts who ary documents: