A-Infos (en) Spaine, Regeneracion: The Enduring Relevance of the Amsterdam Anarchist Congress - The Debate on Organizational Issues By LIZA (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

We delve into one of the most important historical events in our 
movement internationally. The International Anarchist Congress held in 
Amsterdam in August 1907 is one of the most significant moments in the 
history of organized anarchism, not so much for the formal resolutions 
it adopted as for the depth of the debates that took place there. 
Following the failed experience of the IWA (International Workingmen's 
Association), the anarchist movement sought organizational and strategic 
renewal. Our political tradition was encountering the limitations of its 
traditional practices and, consequently, the need to develop more 
coherent strategies in the face of a rapidly transforming workers' movement.

The context in which the congress was held was one of a recomposition of 
the international workers' movement. In France, the CGT (General 
Confederation of Labor) had become a leading force in Revolutionary 
Syndicalism. This labor federation employed direct action, worker 
autonomy, and the general strike as central tools to pave the way for 
the Insurrectionary General Strike. In the United States, the founding 
of the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) began a similar process to 
articulate a mass, union-based organization with a revolutionary 
horizon. On the other hand, anarchism carried a contradictory legacy: a 
symbolically radical discourse versus a fragmented practice, marked at 
times by individualism, localism, a lack of strategic continuity, and 
the absence of its own structures.

In Amsterdam, key figures of international anarchism such as Errico 
Malatesta, Pierre Monatte, Christiaan Cornelissen, Emma Goldman, Rudolf 
Rocker, Luigi Fabbri, and Amédée Dunois met. Beyond their political or 
personal differences, they all shared the perception that anarchism 
needed to clarify its relationship with the class struggle and with mass 
organizations, especially unions. The main debate revolved precisely 
around this question: whether anarchism should be conceived as a 
relatively autonomous political and ideological current, intervening in 
the workers' movement without becoming one with it, or whether it should 
organically merge with revolutionary syndicalism, thus adopting it as 
its main strategic tool.

Errico Malatesta was one of the most influential voices defending the 
first position. For him, anarchism could not be reduced to a spontaneous 
expression of the proletariat's economic struggle. He considered that 
unions, while necessary and useful as instruments of resistance and 
immediate improvement of living conditions, inevitably tended toward 
moderation, reformism, and bureaucratization. Therefore, he maintained 
that anarchists should maintain their organizational and ideological 
independence, acting within workers' organizations as propagandists and 
agitators, but without subordinating their revolutionary project to the 
dynamics of syndicalism. From this perspective, the anarchist 
organization's main function was to preserve and develop a radical 
ethical and political horizon, capable of transcending immediate demands 
and preparing the masses for profound social transformation.

"Workers' organizations, necessary for daily resistance, can easily 
become conservative forces if they are not constantly animated by a 
revolutionary ideal."

E. Malatesta
In contrast to this view, Pierre Monatte and other activists linked to 
revolutionary syndicalism defended a much more integrated conception of 
anarchism and the workers' movement. For them, the class struggle was 
not only a terrain for tactical intervention, but the very core of the 
libertarian project. They maintained that revolutionary syndicalism, 
based on direct action, self-management, and workers' solidarity, 
embodied many of anarchism's fundamental principles in practice. From 
this perspective, trade unions were not merely instruments of economic 
struggle, but the embryo of a future libertarian society, the structures 
through which the working class could organize production and social 
life after the abolition of capitalism and the state.

"Trade unionism is not a doctrine, but a movement; its strength lies in 
direct action and the conscious organization of the working masses."

P. Monatte
This disagreement was not limited to a theoretical or abstract 
discussion, but involved very concrete tactical and strategic differences.
One of these issues was the question of the political neutrality of mass 
organizations. Many revolutionary syndicalists argued that unions should 
remain formally neutral, open to workers of different ideological 
currents, in order to preserve the unity of the labor movement. In this 
view, anarchists would act as an active minority within the unions, 
influencing through example and practice, but without imposing an 
explicit and overt ideological label. Others, however, feared that 
practice without theoretical and strategic development would lead to the 
dilution of revolutionary content, facilitating a reformist or 
authoritarian degeneration.

Furthermore, a fundamental axis of the debate was the internal 
organization of anarchism itself. Although the congress did not adopt 
clear resolutions on this matter, a shared concern about the dispersion 
and lack of coordination within the movement was evident. The tendency 
to rely exclusively on spontaneity or individual initiative, without 
building stable structures capable of sustaining continuous intervention 
in the social struggle, was criticized. These discussions foreshadowed 
problems that would erupt with greater force after the Russian 
Revolution and that would give rise, years later, to the debate 
surrounding the Dielo Truda Platform, where the need for an anarchist 
organization with theoretical and tactical unity and collective 
responsibility was explicitly raised.

Regarding anarchist organization, Emma Goldman, one of the key thinkers 
of the libertarian movement, emphasized the importance of the individual 
autonomy of the anarchist militant:

"I, too, am in favor of organization in principle. However, I fear that 
sooner or later this will fall into exclusivism... I will accept 
anarchist organization on one condition only: that it be based on 
absolute respect for all individual initiatives and not obstruct their 
development or evolution. The essential principle of anarchy is 
individual autonomy."

The relationship between "anarchist organization" and "the masses" was 
central. It was clearly stated that social revolution could not be the 
work of conspiratorial minorities or hyper-ideologized elites, but 
rather of the organized working masses. However, the tension persisted 
between trusting in the autonomous capacity of the masses to develop a 
revolutionary consciousness and the need for conscious political 
intervention to guide that process. For the sector stemming from French 
syndicalism, the daily experience of exploitation and struggle was 
sufficient to generate libertarian practices; for others, without a 
clearer ideological and strategic framework, the mass movement risked 
remaining stuck in partial reforms or being captured by opportunist 
and/or reformist forces.

Although these tensions remained unresolved, they did have the merit of 
raising them openly. Their debates marked a shift toward a greater focus 
on organization, strategy, and genuine engagement in the class struggle. 
They also revealed the internal diversity of anarchism and the 
difficulty of articulating a stable-and coherent-relationship between 
libertarian principles, political organization, and the mass movement.

The Revolutionary Organization.

More than a century later, many of the questions posed in 1907 remain 
central to contemporary anarchist debates: how to organize without 
reproducing hierarchies, how to intervene in social struggles without 
diluting the emancipatory project, and how to articulate the 
relationship between theory, practice, and the popular masses. Even 
then, the need for ethical political action was discussed. Clearly, its 
content was different from what it is today. However, we can see how the 
prefigurative question of our praxis continues to permeate the 
libertarian movement.

Given historical experiences, both distant and recent, it is clear that 
the danger of reformist deviation is very real. Partial and 
individualistic militancy has led us to a contradictory and amorphous 
practice, as the aforementioned debates indicated. Furthermore, another 
attendee at the aforementioned Congress, Christiaan Cornelissen, in his 
work *Libertarian Communism and Transitional Regime*, stated the 
following regarding the individualistic and voluntarist practices of 
libertarian comrades in Russia:

"Our anarchist comrades who, for the love of freedom and personal 
independence, forget this fundamental truth, will suffer in the future 
the fate of the anarchists during the Russian Revolution: they will have 
no effective influence, but will be precisely useful in helping the 
Marxist and statist social democrats come to power. They will probably 
be shot or imprisoned after having given, somewhat in vain, their best 
efforts to the social revolution."
The debate on anarchist revolutionary organization, as we see, remains 
open. Being swept along by the current of events or acting in the wake 
of other movements due to a lack of a common program is a historical 
error we have stumbled upon on several occasions. Decades later, 
Fontenis, in his Libertarian Communist Manifesto, wrote the following 
about the need for revolutionary organization:

"The revolutionary vanguard certainly exercises a guiding and leading 
role in relation to the mass movement. Arguments for this are 
meaningless to us, for what other use could a revolutionary organization 
have? Its very existence testifies to its guiding, orienting character. 
The real question is how this role is understood, what meaning we give 
to the word 'guide.' Revolutionary organization tends toward its 
creation from the fact that the majority of conscious workers feel its 
need when confronted with the uneven process and inadequate cohesion of 
the masses."

Another historical event for anarchism was the 1936 Revolution, centered 
in Catalonia, Aragon, and the Valencian Country. After accepting a 
power-sharing government with sectors of the bourgeoisie, a grassroots 
sector emerged, dissatisfied with the official line of the CNT-FAI: the 
Friends of Durruti. Highly critical of the collaboration with the 
Republican state and the failure to complete the revolutionary process, 
they went so far as to state the following:

"The absence of a clear program allowed the counter-revolution to 
regroup. In May, there were sufficient forces to impose workers' power."

Conclusions

The relationship between the most committed militants and the masses is 
one of constant tension. The line between leading a revolutionary 
process and acting as an "enlightened vanguard," engaged in theoretical 
discussions completely detached from our class, is fine. Ultimately, 
this tension must be a self-reinforcing dialectical relationship, not a 
vague dichotomy. There are no militants without practical experience on 
the front lines; Revolutionary organizations cannot exist if this need 
is not diagnosed, given the limitations on the fronts, and such 
structures will never be referenced by the masses if the work of 
militants on the fronts is not recognized.

On the other hand, this is a vibrant and inspiring debate. Faced with 
theoretical frictions that may arise between anarcho-syndicalism and 
contemporary platformism, it means that we are part of something that is 
in motion. An anarchism that diagnoses limitations and seeks solutions. 
A movement that rebuilds itself based on fraternal discussion and the 
daily clash with reality.

What is clear is that throughout history many anarchist comrades have 
seen the need for organization, a program, and unity. Beyond being 
involved in broader struggles, we also come together as anarchists to 
pause, reflect, improve, and act. Not out of organizational or aesthetic 
fetishism, but out of political necessity. The Anarchist Congress of 
Amsterdam reveals the genealogies of a debate that remains alive, a 
flame we keep burning.

HkBk, member of Liza Granada.

Links for further reading:

The Anarchist Congress of Amsterdam of 1907
https://www.antorcha.net/biblioteca_virtual/historia/amsterdam/indice.html

V. Griffuelhes, Revolutionary Syndicalism
https://www.solidaridadobrera.org/ateneo_nacho/libros/Victor%20Griffuelhes%20-%20El%20sindicalismo%20revolucionario.pdf

F. Pelloutier, History of Labor Exchanges The Origins of Revolutionary 
Syndicalism
https://www.solidaridadobrera.org/ateneo_nacho/libros/Fernand%20Pelloutier%20%20Historia%20de%20las%20Bolsas%20del%20Trabajo.pdf

E. Pouget Direct Action
http://solidaridadobrera.org/ateneo_nacho/libros/Emile%20Pouget%20-%20La%20accion%20directa.pdf

E. Pouget Sabotage
https://www.solidaridadobrera.org/ateneo_nacho/libros/Emile%20Pouget%20-%20El%20sabotaje.pdf

A. Guillamón The Friends of Durruti History and Anthology of Texts
https://bibliothequedumarxisme.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/los_amigos_de_durruti._historia_y_antologc38da_de_textos_-_agustc3adn_guillamon.pdf

C. Cornelissen, Libertarian Communism and the Transitional Regime
https://www.solidaridadobrera.org/ateneo_nacho/libros/Christiaan%20Cornelissen%20-%20Comunismo%20libertario%20y%20regimen%20de%20transicion.pdf

G. Fontenis, The Communist Manifesto Libertarian
https://mirror.anarhija.net/es.theanarchistlibrary.org/mirror/g/gf/george-fontenis-manifiesto-comunista-libertario.c109.pdf

https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2026/03/02/la-vigencia-del-congreso-anarquista-de-amsterdam/
_________________________________________
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
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en