A-Infos (en) France, UCL AL #373 - History - 1926: The Platform, at the origins of organized anarchism (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

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
_________________________________________
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