A-Infos (en) Brazil, OSL, Libera #183 - Kropotkin and the Anarchist Strategies: Educationism, Insurrectionalism, and Revolutionary Syndicalism - Felipe Corrêa I. (1/2) (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Abstract ---- This text aims to present the positions of the classic 
Russian anarchist Piotr Kropotkin (1842-1921) regarding anarchist 
strategies and his positions in this debate. It contests that Kropotkin 
was an educationalist/culturalist and that his "anarcho-communism" 
implied a complete break with the "Bakuninism" of the International. 
After a historical contextualization, which maps the major debates and 
strategic dilemmas of the worker-socialist and anarchist field between 
the years 1880 and 1910, the text exposes and analyzes Kropotkin's 
political thought. It argues that, when situated in relation to the 
major anarchist debates, Kropotkin's positions are ambiguous, involving 
dialogue or even adherence to different perspectives. And that they can 
be associated with insurrectionary anarchism, but mainly with mass 
anarchism - in particular with revolutionary syndicalism. Finally, the 
text moves on to an analytical exposition of Kropotkin's ideas on 
revolutionary syndicalism and the role of anarchists in relation to this 
revolutionary form of syndicalism.

Keywords: Piotr Kropotkin, anarchism, revolutionary syndicalism, 
anarcho-syndicalism, syndicalism ---- "It is only in the great working 
masses[...]
that our ideas will reach their full development." - Piotr Kropotkin

This text aims to present the positions of the classic Russian anarchist 
Piotr Kropotkin (1842-1921) regarding anarchist strategies and his 
stance on this debate. It is divided into four main parts, which are 
logically linked and allow for the support of some more conclusive 
statements, which I enunciate in this introduction and then discuss in 
more detail.

In "Kropotkin, Anarchist Communism and Educationalism," I challenge a 
"thesis" currently circulating in Brazil. By tracing its 
historiographical roots and contemporary expressions, I expose its main 
lines to deny that Kropotkin was an educationalist/culturalist, and that 
the "anarcho-communism" he advocated constituted an absolute break (or 
even a "revisionism") in relation to the so-called Bakuninism of the 
International Workingmen's Association (IWA or "First International").

In "The Workers-Socialist Movement and Anarchism," I revisit the 
organizational context in which Kropotkin's political thought was 
produced. This is done through a discussion of the main international 
organizational efforts that occurred throughout Kropotkin's political 
life, extending from the "First International," founded in 1864, to the 
Syndicalist International, founded between 1922 and 1923. Within this 
context, I map the major debates and strategic dilemmas that took place 
between 1880 and 1910, within the workers-socialist field in general and 
the anarchist field in particular.

In "Kropotkin and the Great Anarchist Debates" and "Between 
Insurrectionary Anarchism and Mass Anarchism," I analyze Kropotkin's 
political thought in light of these debates and strategic dilemmas, 
situating it within them. Discussing the fundamental characteristics and 
ambiguities of this thought, I show that, on the one hand, Kropotkin's 
positions certainly distance themselves from Marxism and approach 
anarchism. On the other hand, however, I demonstrate that, when situated 
in relation to the great anarchist debates, Kropotkin's positions are 
more ambiguous, engaging in dialogue with, or even adhering to, distinct 
perspectives.

The main argument of this section is that, while Kropotkin has few 
contributions that allow us to associate him with the 
(educationalist/culturalist) "thesis," he possesses a considerable 
intellectual output that makes it possible to link him to 
insurrectionary anarchism, but mainly to mass anarchism - in particular 
to revolutionary syndicalism. This is not about asserting Kropotkin as a 
revolutionary syndicalist theorist, but rather that it seems undeniable 
that, between 1881 and 1912, he developed a set of ideas that allow for 
a certain approximation with revolutionary syndicalism.

In "Kropotkin and Revolutionary Syndicalism," I present precisely what, 
in my view, are the most important aspects of Kropotkin's vision of this 
revolutionary form of syndicalism, as well as the anarchist perspective 
on it. To establish this link between Kropotkin's political thought and 
revolutionary syndicalism, it was essential to go beyond his best-known 
books and examine a collection of articles written in French and English 
for the anarchist press between 1881 and 1912, which were compiled by 
Iain McKay in what I consider the best anthology of Kropotkin: Direct 
Struggle Against Capital: A Peter Kropotkin Anthology (McKay, 2014).

In these articles, Kropotkin defends a revolutionary syndicalist 
strategy based on the need to build massive unions encompassing all 
sectors of the working class for the immediate economic struggle against 
capitalist exploitation. He argues that this unionism should operate on 
federalist assumptions and based on the principles of direct action and 
prefiguration, and that it is possible and necessary, especially with 
anarchist participation, to guarantee its radicalization and its 
advancement towards a revolutionary perspective of political 
transformation of society.

KROPOTKIN, ANARCHIST COMMUNISM AND EDUCATIONISM

The aforementioned "thesis" 1 draws on the narratives of the anarchists 
themselves, developed since the 19th century and emphatically reproduced 
throughout the 20th century, including in Brazil. But it only became 
consolidated with the resumption of some anarchist discourses and 
historiographical productions and with the elaboration, in the early 
2000s, of a more radicalized version, which continues to be reproduced 
by some sectors of Brazilian anarchism.

The most important historical fact for understanding this "thesis" is 
the transition from anarchist collectivism (or "anarcho-collectivism") 
advocated by Mikhail Bakunin, members of the Alliance and the 
International Workingmen's Association (IWA), to anarchist communism (or 
anarcho-communism) advocated by Kropotkin, Élisée Reclus, Errico 
Malatesta, and others. This process occurred within the context of the 
so-called Anti-Authoritarian International (1872-1877), between 1874 and 
1880. Amidst great and heated debates, it implied a significant shift in 
project regarding the distribution of the fruits of labor in 
post-revolutionary society - a socialist society without a state or 
social classes.

On the one hand, collectivists considered that this distribution should 
occur according to the principle "to each according to their work"; on 
the other hand, for communists, it needed to occur according to the 
principle "to each according to their needs." This position was 
consolidated among European anarchists in 1880 and, from then on, became 
hegemonic. (Nettlau, 2008, pp. 180-188).

Both anarchists and the historiography of anarchism considered this 
transition from collectivism to communism a central event. And 
practically all of them, to some extent, took a position on the subject 
in discussions, newspaper articles, and books. Two important examples 
can be mentioned.

Kropotkin (1946, pp. 419-420), the most widely read anarchist of the 
20th century, in his 1899 autobiography already emphasized that "when 
the Jurassic Federation boldly declared itself anarchist-communist at 
its 1880 Congress," breaking with the collectivism of the International 
Workingmen's Association, "anarchism gained numerous supporters in 
France." In 1910, in the entry on anarchism he wrote for the 
Encyclopaedia Britannica , Kropotkin (1987, p. 30) also emphasized that, 
in the 1880s, "most anarchist workers preferred anarcho-communist ideas, 
which gradually evolved from the anarchist collectivism of the 
International Workingmen's Association."

Nettlau (2008, p. 188), a profoundly influential historian of anarchism, 
in his book written and published between the 1920s and 1930s, narrated 
the main milestones of the debate between collectivists and communists 
and concluded that "this[anarchist-communist]conception, initiated in 
1876, was initially taken up by the Italians, then became general in 
Switzerland, France, and Belgium from 1880 onwards." Nettlau 
(forthcoming) refers, throughout, to the categories of 
"communists/communism" and "collectivists/collectivism" to explain the 
debates and positions, and identifies two major anarchist currents in 
Europe: the " collectivist conception " and the " communist conception ."

Writings such as those by Kropotkin and Nettlau have widely influenced 
the activism, historiography, and theoretical discussions of anarchism 
throughout the 20th century, and continue to be significant in this 
early 21st century. In Brazil, such positions were incorporated, among 
others, into a good academic work, influential in the consolidation of 
the "thesis" throughout the 2000s. This is the work *Presença do 
Anarquismo no Brasil: um estudo dos episódios literário e educacional 
(1900-1920)* (The Presence of Anarchism in Brazil: A Study of Literary 
and Educational Episodes (1900-1920)) , by Flávio V. Luizetto, a 
doctoral thesis presented to the Department of History at the University 
of São Paulo in 1984. (Luizetto, 1984)

His first chapter, "Notes on the history of libertarian communism," 
proposes, as Luizetto himself argues (1984, p. 18), to discuss the 
trajectory of this "current" of anarchism that has been called 
anarchist/libertarian communism, communist anarchism, or 
anarcho-communism. In this chapter, he takes as his main 
historiographical reference the work of Max Nettlau. The classic 
anarchists most discussed by him are Piotr Kropotkin, Élisée Reclus, 
and, to a lesser extent, Errico Malatesta - those who, according to 
Nettlau, are the greatest representatives of this anarchist "current."

According to Luizetto (1984, p. 41), Reclus's book, *Evolution, 
Revolution and the Anarchist Ideal *, "contains the essence of what can 
be called the theory of libertarian communism." In this book, Reclus 
(2002), a former communard , while offering a self-critique of the Paris 
Commune, argues that revolutions can only be carried out after a social 
evolution, a growing movement of opinion that must win the hearts and 
minds of a broad part of society.

Therefore, the fundamental task of anarchists must be to contribute to 
this change, especially through educational and cultural initiatives.

This theory would be further complemented, according to Luizetto (1984, 
p. 49), by Kropotkin's book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution . In this 
book, Kropotkin (2009), in an attempt to combat social Darwinism, shows, 
through investigations of animal and human communities, that cooperation 
is also responsible for evolution. And, from an evolutionary 
perspective, he argues for the need for the widespread dissemination of 
the principle of mutual aid for a higher evolution or progress of 
humanity towards revolution and anarchy.

Although he relativizes such positions with writings by Malatesta and 
some anarchist syndicalist positions, including those of Kropotkin, the 
thesis promoted by Luizetto (1984, p. 31) is that the Jurassic 
Federation, "even without intending to polemicize with the ideas 
defended by Bakunin, signified, in practice, a departure from the 
Bakuninist tradition." This rupture would have occurred in relation to 
secret organizations and Bakunin's dictatorial, destructive, and 
classist conceptions. (See also: Luizetto, 1984, pp. 67-70, 81-82)

However, it was a text published in 2003 that consolidated and 
disseminated the "thesis" in libertarian and, to some extent, academic 
circles in Brazil. This is the introduction to the book *Italian 
Anarcho-Communism *, with texts by Malatesta and Luigi Fabbri, organized 
by the Luta Libertária collective. As they explained in a note, the 
authors revisited the structure, argument, and excerpts from Luizetto's 
chapter when producing "The Anarcho-Communist Current: history, 
critique, and permanence" (Luta Libertária, 2003). Even so, it is worth 
noting that, in this text, Luizetto's arguments were quite emphasized in 
the development of the "thesis."

The Libertarian Struggle group argues that "in anarchism there is a 
before and after anarcho-communism, a watershed moment in anarchist 
thought." This is because anarcho-communism implied a "break with 
Bakuninist anarchism" in numerous aspects. The idea upheld by the group 
is that the anarcho-communist conception of "evolution, progress, 
revolution, science, determinism, nature" subsidized a deterministic and 
evolutionist worldview, which ended up not only relegating historical 
and social aspects to a secondary position, but also promoting the 
notion that "revolution would be a natural and inevitable tendency of 
history." Thanks to this inevitability, revolution would occur 
spontaneously and, therefore, would not require the "need for 
preparation of the new society," "the projection of forms of social 
organization," or forms of anarchist organization. (Libertarian 
Struggle, 2003, pp. 12, 19)

Nevertheless, this revolutionary process could be prepared, and even 
accelerated, by human action. Something that anarcho-communists intended 
to do "simply by fulfilling the role of explaining to people the course 
of history, of preparing them for what will inevitably come." Thus, "the 
only space left for the intervention of anarcho-communist militants" 
would be that of the "field of ideas." All these militants would have in 
common "the valorization of consciousness-raising propaganda as the 
fundamental strategy," and, through it, they would seek to "educate the 
masses in order to prepare them for the revolutionary moment." This 
could be confirmed by their frequent use of terms such as "convincing, 
persuasion, awareness-raising, enlightenment, and education." (Luta 
Libertária, 2003, pp. 29, 16, 22)

In this way, anarcho-communists would have adopted a strategy that, like 
Reclus in *The Evolution, the Revolution ...*, recommended first 
transforming minds, and only then transforming the world. This 
perspective would demonstrate the "idealistic root of 
anarcho-communism," according to which "it is the idea that moves 
history, that generates the facts." This not only reflected the 
estrangement between anarchists and workers, reinforced by the context 
following the Paris Commune, but also contributed to strengthening this 
estrangement until the end of the 19th century. (Libertarian Struggle, 
2003, pp. 30, 23)

To some extent, these arguments from Luta Libertária were further 
radicalized by an organization formed in the year Malatesta and Fabbri's 
book was published: the Anarchist Insurrection Federation (FAI), which 
would soon change its name to the Popular Anarchist Union (UNIPA). The 
most important starting point for the development of this organization's 
"thesis" is the text "The Social Revolution in Brazil," approved at its 
second congress in 2004. (UNIPA, 2004) Arguments developed and deepened 
in subsequent years, for example, in the "International Platform of 
Revolutionary Anarchism," of 2011. (OPAR/UNIPA, 2011) With the end of 
the Luta Libertária collective and the Libertarian Socialist 
Organization of São Paulo (OSL-SP) that succeeded it, these arguments 
found their greatest disseminators in UNIPA and its circle.

In proposing a discussion of "anarchism and its true history," UNIPA 
activists believe that, with the defeat of the Paris Commune, the death 
of Bakunin, and the end of the International Workingmen's Association 
(IWA), Bakuninism was caricatured, distorted, and confronted by 
anarchists, even in the 19th century. This, they argue, gave rise to 
what the organization calls "revisionism," "eclecticism," and 
"liquidationism." Of particular interest here is the notion of 
"revisionism," which considers that "anarcho-communism" constituted a 
rupture-in this case, a revision-of the central tenets of "Bakuninism."

According to the authors of the document, such revisionism, of a 
petty-bourgeois or even bourgeois character, would have two origins. One 
of them "originates from the revision of the basic assumptions of 
anarchism with the introduction of the notion of communism - as opposed 
to collectivism - as the axis of the anarchist program". Something that 
would have been realized by the "revision proposed jointly by Errico 
Malatesta and Carlos Cafiero at the congress of the Anti-Authoritarian 
International of 1875 and has Kropotkin as its main disseminator", but 
also Reclus. (UNIPA, 2004, pp. 15-16)

Ultimately, this revisionist anarcho-communism would not even be 
anarchist, since it "attacks the ideological, theoretical, strategic, 
and programmatic foundations of anarchism, inverts its meaning, and thus 
pretends to reclaim them, seeking to merge with anarchism." Among other 
things, because it replaces "anarchist proletarian classism" with 
"revisionist petty-bourgeois educationism," supported by a 
"scientific-evolutionary" perspective. Predominant in various contexts 
until 1900, this revisionism - whose most complete version would be "the 
'synthesis' proposal elaborated by Vóline and Sebastien Faure in the 
1920s" - would not only have distanced anarchism "from the struggle and 
cause of the people," but also influenced its historical development to 
the present, as demonstrated by the self-proclaimed anarchist positions 
of "individualistic, educationalist, and liberal character." (UNIPA, 
2004, pp. 16-17)

The table below summarizes, in broad strokes, the fundamental aspects of 
the "thesis," as discussed so far:

When analyzing the context of the production of the texts in question, 
some comments are possible. In Luizetto's case, it is an academic work 
from the 1980s, when discussion and bibliography in Brazil were 
extremely limited. I believe he did the best he could at that time, 
adopting an interesting perspective: prioritizing, through the works of 
Nettlau and other authors - many of them in other languages - the vision 
of the movement itself and its historiography about itself. This 
perspective was hegemonic among studies of anarchism done with any 
seriousness, and far better than that adopted by Marxist or liberal 
authors. But, as is known today, despite his immense qualities, Nettlau 
also has considerable problems, and this ends up being reflected in the 
author's work. 5

In the cases of the works produced by Luta Libertária and UNIPA, the 
situation is different. Although their authors claim a certain rigor, 
these are not texts intended to be academic; they were produced in the 
2000s, with much more accumulated discussion and available bibliography 
on the subject. Even so, it is surprising that the references are not 
very different from those of Luizetto. Furthermore, there is a factor 
that helps explain why the arguments of Nettlau, Luizetto, and others 
were so emphasized in these texts. In my view, it is not only a matter 
of historiographical and theoretical issues, but also of the 
political-ideological intentionality of these texts.

For Luta Libertária, the need to break with what they considered the 
recent "educationalist/culturalist" past of Brazilian anarchism, which 
primarily used lectures and cultural events as means of action, was 
crucial in order to promote an organized anarchism embedded in the 
practices of popular mass struggles. For UNIPA, it was important to 
challenge the line of this "organized anarchism" in Brazil, which was 
taking shape in the Forum of Organized Anarchism (FAO), founded in 2002. 
The organization aimed, in order to align positions around the 
"Bakuninism" it defended, to show the limits and errors of what it 
classified as "revisionism," "eclecticism," and "liquidationism."

It is obvious that all textual production, including academic works, has 
a guiding ideological perspective, whether declared or not. But, when it 
comes to seriously discussing an object from the past - doing rigorous 
science, whether to support a political project or not - it is important 
to be careful not to replace what was with what one would like it to 
have been . And, in my assessment, despite the merits that the texts of 
Luta Libertária and UNIPA may have, this was done on several occasions. 
That is, in an attempt to construct a politically useful argument, both, 
on many occasions, ended up replacing historiographical and theoretical 
rigor with assertions without basis in reality and gross generalizations.

Next, I will briefly point out what I consider to be the biggest 
problems with the texts - and therefore with the "thesis" - in question.

The first aspect is the very division of anarchist currents. As I argued 
in Black Flag: Rethinking Anarchism , there have been numerous ways in 
which reference studies of anarchism have proposed to conceptualize 
anarchist currents. And the vast majority of them are quite problematic. 
For example, when they operate with overlapping criteria that are 
insufficient to explain the major anarchist debates.

As I argued in this book, I believe that, when analyzing anarchism 
throughout its history and from a global perspective, it is possible to 
speak of two anarchist currents: mass anarchism and insurrectionary 
anarchism . Both currents are distinguished by the positions they take 
on three major historical debates among anarchists. On the question of 
organization , mass anarchists maintain an organizationalist perspective 
(the need for organization at the mass level, anarchist 
political-ideological principles, or both), while insurrectionary 
anarchists maintain an anti-organizationalist perspective (the risk or 
irrelevance of structured organizations, and a preference for informal 
groups or individual actions).

Regarding the issue of reforms , the first group are possibilists 
(arguing that struggles for reforms and immediate gains are an important 
part of the revolutionary struggle, depending on how they are carried 
out), while the second group are impossibilists (opposed to struggles 
for reforms and immediate gains, understanding them as ineffective or 
detrimental to the anarchist revolutionary project). Regarding the issue 
of violence , the first group maintains its simultaneous or concomitant 
necessity with the construction of mass movements ( simultaneous/derived 
violence ), while the second group considers it to function as a trigger 
for the creation of revolutionary movements ( violence as a trigger ). 
(For further information, see: Van der Walt, 2016a, pp. 95-97; Corrêa, 
2015, pp. 234-248)

Therefore, anarchist communism (or anarcho-communism) does not 
constitute an anarchist current, mainly for three reasons: 1.) Because, 
from a global (worldwide) and long-term perspective (1868 to the 
present), the debates involving the defense of self-management (project 
for a future society) are not the most important. 2.) Because, from that 
same perspective, the debate between collectivism and communism as forms 
of distributing the fruits of labor did not have a great impact. It was 
significant in Europe from the 1870s until the beginning of the 20th 
century, but after that, communist positions largely prevailed; those 
intermediate positions, which proposed hybrid models, also gained some 
prominence. 3.) Because, in this category, anarchists who are completely 
different in their essentials are united: for example, Luigi Galleani 
(anti-organizationalist, impossibilist, and proponent of violence as a 
trigger) with Luigi Fabbri and Nestor Makhno (organizationalists, 
possibilists, and proponents of violence concomitant with mass 
movements). (Corrêa, 2015, pp. 234-251)

The second aspect concerns the overgeneralization of the category of 
anarchist communism/anarcho-communism. To consider Reclus from 
*Evolution, Revolution... * or even Kropotkin from *Mutual Aid ...* as 
the greatest foundations of all those considered "anarcho-communists" is 
a mistake.

It is true that Reclus's educationalist and culturalist arguments appear 
in this and other of his political writings. However, even in this 
writing, he defends the strike and the general strike as transformative 
tools. (Reclus, 2002, pp. 122-123) In another text, he argues that, in a 
strike, what matters most to the strikers is "to seize, for the benefit 
of all, all property made to exploit them." (Reclus, 2020) It is also 
true that such arguments led to a belief that, through a full evolution 
(in terms of conviction about revolutionary and anarchist ideas), 
workers could lead almost peaceful or even peaceful revolutions. 
(Reclus, 2002, p. 131) However, Reclus also acknowledges, in other 
writings, that "undoubtedly, the movement of transformation will entail 
violence," and that "no progress, whether partial or general, has ever 
been achieved through simple peaceful evolution." (Reclus, 2011a, p. 40; 
2011b, p. 44)

In other words, even in Reclus's work, there are certain ambiguities 
that allow us to question the "ideal type" of anarcho-communism 
constructed in the "thesis." Still, it is necessary to acknowledge a 
certain support for the positions of the "thesis" at different points in 
Reclus's work. Now, when we turn to other "anarcho-communists," the core 
of the "thesis" completely dissolves. Even if they may, at times, engage 
with Reclus's arguments, anarchists like Kropotkin, Malatesta, Fabbri, 
Cafiero, and many others definitely do not share the set of these 
educationalist and culturalist positions.

Kropotkin, as I intend to show below, while on the one hand possessing 
ideas that reinforce the reading and generalization made by Luizetto and 
others of Mutual Support ... - and, therefore, of the "thesis" - on the 
other hand, has arguments that contradict them. Malatesta does not have 
a biologizing, evolutionist, and positivist reading of society; he was a 
defender of organization, of struggles for reforms, and, at various 
times, of the action of the labor movement and unions. (Malatesta, 
2014a, 2000a, 2000b, 1989, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d) Fabbri, in an analytical 
sense similar to that of Malatesta, also defended organization, as well 
as struggles for reforms, strikes, labor movements, unions, and also a 
revolution that would take place through the action of the workers. 
(Fabbri, 2003a, 2012a, 2012b, 2003b) Cafiero reinforced that facts are 
more important than ideas and, precisely for this reason, a 
transformation would not come only from educational initiatives, but 
from propaganda through facts and, mainly, from revolutionary facts. 
(Cafiero, 2012a, 2012b)

What I am arguing here is not that these and other "anarcho-communists" 
maintained all the fundamentals of the AIT's "Bakuninism." Certainly, 
when a more detailed analysis of their works is carried out, it is 
possible to note similarities and differences, both in relation to 
Bakunin, as well as to Kropotkin and Reclus, not to mention other 
"Bakuninists" and "anarcho-communists." In this sense, I consider that 
no generalization is possible in the terms proposed by the "thesis."

The third aspect refers to statements about Bakunin, "Bakuninists," and 
"Bakuninism." Some of these statements are mistaken, and in certain 
cases, there are unverifiable generalizations and even a degree of 
idealization.

Among the erroneous statements, the one made by both Luizetto (1984, p. 
60) and Luta Libertária (2003, p. 12) regarding "secret organizations" 
as a central feature of "Bakuninism" stands out. It should be noted that 
Bakunin did indeed have a project for a secret Alliance; but it is also 
true that such an organization would be articulated with a public 
Alliance and with the International (also public). Therefore, Bakunin's 
organizational project is neither restricted to nor prioritizes secret 
and clandestine forms of organization over public forms, but rather 
combines them. (Corrêa, 2019, pp. 335-346)

Among the generalizations and idealizations, the one involving the very 
notion of "Bakuninism," as formulated by Luta Libertária and UNIPA, 
stands out. After all, who were the "Bakuninists"? What were their 
theoretical conceptions, and to what extent were they supported in 
practice? As I argued elsewhere, such questions do not have definitive 
answers at this time. For example, it is not known exactly who the 
Aliancistas were, to what extent they shared Bakunin's positions, or 
whether everything Bakunin wrote about the secret and public Alliance 
was put into practice. (Corrêa, 2019, p. 336)

That is why, from a theoretical and historical perspective, I consider 
it very difficult, at least up to this point, to speak of the existence 
of a "Bakuninism" - as a set of theories, practices and/or anarchist 
expression within the International Workingmen's Association (IWA). It 
seems to me that, in claiming this "Bakuninism," what Luta Libertária 
and, especially, UNIPA are doing is elevating some of Bakunin's 
theoretical positions to the level of a supposedly homogeneous anarchism 
from the time of the International. Something that I understand as an 
idealization of aspects of Bakunin's theory which, as I have argued, it 
is not known exactly who defended them, to what extent they defended 
them, and even less whether or not they were incorporated into the 
practice of these militants. 7

In short, as I have stated elsewhere, anarchist research, both 
theoretically and historiographically, has developed more significantly 
and indeed presents encouraging prospects. However, there are still 
fundamental aspects to be developed, which will require considerable 
effort. We should not invest in elaborating more general theses without 
examining particular cases. And, definitively, this is not about 
supporting a historical particularism that rejects generalizations. 
Rather, it is about understanding that necessary generalizations 
(concepts, theories, theses, etc.) cannot be made arbitrarily and/or 
abstractly, without historiographical foundations; such generalizations, 
often important or even indispensable, must be made from these 
historiographical foundations and/or tested by them.

This applies to theories about the existence of an anarcho-communist 
current and also of Bakuninism within the International. It is also 
fundamental that we delve deeply into the theoretical contributions of 
anarchists and the major episodes in the history of anarchism, as well 
as expanding comparative studies and more general elaborations.

The Workers' Socialist Movement and Anarchism: From the "First 
International" to the Trade Union International

During his anarchist period, Kropotkin lived in Russia and, primarily, 
in Western Europe. In those years, Europe was the scene of major 
disputes within the international workers' and socialist movement, as 
well as intense debates among the anarchists themselves. (Berthier, 
2015; Skirda, 2002, pp. 32-104) In the following pages, these disputes 
and debates will be mapped and discussed in light of the main 
international organizational efforts of the period.

Looking at the history of the International Workingmen's Association 
(and the Anti-Authoritarian International) up to 1877, it is possible to 
understand how these disputes were consolidated. As I explained in 
Freedom or Death: Theory and Practice of Mikhail Bakunin (Corrêa, 2019, 
pp. 315-387), until the so-called "split" of 1872 at the Hague Congress, 
the competing camps, federalist and centralist, assumed certain 
characteristics. The federalists, preponderant in the sections, were 
mostly collectivist - a change that occurred between 1868 and 1869, when 
they succeeded the mutualists - and among the collectivists, the 
anarchists were hegemonic. Anarchists who organized themselves 
politically (in the Alliance) and acted in the International, through a 
socialist, anti-statist perspective and the promotion of revolutionary 
and mass forms of trade unionism. The centralists, who predominate in 
the General Council, are mostly social democrats, although some hold 
positions closer to communism, Blanquism, and trade unionism.

They are socialists, statists, and concentrate their efforts, in most 
cases, on forming national parties focused on electoral contests.

As is known, the "split" of 1872 - which occurred within a complicated 
context, following the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune, with 
all the international repression that ensued (Musto, 2014, pp. 43-54) - 
effectively meant the end of the Centralist International (even though 
this was only formally declared in 1876), and the beginning of the 
Anti-Authoritarian International, the legitimate successor to the 
International Workingmen's Association. (Corrêa, 2015, p. 264; Berthier, 
2015, pp. 81-103; Van der Walt, 2016a, p. 87)

During its five years of existence (1872-1877), the Anti-Authoritarian 
International, predominantly federalist-collectivist, also held 
positions that help to understand the disputes and debates mentioned 
earlier. Its history unfolded within a complicated context for the 
European workers' movement, marked by harsh repression, especially in 
France, Italy, and Spain, where the International was formally banned; 
in various locations, movements had to operate clandestinely, and many 
of its active members were persecuted, imprisoned, or forced into exile. 
(Berthier, 2015, pp. 196-200; Musto, 2014, pp. 52-54)

An important aspect of this trajectory was the significant growth of 
perspectives opposed to organization, and even anti-organizationalist 
ones, which came to be not only accepted but actively defended as a 
reaction to the centralist practices of Marx and the General Council; 
they were vigorously expressed since the "split" of 1872 through the 
defense of the complete autonomy of the sections. (Skirda, 2002, pp. 33-36)

Furthermore, if this "split" had already separated the General Council 
from the base of the International (Corrêa, 2019, p. 376), and largely 
pitted authoritarians against anti-authoritarians, the 
Anti-authoritarian International finished separating, with defections 
and another split in 1877, the remaining "reformist defenders of state 
socialism and the conquest of political power" from the 
"revolutionaries, determinedly committed to the economic struggle" 
(Skirda, 2002, p. 38). Only the latter remained in the International; 
ultimately, they ended up imposing their anarchist program on the 
association, "anarchizing" the International, and contributing to 
transforming a mass organization, forged for popular and trade union 
struggle, into a set of poorly articulated anarchist groups without a 
significant popular base. (Berthier, 2015, p. 81; Skirda, 2002, p. 39)

Another aspect to be taken into account was the growth of 
insurrectionary perspectives, which, while already present during the 
AIT era - as, for example, in the Lyon Commune episode of 1870 (Corrêa, 
2019, pp. 350-353) - ended up advancing considerably with the 
insurrections in Italy (1874, in Bologna; 1877, in Benevento), and with 
the positions taken by the militants. (Pernicone, 2009, pp. 90-95, 118-128)

As early as 1876, Italian internationalists advocated "propaganda by 
deed," using a distinct interpretation from that of Bakunin, who spoke 
of the relevance of revolutionary events. For them, armed insurrections, 
even without a popular base, would be the best way to spread anarchism; 
this would not be done through words, but through insurrectionary 
action, through what they understood as revolutionary events. This 
perspective was adopted by a significant portion of the internationalist 
militants in other countries and, concretely, while in a few cases it 
served to mobilize the masses, in the vast majority of cases it was 
central to intensifying repression and deepening the distance between 
anarchists and workers. (Skirda, 2002, pp. 39, 42, 47-50)

In Western Europe, the years 1880-1890 encompassed developments of these 
positions. In the field of the workers' and socialist movement, there 
were confrontations between: reformist and revolutionary perspectives; 
strategies for building political parties to contest elections and those 
for building groups or unions to fight outside state institutions; 
statist and anti-statist perspectives; positions that emphasize, in 
their speeches and writings, the need for transformation without doing 
much to make it a reality, and those that affirm the need for practical 
transformation through concrete actions.

Within the field of anarchism - where the vast majority of its members 
aligned themselves with the latter positions to the detriment of the 
former - distinct positions also clashed: anti-organizationalist and 
organizationalist perspectives, with the latter debating the best way to 
promote organization; insurrectionary perspectives, advocating 
"propaganda by deed" through armed insurrections without popular 
support, and even through individual attacks; and mass or syndicalist 
perspectives, advocating propaganda and organization among workers and 
the construction of concrete mass struggles, which could involve 
struggles for immediate gains. In a way, these confrontations and 
divergences carried over into the following decades. (Eckhardt, 2016; 
Skirda, 2002, pp. 42-70; Nettlau, 2008, in press; Woodcock, 2002, vol. 
2, pp. 30-39, 73-107, 126-131, 188-190)

These positions, throughout the 1880s and 1910s, reflect, on the one 
hand, the differences between Marxism (pre-Bolshevism) and anarchism; on 
the other hand, the differences among the anarchists themselves. These 
differences involve, as discussed, the great debates that took place 
throughout the history of anarchism, and which distinguished mass 
anarchism from insurrectionary anarchism.

During those years, the international organizational efforts undertaken 
by the worker-socialist movement and the anarchists went through these 
confrontations and divergences. And, depending on the organizational 
project and the internal correlation of forces, they were temporarily 
resolved in favor of certain positions and to the detriment of others. 
These efforts involved not only the continuity of the debates of the 
International, but also contributed to an understanding of the context 
in which Kropotkin was embedded, and which, as a backdrop, underpinned 
his intellectual production.

The Socialist Revolutionary Congress, held in London in 1881, with 
Kropotkin as a delegate, continued the aforementioned confrontations and 
disagreements. It brought together anarchists, syndicalists, communists, 
and Blanquists to devise ways to confront the growing social-democratic 
reformism and its radicalized discourses lacking any basis in reality. 
(Pateman, 2013/2017; Woodcock, 2002, vol. 2, pp. 30-32) As a 
counterpoint, the congress largely defended the need for revolutionary 
action, with propaganda by illegal deeds being a central tool. In its 
main resolution, it recommended "making every possible effort to 
propagate, through actions, the revolutionary idea and the spirit of 
revolt," and for this purpose it was necessary "to take our action into 
the field of illegality." For the congress participants, "the simplest 
act, directed against the current institutions, speaks better to the 
masses than thousands of printed materials and a sea of spoken words." 
Thus they encouraged "the study of technical sciences[knowledge and 
handling of weapons]and chemistry, means for defense and attack." 8 
(Skirda, 2002, p. 47)

This decision signaled the strengthening of the notion of "propaganda by 
deed" in particular, and of insurrectionism in general, which would mark 
the position of most anarchists in Western Europe throughout the 1880s 
and the first half of the 1890s. 9

During this period, insurrectionism was considered the main tool both 
for contesting the worker-socialist movement with social democracy and 
for promoting the revolutionary transformation of society. Individually 
or in small groups, many anarchists carried out episodes of political 
violence, including bombings, firearms, and other devices, seeking the 
physical elimination or attack of their enemies. They were inspired by 
similar actions carried out by militants of other currents, including 
the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in Russia. (Woodcock, 2002, vol. 
2, pp. 30-39, 73-107, 126-131, 188-190; Skirda, 2002, pp. 42-59; Joll, 
1970, pp. 135-172)

However, these anarchist efforts were completely insufficient to contain 
the growth of social democracy. In truth, insurrectionism ended up 
contributing considerably to deepening the distance between anarchists 
and the masses, already significant in the final years of the 
Anti-Authoritarian International. And, with this, even if in a sense 
contrary to what was intended, it opened more space for social 
democracy, whose strength was further enhanced with the founding of the 
Socialist International (or "Second International") in 1889, after a 
series of conferences.

In this association, which lasted until the First World War, the 
disputes of the "First International" were resumed, along with internal 
conflicts within social democracy itself, such as that between 
possibilists and Marxists. 10 (Cole, 1959, vols. III and IV) From the 
beginning of the Socialist International, as is rarely remembered, 
anarchists were present, disputing the direction of the association; 
they remained until 1896, when they were expelled, guaranteeing 
social-democratic hegemony. Even so, revolutionary syndicalist militants 
and initiatives continued to participate in the association, in 
different countries, until its extinction in 1916. (Turcato, 2010; 
Woodcock, 2002, vol. 2, pp. 34-39)

Until the Mainnheim Congress in 1906, the "Second International" 
disregarded trade unions, strikes, and the idea of a general strike; it 
emphatically prioritized political party disputes. After that, it began 
to recognize some importance in them, but recommended that they be used 
in the context of the growth of Social Democratic parliamentary power. 
(Kropotkin, 2014m, p. 383)

Almost simultaneously with the aforementioned expulsion of the 
anarchists, the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), a revolutionary 
trade union organization with broad anarchist participation, was founded 
in France in 1895. It remained, until the First World War, a reference 
point for revolutionary trade unionism in Europe, exerting enormous 
influence not only on the worker-socialist movement in France, but also 
in several other European countries, such as Italy, Spain, Germany, 
Sweden, and Portugal.

The CGT also influenced several Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking 
countries outside of Europe, such as Brazil itself.

Approved at the 1906 CGT congress, the "Amiens Charter" advocated and 
recommended mass trade union struggle with the dual objective of 
defending the immediate demands of workers, such as shorter working 
hours and higher wages, and of sustaining a revolutionary transformation 
of society, undertaking a social reorganization based on the unions 
themselves. It proposed doing this through class struggle independent of 
political parties and through direct action.

The revolutionary syndicalism of the CGT also exerted a wide influence 
among anarchists and was central, both in making this form of 
syndicalism the main force of opposition to social democracy in the 
socialist camp, and in altering the balance of power within the 
anarchist camp itself. Adding to the revolutionary and syndicalist 
initiatives prior to its founding, and reinforcing the critique of 
"propaganda by deed," the CGT - through its conceptions and, above all, 
through the struggles and practical actions it carried out - was central 
to the return of insurrectionary anarchism to a minority position in 
Europe and the rise of mass anarchism, especially syndicalist anarchism, 
to the majority, a position it would maintain in the following decades. 
(Skirda, 2002, pp. 60-79; Nettlau, in press; Woodcock, 2002, vol. 2, pp. 
103-111, 197-198, 132-134, 243-244; Samis, 2004, p. 134; Van der Walt, 
2016b)

These positions guided the debates of the Anarchist Congress, held in 
Amsterdam in 1907. The issues of anarchist organization and the 
relations between anarchism, the labor movement, and trade unionism 
returned with force. Organizationalist positions and those that 
considered a rapprochement between anarchists and the working masses 
essential continued to predominate. (Antonioli, 2009) Alongside a 
considerable growth of revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalist trade union 
organizations, these positions also guided, were reinforced, and 
developed at the London Trade Union Congress in 1913, whose efforts were 
interrupted by the outbreak of the First World War. (Thorpe, 1978)

Finally, it is also worth mentioning that revolutionary trade unionist 
and anarcho-syndicalist organizations participated in the early stages 
of the Communist International (or "Third International"), founded in 
1919. However, despite their close relationship with the Bolshevik 
revolutionaries in confronting the social-democratic reformists, the 
trajectory of the Russian Revolution - in which the Bolsheviks became 
hegemonic, ending the revolution and repressing anarchists and other 
workers - and the role assumed by the Russian Communist Party in the 
Comintern and the Profintern - progressively subordinating trade union 
struggles and movements to its authoritarian and counter-revolutionary 
interests - led to the decision, on the part of the anti-authoritarians, 
to leave and create a new Trade Union International, a process that took 
place between 1922 and 1923, and which involved the participation of 
many anarchists. (Thorpe, 1989; De Jong, 2004)

KROPOTKIN AND THE GREAT ANARCHIST DEBATES

Kropotkin - from his conversion to anarchism, which occurred through 
contact with the Jurassic Federation of the International Workingmen's 
Association in 1872 (Kropotkin, 1946, p. 273), until his death in 1921 
in Russia (McKay, 2014, p. 93) - followed these organizational efforts, 
with greater or lesser proximity, depending on the case. When observing 
his positions regarding these events, and the way he positioned himself 
in relation to the set of debates previously listed, it is possible to 
advance in the understanding of his political-ideological and strategic 
conceptions, and of certain traits of his anarchism.

In general, during these almost five decades, Kropotkin opposed statist 
and reformist perspectives, as well as proposals for building political 
parties for electoral contests - which were then embraced by almost all 
of Marxism, in the growing form of social democracy. He distinctly 
advocated anti-statist, revolutionary perspectives and the construction 
of groups or unions for struggle outside (and against) state 
institutions - which were supported by anarchism. 11 This Kropotkinian 
anarchism can be broadly understood in his most widely disseminated 
books, such as Words of a Rebel (1885), The Conquest of Bread (1892), 
and Modern Science and Anarchism (1901-1913) 12. ( Kropotkin, 2005a, 
1975, 1964; McKay, 2021, pp. 22-24)

However, when it comes to assessing Kropotkin's position on the major 
anarchist debates between 1872 and 1921, his stances are more ambiguous, 
ranging from dialogue to adherence to distinct perspectives. An 
important point to highlight is that, to understand Kropotkin's 
strategic positions more precisely - that is, how he considered it most 
appropriate to promote a revolutionary transformation that could 
overcome capitalist society and establish socialist anarchy - it is 
essential to go beyond his books, which include, in addition to those 
already mentioned, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution and Camps, 
Factories and Workshops . (Kropotkin, 2009, 1998a)

McKay (2021, p. 22) rightly noted that, "to understand how Kropotkin saw 
anarchy being achieved, we need to return to the articles he wrote for 
the anarchist press, which were later compiled into books." These 
articles are little known, and among them are those included by McKay 
himself in the aforementioned book Direct Struggle Against Capital 
(McKay, 2014).

Therefore, it is possible to affirm that, on the one hand, strategic 
themes are very little present in Kropotkin's main works; on the other 
hand, when we analyze these themes, the aforementioned ambiguities and 
diverse adherences become apparent. This seems to have some 
explanations; it seems , therefore, that for a more definitive answer - 
like the one I gave about Bakunin (Corrêa, 2019) - a thorough analysis 
of his entire work and his main commentators is necessary, something I 
have not done nor intended to do in this writing. Therefore, both this 
observation of Kropotkin's ambiguities and diverse adherences in 
strategic terms, and his explanations, should be considered hypotheses 
that will need to be discussed more deeply. Apparently, there are three 
explanations.

First, the paths taken by European and North American anarchists during 
the period in question were certainly influenced by the political 
situation and the concrete experiences they led and participated in. And 
thus, the collective shifts in position regarding the major anarchist 
debates and the varying predominance of insurrectionary anarchism and 
mass anarchism. Second, the influential journalistic position that 
Kropotkin assumed within what was called the "anarchist movement."

In important periodicals such as Le Révolté , La Révolte , Les Temps 
Nouveaux , and Freedom , to which he frequently contributed, he possibly 
opened space for distinct positions within the "movement" and expressed 
himself in different ways regarding the major debates and currents of 
anarchism; depending on the moment, he held positions more or less close 
to those of the "movement." Third, the apparent belief that a certain 
heterogeneity of means could, in some way, advance the intended ends. 
That is, even while maintaining certain preferences, Kropotkin seems to 
have agreed that, to some extent, everything done in the direction of 
anarchist socialism could contribute to its arrival.

An analysis of Kropotkin's political thought reveals some similarities 
in his philosophical and theoretical positions to the characterization 
of the authors of the "thesis." However, when observing his positions 
regarding the debate on anarchist strategies, it becomes clear that, 
depending on the moment and the text in question, Kropotkin has 
affinities with insurrectionary anarchism and, especially, with mass 
anarchism.

There is no doubt that, in general, Kropotkin's political thought was 
marked by aspects of positivism , biological determinism , and scientism 
, as evidenced in his very notion of "scientific anarchism." In Modern 
Science and Anarchism , for example, he states that anarchism is a 
conception of the universe based on the mechanical interpretation of 
natural phenomena, including within this the phenomena of social life 
and its multiple problems of an economic, moral, and political nature. 
Its method of analysis and investigation is that of the natural 
sciences. (Kropotkin, 1964, p. 80)

For Kropotkin, this method is the "naturalistic method," the 
"inductive-deductive method, the only known scientific method"; quite 
different from what he considers the unscientific abstraction of the 
dialectical method. Within this frame of reference for investigation, 
humanity is considered part of nature, and, given the success of the 
naturalistic method in studying non-human natural phenomena, it would 
seem appropriate to base the investigation of society on these same 
principles.

Through this method, based on "materialist (mechanical, or rather, 
kinetic) philosophy," it would be possible to "expose and understand, in 
the clear light of positive facts," the phenomena of nature in general, 
and of society in particular. This method, effectively proven in the 
natural sciences, would allow one to proceed "from the flower to man, 
from a community of beavers to populous human cities," and arrive at an 
adequate understanding of the "phenomena of life, intelligence, 
emotions, and passions," which "can be reduced to physical and chemical 
phenomena," and also of the "laws that govern them." (Kropotkin, 1964, 
pp. 81-82)

There is also no doubt that Kropotkin held a somewhat evolutionary 
notion of society. For him, even in *Modern Science and Anarchism* , 
anarchism itself contains a "certain prognosis of the aspects of 
humanity's future march towards liberty, equality, and fraternity" 
(Kropotkin, 1964, p. 170). This prognosis asserted - in writings such as 
"The Fatality of Revolution," undated, and "Anarchy, its Philosophy, its 
Ideal," from 1896 - that "revolution is inevitable," an "undeniable 
fact," a "mathematical fact," that would guarantee the necessary 
progress of society (Kropotkin, 2007a, pp. 42-43; 2000, pp. 40, 67).

Interestingly, as is often the case with numerous classical thinkers, 
such positions are not exactly found in their historiographical works. 
The most evident case is The Great Revolution (1789-1793) , from 1893, 
"one of the best approaches to the[French]Revolution", which constitutes 
"a classic example of social history, of a history seen from below that 
emphasizes the actions of the masses to drive the revolution". (McKay, 
2014, p. 90)

In Kropotkin's study, there are embedded theoretical and methodological 
aspects, and even a theory of history, both of which do not rely on the 
previously mentioned theoretical and philosophical assumptions. 
(Kropotkin, 2021) Furthermore, on numerous other occasions, he did not 
fail to recognize that anarchist propaganda and action could contribute 
to accelerating this evolutionary process. (Kropotkin, 2007a, p. 42; 
Cahm, 1989, p. 92)

Now, when it comes to discussing Kropotkin's class-based perspective , 
both in his analysis of society and in his strategic positions, it is 
certainly not true that he broke with anarchist classism. He certainly 
has writings - possibly the best known, even cited by the authors of the 
"thesis," is "To the Young" (Kropotkin, 2005b) - that encourage members 
of the ruling classes to abandon their ranks and join the workers and 
peasants in their emancipatory struggle. After all, this was his own 
life choice, as it was for Bakunin and other anarchists.

However, this position arises precisely within the framework of an 
interpretation of society in which social classes are central elements, 
and also from a strategic perspective that considers workers in general, 
and laborers and peasants in particular, essential for a revolutionary 
social transformation. In "Communism and Anarchy," from 1901, Kropotkin 
emphasizes that "present-day bourgeois society certainly remains divided 
into classes," the "bourgeois class" and the "working class" (Kropotkin, 
2007b, p. 130). In The Great Revolution (1789-1793) , the main thesis 
formulated by Kropotkin (2021) is that the French Revolution was not 
merely a bourgeois revolution, a confrontation between the bourgeoisie 
and the nobility; as he brilliantly demonstrates, the French people, 
with special emphasis on the peasantry, were central to the struggles 
and the very process of social change.

Strategically, Kropotkin consistently maintained the position of 
revolutionary struggle by workers (laborers and peasants) against 
capitalists. In 1881, in the article "Les Ennemis du Peuple"[The Enemies 
of the People], he stated that it was indispensable to "organize the 
forces of the workers" to fight against capital. (Kropotkin, 2014a, p. 
294) In 1906, in "The Russian Revolution and Anarchism," he argued that 
anarchists should "transform the workers' and peasants' unions into a 
force that could initiate[...]a well-planned mass expropriation." 
(Kropotkin, 2014u, p. 469) In 1907, in the text "Les Anarchistes et les 
Syndicats"[Anarchists and Trade Unions], he maintained that his ideas 
had always remained the same: "workers' organizations are the real force 
capable of carrying out the social revolution." (Kropotkin, 2014o, p. 
391). And, the following year, in a letter to Alexander Berkman, he 
stated: "it is classes that make revolutions - not individuals." 
(Kropotkin, 2014q, p. 402)

When investigating Kropotkin's positions in the organizational debate , 
it is also possible to find ambiguous and, to some extent, contrasting 
statements. At times, Kropotkin supports, or appears to support (through 
logical deductions from his writings), more spontaneous perspectives 
that dispense with the need for a structured organization (both of 
workers and of the anarchists themselves) to promote revolution and the 
restructuring of the new society. These perspectives are not so common, 
but they seem to derive from his deterministic and fatalistic 
conceptions, as well as from his rather optimistic view of humankind, 
which is evident in writings such as The Conquest of Bread , from 1906. 
(Kropotkin, 1975)

In this vein, Kropotkin argued - in his 1886 article "What Revolution 
Means" - that a revolution would not happen "if every part of the 
territory were not undergoing a spontaneous demolition of decaying 
economic and political institutions ," if workers (laborers and 
peasants) had not been spontaneously rising up for some time. And that 
the "reorganization of production, the redistribution of wealth and 
exchange" would have to be carried out "by the natural growth resulting 
from the combined efforts of all those concerned"; that is, "this 
remodeling will be the result of the countless spontaneous actions of 
millions of individuals."[13](Kropotkin, 2014s, pp. 534-535) 
Furthermore, on several occasions, he demonstrated "commitment to 
selfless acts of revolt, both individual and collective," which, being 
carried out spontaneously, would be important in a broader revolutionary 
movement. (Cahm, 1989, p. 121)

At the same time, it is important to note that, for Kropotkin, ideas 
truly possess a great capacity to stimulate human action. And, without a 
doubt, this constitutes a central element for the transformation of 
society. It seems he considers ideas to be as important as facts, or, 
more specifically, that in a certain way ideas are also facts. It is 
not, therefore, a matter of assuming an idealism in which ideas prevail 
over or even replace facts.

In this vein, Kropotkin repeatedly argued for the need for socialists in 
general, and anarchists in particular, to spread their ideas among the 
working masses, investing heavily in raising awareness among these 
masses-something that would be a key element in the transformative 
process. In a series of articles written in 1891 and published in 1914 
under the title "Anarchist Action in the Revolution," he states:

It is necessary that new ideas-those that will mark a new starting point 
in the history of civilization-be outlined before the revolution; that 
they be widely disseminated among the masses so that they can be 
subjected there to the criticism of practical minds and, to a certain 
extent, to experimental verification. It is necessary that the ideas 
germinated before the revolution be sufficiently disseminated so that a 
certain number of minds become accustomed to them. It is necessary that 
these words: "anarchy," "abolition of the State," "free understanding of 
workers' groups and communes," "communist commune," become familiar, 
familiar enough that intelligent minorities seek to deepen their 
understanding. (Kropotkin, 2007c, pp. 121-122)

This notion underpinned a significant portion of Kropotkin's writings. 
It was far more consistent than the notion that anarchists should 
educate, instruct, or enlighten workers, which seems to have manifested 
itself only a few times, in writings such as "Local Action" of 1887. 
There, Kropotkin (1998b, p. 44) emphasized that it was natural for 
socialists to seek to "awaken everywhere[...]the consciousness of the 
masses" and "enlighten them about the negative effects of the present 
monopolization of land and capital."

Thanks to this focus on disseminating ideas and raising workers' 
awareness, propaganda obviously assumed an important role in Kropotkin's 
strategy. This remained true from his time in the Tchaikovsky Circle - 
when, already an anarchist, he dedicated himself, between 1872 and 1874, 
alongside the populists, to revolutionary propaganda among Russian 
peasants and workers - until the end of his life. Considering that 
"socialism[...]was only an expression of the aspirations of the masses," 
for Kropotkin, "propaganda was necessary not to achieve the ideals of 
socialism, but to spread the conviction that these ideals could only be 
realized through popular revolution" (Cahm, 1989, pp. 44-46).

Furthermore, when Kropotkin speaks of propaganda, it should be 
emphasized that, for him, such propaganda could be carried out in 
different ways: theoretically, practically, individually, and 
collectively. As pointed out in the article "The Spirit of Revolt," from 
1881, included in Words of a Rebel , there is, says Kropotkin (2005c, 
pp. 208-209, 219), a "theoretical propaganda" (written, spoken) - which 
includes "posters, pamphlets, songs," etc. - and also a propaganda of 
action (concretely practiced) - which, at the same time, disseminates 
revolutionary ideals, embodies and "operates this revolutionary 
transformation."

He frequently acknowledged the importance of both forms of propaganda; 
moreover, he preferred collective forms to individual ones. Finally, if 
it can be said that he found the core of his strategy in these different 
forms of propaganda, it must also be noted that he frequently proposed 
other strategic initiatives. (Cahm, 1989, pp. 95, 113-115, 119, 127)

However, it should be noted that in the texts studied here, Kropotkin 
does not share Reclus's perspective from *Evolution, Revolution ...*, in 
which workers should first be made aware, educated, or instructed so 
that only then could they carry out their revolutionary actions. It is 
true that he used Reclus's concepts of evolution and revolution; for 
him, while evolution was synonymous with normal historical development, 
in the midst of which the prior preparation of the masses could/should 
occur, revolution meant the rapid acceleration of this process, in which 
accelerated development and the transformation of economic and political 
institutions would be carried out. Even so, Kropotkin did not understand 
that periods of evolution were merely periods of winning the hearts and 
minds of society or even of the workers. Concrete and class struggles 
also had a place in this evolutionary process, as I will discuss later. 
(Kropotkin, 1987, p. 21; 1964, p. 168)

These other strategic elements proposed by Kropotkin, which were to be 
allied with propaganda, were generally linked to issues of agitation and 
organization at their various levels. On several occasions, he defended 
the need to organize workers and anarchists for revolutionary struggle. 
In 1881, in the aforementioned "Enemies of the People," he emphasized: 
"We must organize the forces of the workers[...]in order to make them a 
formidable machine for fighting against capital ." (Kropotkin, 2014a, p. 
294) In 1901, in a letter sent to French and English trade union 
delegates, he argued that to combat the influence of the "Second 
International" it was necessary to invest not in an international of 
political parties, but in an " international federation of all the trade 
unions of the whole world ." (Kropotkin, 2014k, p. 360)

In a preface he wrote in 1892 for Bakunin's book The Paris Commune and 
the Notion of the State, he stated: "we are convinced[...]that the 
formation of an anarchist party[...], far from being harmful to the 
common revolutionary cause, is highly desirable and useful." 14

(Kropotkin, 2014t, p. 130) Finally, at certain times, such as in 1881, 
he maintained an organizational dualism close to that advocated by 
Bakunin: "I think we need two organizations; one open, vast, and 
functioning openly; the other secret, destined for action." 15 (apud 
Cahm, 1989, p. 145)

Regarding the issue of violence, Kropotkin's positions also seem not to 
have changed much over the years. In the texts studied here, he never 
argued that social revolution should be carried out peacefully; and, in 
very rare cases, he indicated the possibility of this occurring. (See, 
for example, Kropotkin, 1998c, p. 25; 1946, p. 275)

The position he maintained throughout his life was stated in his 1899 
autobiography, Memoirs of a Revolutionary:

Revolutions, that is, periods of accelerated evolution and rapid 
transformations, are also in keeping with the nature of human 
society.[...]When a period of rapid evolution and reconstitution begins, 
civil war may break out on a greater or lesser scale. The problem then 
lies less in knowing how to avoid revolutions than in finding ways to 
obtain the best results by avoiding civil war as much as possible, 
reducing the number of victims and employing the least amount of 
animosity. (Kropotkin, 1946, p. 276)

In other words, violence would almost certainly be necessary in the 
revolution, especially because of the resistance offered by those in 
power. The violence of the oppressed, in this sense, would be essential 
to combat the systematic and systemic violence of the capitalists and 
the State. Violence for violence's sake, characteristic of bourgeois 
political revolutions, would therefore not be an end in itself, much 
less would revolutionary terror be the most appropriate means to achieve 
revolutionary victory. Violence is an inevitable fact in social 
revolution, and it must be minimized, according to the possibilities. 
(McKay, 2014, p. 65; Baldwin, 1970, p. 4)

Between insurrectionist anarchism and mass anarchism

Finally, when investigating Kropotkin's positions in the main debates 
involving insurrectionary anarchism (and the notion of "propaganda by 
deed") and mass anarchism (including syndicalism, concrete struggles, 
and reforms), some comments can be made.

Kropotkin has sometimes been cited as a defender of propaganda, at least 
during the 1880s. (Joll, 1970, p. 147; Guérin, 1968, p. 80) However, 
this assertion has proven inaccurate. This is due both to the quotation 
frequently attributed to Kropotkin to support this claim, which is 
actually part of a text written by Cafiero 16 , and to other factors, 
such as the uncritical attribution of the positions of the London 
Congress (1881) to Kropotkin, and the rather fragmented analyses of his 
work and correspondence.

Caroline Cahm (1989), in what I consider the best study of Kropotkin 
from 1872 to 1886 - Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism - 
conducts a detailed discussion, showing that Kropotkin was undoubtedly 
influenced by the insurrectionary wave that strengthened at the end of 
the 1870s and profoundly marked Europe in the 1880s and 1890s.

For her, "without a doubt, he[Kropotkin]was associated with the 
development of the revolutionary tactic of propaganda by deed" (p. 97). 
This association, even if relatively short - lasting from the late 1870s 
to the mid-1880s - was relevant to Kropotkin's overall thought and 
action. It was influenced not only by the international context but also 
by European anarchism itself. In Part II of her book, Cahm discusses in 
detail Kropotkin's link to "propaganda by deed" and insurrectionism, 
pointing out some elements that make explicit the milestones, links, and 
adherences in this direction. Among them, three stand out.

First, the influence Kropotkin received from the Russian Narodniks , 
when, already an anarchist, between 1872 and 1874, he worked with them 
in the Tchaikovsky Circle. (pp. 44-46, 92, 97, 136, 272-273) Reinforced 
by an interpretation of Bakunin that found in him certain 
insurrectionary traits, this influence remained, at least in certain 
aspects, throughout Kropotkin's life. (pp. 76-78)

Secondly, the influence of European anarchism, which, as discussed, 
progressively adhered to the strategy of "propaganda by deed." Both 
Italian anarchists - who, since 1876, were great enthusiasts of 
insurrectionism - and Spanish anarchists - who, especially in Madrid, 
adopted similar positions and, between 1877 and 1878, were relevant in 
Kropotkin's political formation - played an important role for 
Kropotkin. (pp. 78-80, 105-108, 121) The role of Paul Brousse, one of 
the greatest enthusiasts of insurrectionism in the period, was also 
highlighted; in 1877, he published his influential article "La 
Propagande par le Fait"[Propaganda by Deed]in the newspaper 
L'Avant-Garde[The Vanguard], which he co-directed with Kropotkin. (p. 
102) Finally, the London Congress of 1881, in which Kropotkin was 
present; there, as noted, the strategy of "propaganda by deed" was 
internationally endorsed and it was proposed to found the "Black 
International". (pp. 152-177).

Third, the influence of the wave of assassination attempts that occurred 
in 1878 in Russia (against F. Trepov, governor of Petrograd, and N. 
Mezentsov, head of the state police), in Germany (against Emperor 
Wilhelm I) and in Italy (against King Umberto I); as well as the 
assassination of Alexander II, also in Russia, in 1881, and the 
assassination attempts that occurred in Germany, Austria and France in 
1886. (pp. 109, 114, 119-120, 123, 278) For Kropotkin, such acts of 
revolt were an important part of the revolution; they could not only 
inspire people to act, but initiate more widespread revolts and even a 
revolutionary process. (pp. 108, 133-134, 271)

These elements help to understand the stance adopted by Kropotkin 
towards "propaganda by deed" and insurrectionism, between the late 1870s 
and mid-1880s. He observed this development with sympathy and interest, 
even though he did not always publicly express his views on the subject. 
(pp. 111, 114-115).

In the aforementioned "The Spirit of Revolt," from 1881, Kropotkin 
explains how minorities are able, through combative and violent actions, 
whether individual or collective, to produce effects on the masses:

It is through action that minorities manage to awaken this feeling of 
independence and this breath of audacity, without which no revolution 
could take place. Sensitive men, who are not content with words, but who 
seek to put them into action[...], know that it is necessary to dare in 
order to win; they are the lost sentinels who engage in combat, well 
before the masses are excited enough to openly raise the banner of 
insurrection.[...][Such men, often considered madmen]find sympathy; the 
mass of the people secretly applauds their audacity, and they find 
imitators. As the first among them go to populate dungeons and prisons, 
others come to continue their work; acts of illegal protest, revolt, and 
revenge multiply.[...]Through the facts that impose themselves on 
general attention, the new idea infiltrates minds and wins proselytes. 
Such an act does, in a few days, more propaganda than thousands of 
brochures. (Kropotkin, 2005c, pp. 209-210)

In other words, for Kropotkin, it is these audacious "sensitive men," 
these "lost sentinels," who, through their actions, get ahead of the 
masses and secure the necessary sympathy for their positions among them. 
This sympathy arises both from support, even if veiled, for their 
initiating actions, and from repression, which produces the necessary 
solidarity. With this, the masses engage in similar actions, which 
multiply and spread revolutionary ideals to others much more effectively 
than speeches, newspapers, or books. The result is insurrection, a 
necessary step towards social revolution.

This typically insurrectionary notion is further reinforced by the 
impossibilist positions (opposed to short-term struggles for reforms) 
that Kropotkin expressed at times. From the Russian period, between 1872 
and 1874, despite his proximity to the internationalists, he 
demonstrated concern that struggles for reforms could compromise 
revolutionary struggles, and even the realization of social revolution. 
(Cahm, 1989, pp. 231-235) In 1881, in the article "L'Organisation 
Ouvrière"[The Workers' Organization], he positioned himself against the 
idea of a "minimum program" for trade union struggles. (Kropotkin, 
2014c, p. 305) In 1890, in the text "Le Premier Mai 1891"[The First of 
May 1891], he criticized the overly restrictive limits of the struggle 
for the eight-hour workday. (Kropotkin, 2014f, pp. 327-328) In 1907, in 
the aforementioned "Anarchists and Trade Unions," he wrote that "there 
is no doubt that, by joining a trade union, an anarchist makes a 
concession," since such an attitude would imply, to some extent, a 
certain flexibility of positions. (Kropotkin, 2014o, p. 390)

However, Kropotkin's positions cannot be considered an absolute defense 
of "propaganda by deed" and insurrectionism, not even during the period 
when they were at their peak among European anarchists. Throughout the 
years in question, Kropotkin's endorsement of this strategy was critical 
and intertwined with a defense of mass anarchism.

While Kropotkin (2014v, pp. 206-207; 2014o, p. 392) found some 
insurrectionary perspectives in Bakunin, he did not fail to recognize 
that the fundamental aspects of his positions favored mass anarchism and 
syndicalism. Bakunin's work in the International Workingmen's 
Association (IWA) and his connection to the revolutionary form of 
syndicalism that was being formed there were the most striking elements 
in this regard.

Cahm herself (1989) shows other aspects in her book that help to 
elucidate Kropotkin's positions.

On several occasions, from the late 1870s to the early 1880s, he 
expressed disagreements with the Italian insurrectionists. (pp. 98, 103, 
167) While he was close to the Spanish insurrectionists in Madrid, he 
maintained the same closeness with the syndicalists in Barcelona. 
Indeed, when a conflict arose between the two groups in 1878 within the 
Spanish Federation, Kropotkin intervened to mediate, as he sympathized 
with and supported both strategies. (pp. 107-108)

Cahm also argues that when Brousse's aforementioned article on 
"propaganda by deed" was published in 1877, Kropotkin made no comment, 
and a few days later wrote about the railroad strikes in the United 
States. Kropotkin would criticize this article in 1909, justifying that 
his closeness to Brousse did not imply complete agreement with his 
"propaganda by deed" strategy. (pp. 102-104)

She further demonstrates that at the 1881 Congress, Kropotkin's 
positions were in the minority. At that time, although he saw the need 
for illegal actions, including attacks, and even though he recognized 
the indispensability of events that could propagate revolutionary 
ideals, he did not believe in the exclusivity of acts of revolt outside 
the law, nor in their articulation/promotion in public groups. He 
maintained the need for propaganda both through actions and through oral 
and written means, and understood that articulation on two levels was 
fundamental: one public and the other clandestine - illegal actions 
(attacks, etc.) should be conceived and carried out at this second 
level. (pp. 154-160)

Furthermore, Kropotkin saw limits in political attacks (against state 
authorities), highlighting his preference for economic attacks 
(especially against landowners, encouraging the expropriation of land by 
peasants). In short, his encouragement of events that would become 
effective forms of propaganda was not limited to attacks; for him, all 
acts of revolt, all actions carried out collectively or individually to 
advance revolution and anarchy would have this role, including those in 
the labor movement and trade unionism . 17 (pp. 113, 115, 123-124, 142, 
159-160)

In 1891, Kropotkin, in *La Révolte*, criticized the hegemonic positions 
at the London Congress, which had taken place ten years earlier, showing 
"what the anarchists did wrong in 1881":

When the Russian revolutionaries killed the Tsar[...]the European 
anarchists imagined that, from then on, a few fervent revolutionaries, 
armed with some bombs, would be enough to make the social 
revolution.[...]A building constructed over centuries of history cannot 
be destroyed with a few kilos of explosives. (quoted in Skirda, 2002, p. 
55, my emphasis)

In other words, at a time when insurrectionary outbursts still prevailed 
in Europe, Kropotkin already perceived the limits of attacks. However, 
it cannot be said that he, following what would happen on that continent 
with the anarchists, would adopt a more favorable view of mass anarchism 
and syndicalism only with the founding of the French CGT in 1895.

Since identifying as an anarchist in 1872, Kropotkin held positions 
linked to mass anarchism in general, and revolutionary syndicalism in 
particular. He was involved with, influenced by, and also contributed to 
influencing a considerable portion of anarchists in this direction, 
thanks to the prominent position he assumed in the "anarchist movement" 
after Bakunin's death. These positions underpinned assertions by authors 
such as Lucien van der Walt (2019a, p. 254) - "Kropotkin[...]defended 
revolutionary syndicalism" -, Iain McKay (2014, pp. 40-41) - "Kropotkin 
was very supportive of revolutionary syndicalism" - and Vadim Damier 
(2009, p. 30) - "Kropotkin was one of the first to encourage anarchists 
to work in trade unions".

Cahm's book (1989), in its Part III, discusses Kropotkin's connection to 
revolutionary collective action in the labor movement and trade unions. 
She shows that, despite his connection to the International which he 
established in 1872, Kropotkin's positions regarding trade unionism 
remained ambiguous until 1877; during those years he made several 
criticisms of English trade unionism and the influence of social 
democracy in the labor movement. (pp. 235-242)

However, from 1877 onwards, some practical experiences, organizations, 
and workers' struggles in the global north were very important in 
changing Kropotkin's position; from then on, he began to view trade 
unions and trade unionism with greater sympathy, and even to defend 
revolutionary trade unionist positions. Among these, the following stand 
out: in 1877, the Pittsburgh strikes in the United States, and the 
resurgence of the trade union movement in England and France (pp. 
244-245); between 1878 and 1881, the Spanish revolutionary trade 
unionism, particularly in Barcelona, and the radicalized strikes in 
England and Belgium (p. 246); in 1890, the dockworkers' strike in 
Liverpool, England (p. 267); and, obviously, the experience of the CGT 
between 1895 and the First World War (p. 268).

Thus, in 1907, Kropotkin acknowledged, in a letter to James Guillaume, 
that the involvement of anarchists in trade unions was important; in a 
preface from that same year, he stated that the positions of the 
revolutionary trade unionists of the CGT "are organically linked to the 
early forms of the left wing of the International". (quoted in Nettlau, 
1996, p. 279)

In 1914, he would write to Luigi Bertoni:

https://socialismolibertario.net/
/2
_________________________________________
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