A-Infos (en) France, La Plateforme: The Archinov Platform - General Section (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The Platform for the Organization of Libertarian Communists is a 
foundational text of libertarian communism. Our activist network has 
decided to publish this century-old text in four parts, with commentary. 
For while this text is obviously dated, we aim to show how its logic 
remains essentially relevant and can inspire our thinking in the 21st 
century . Let us now turn to "  The General Part of Archinov's Platform  ."
1. The class struggle, its role and its meaning.
Comment : This paragraph doesn't offer much new analysis, and it would 
also be necessary to consider the contemporary evolution of wage labor. 
However, its political relevance remains. The Platform aimed to affirm 
the place of anarchism within the workers' movement. Thus, anarchism 
primarily addresses members of the social classes exploited by 
capitalism. The Platform anchors anarchism in the revolutionary movement 
aiming for the abolition of capitalism. This point was strongly 
criticized by the Synthetists, for whom individualists had a legitimate 
place within anarchism.

There is no single humanity. There is a humanity of classes: slaves and 
masters. Like all those that preceded it, the capitalist and bourgeois 
society of our time is not one. It is divided into two very distinct 
camps, differentiated socially by their situation and function: the 
proletariat (in the broadest sense of the word) and the bourgeoisie.

For centuries, the fate of the proletariat has been to bear the burden 
of arduous physical labor, the fruits of which accrue not to them but to 
another privileged class, the bourgeoisie, which holds property, 
authority, and the products of culture (science, education, etc.). The 
social subjugation and exploitation of the working masses form the 
foundation upon which modern society rests, without which this society 
could not exist.

This fact engendered a centuries-long class struggle, sometimes taking 
on an open and violent character, sometimes an insidious and slow pace, 
but always directed, in essence, towards the transformation of the 
current society into one that would respond to the needs, necessities 
and conception of justice of the workers.

All of human history, in the social sphere, represents an unbroken chain 
of struggles waged by the working masses for their rights, their 
freedom, and a better life. This class struggle has always been, 
throughout the history of human societies, the principal factor 
determining their form and structure.

The social and political system of any country is primarily the product 
of class struggle. The given structure of any society reveals the state 
at which class struggle has stalled and where it currently stands. The 
slightest shift in the relative positions of the struggling class forces 
incessantly produces changes in the fabric and structures of society.

Such is the general, universal scope and meaning of the class struggle 
in the life of class societies.

2. The need for a violent social revolution
Comment : This section is somewhat dated. The reality of class relations 
has changed considerably . The symbolic violence highlighted by 
sociologist Pierre Bourdieu plays a more significant role in class 
domination today than it did a century ago. Nevertheless, one can only 
agree with the assertion that "the  dominant classes (...) are making 
the struggle against them increasingly difficult  ." However, to claim 
that "  only violent social revolution can transform capitalist society 
" seems simplistic. The "  crucial moment  " of the class struggle 
cannot be this imagined final confrontation, but rather the construction 
within capitalist society of counter-powers, which, in times of 
capitalist crisis, can lead to a dual power structure, an open door to 
communism.

The principle of the violent subjugation of the masses constitutes the 
foundation of modern society. All manifestations of its existence-the 
economy, politics, social relations-rest upon class violence, whose 
instruments of service are the authorities, the police, the army, and 
the courts. Everything in this society, every enterprise taken 
individually, as well as the entire state system, is merely the bulwark 
of capitalism, where workers are constantly under surveillance, where 
forces are always ready to repress any workers who threaten the 
foundations or even the tranquility of present-day society.

At the same time, the system of this society deliberately maintains the 
working masses in a state of ignorance and mental stagnation: it 
forcibly prevents the raising of their moral and intellectual level, in 
order to more easily subdue them.

The progress of modern society, the technical evolution of capital and 
the improvement of its political system, strengthen the power of the 
ruling classes and make the struggle against them increasingly 
difficult, thus delaying the decisive moment of the emancipation of labor.

Analysis of modern society leads us to the conclusion that only violent 
social revolution can transform capitalist society into a society of 
free workers.

3. Anarchism and Libertarian Communism
Comment : Couldn't have said it better! Of course, using today's language.

The class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their 
aspirations for freedom gave rise in the circles of the oppressed to the 
idea of anarchism: the idea of the negation of the social system based 
on the principles of classes and the State, and of its replacement by a 
free and non-statist society of self-governing workers.

Anarchism was born, therefore, not from the abstract reflections of a 
scholar or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle waged by the 
workers against capital, from the needs and necessities of the workers, 
from their applications towards freedom and equality, aspirations which 
become particularly vivid in the best heroic periods of the life and 
struggle of the working masses.

The eminent thinkers of anarchism, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others, did 
not create the idea of anarchism but, having found it in the masses, 
simply helped, by the power of their thought and knowledge, to define 
and spread it.

Anarchism is not the result of personal works nor the object of 
individual research.

Similarly, anarchism is by no means the product of humanitarian 
aspirations. A  unified humanity  does not exist. Any attempt to make 
anarchism the attribute of all humanity as it currently exists, to 
ascribe to it a generally humanitarian character, would be a historical 
and social lie that would inevitably lead to the justification of the 
current order and a new form of exploitation.

Anarchism is generally humanitarian only in the sense that the ideals of 
the working classes tend to make life healthy for all people, and that 
the fate of humanity, today or tomorrow, is linked to that of enslaved 
labor. If the working masses are victorious, all of humanity will be 
reborn. If they do not triumph, violence, exploitation, slavery, and 
oppression will reign as before in the world...

The birth, development and realization of anarchist ideals have their 
roots in the life and struggle of the working masses and are inseparably 
linked to their fate.

Anarchism aspires to transform bourgeois and capitalist society into one 
that guarantees workers the products of their labor, freedom, 
independence, and social and political equality. This alternative 
society will be libertarian communism. It is within libertarian 
communism that social solidarity and free individuality find their full 
expression, and that these two ideas develop in perfect harmony.

Libertarian communism holds that the sole creator of social values is 
labor, both physical and intellectual, and consequently that only labor 
has the right to govern all economic and social life. This is why it 
neither justifies nor, to any extent, acknowledges the existence of 
non-working classes.

As long as these classes coexist with libertarian communism, the latter 
will not recognize any duty towards them. Only when the non-laboring 
classes decide to become productive and wish to live in communist 
society under the same conditions as everyone else will they occupy a 
place analogous to that of everyone else, that is to say, that of free 
members of society enjoying the same duties as all other working members.

Libertarian communism aspires to the elimination of all exploitation and 
violence, both against the individual and against the masses. To this 
end, it establishes an economic and social foundation that unifies all 
economic and social life in the country into a harmonious whole, ensures 
that every individual has an equal position, and provides everyone with 
the maximum well-being. This foundation is the pooling, through 
socialization, of all means and instruments of production (industry, 
transportation, land, raw materials, etc.) and the establishment of 
economic organizations based on the principle of equal self-governance 
of the working classes.

Within the limits of this self-managed workers' society, libertarian 
communism establishes the principle of equality of value and rights of 
every individual (not of individuality "  in general  ", nor of mystical 
"  individuality  " or the concept of individuality, but of the concrete 
individual).

It is from this principle of equality, and also from the fact that the 
value of the work provided by each individual cannot be measured or 
estimated, that the fundamental economic, social and legal principle of 
libertarian communism derives: "  From each according to their ability, 
to each according to their needs  ".

4. The denial of democracy
Comment : Let's not play with words! The Platform speaks of 
representative democracy. To that extent, we agree with what is said. 
But we remain in favor of a true democracy, that is to say, 
etymologically, "  Power of the People  ." Which is not representative 
democracy!

Democracy is one of the forms of capitalist and bourgeois society.

The basis of democracy is the maintenance of two antagonistic classes in 
modern society: labor and capital, and their collaboration on the 
foundation of private capitalist property. The expression of this 
collaboration is the parliament and the representative national government.

Formally, democracy proclaims freedom of speech, of the press, of 
associations, as long as they do not challenge the interests of the 
dominant class, that is to say, the bourgeoisie.

Democracy maintains the principle of private capitalist property intact. 
By doing so, it allows the bourgeoisie to control the entire economy of 
the country, the press, education, science, and art, effectively making 
the bourgeoisie the absolute master of the nation. Having a monopoly in 
the economic sphere, the bourgeoisie can establish its unlimited power 
in the political sphere as well. Indeed, representative government and 
parliament are, in democracies, merely executive bodies of the bourgeoisie.

Therefore, democracy is only one aspect of bourgeois dictatorship, 
veiled under deceptive formulas of political freedoms and fictitious 
guarantees.

5. The denial of authority
Comment : Using today's language and perhaps a slightly more nuanced 
analysis, we share the observation made by the Platform a century ago. 
Even more, some aspects can be considered prescient.

Bourgeois ideologues define the state as the organ that regulates the 
complex political, civil, and social relations between people within 
modern society, protecting its order and laws. Anarchists fully agree 
with this definition, but they add that at the heart of this order and 
these laws lies the subjugation of the vast majority of the people by an 
insignificant minority, and that this is precisely the purpose of the state.

The state is, simultaneously, the organized violence of the bourgeoisie 
against the workers and the system of its executive organs.

Left-wing socialists, and in particular the Bolsheviks, also consider 
bourgeois authority and the state to be servants of capital. However, 
they believe that authority and the state can become, in the hands of 
socialist parties, a powerful tool in the struggle for the emancipation 
of the proletariat. For this reason, these parties advocate for 
socialist authority and a proletarian state. Some seek to seize power 
through peaceful, parliamentary means (the Social Democrats); others 
through revolutionary means (the Bolsheviks, the Socialists, and 
Left-wing revolutionaries).

Anarchism considers both of these theses to be fundamentally erroneous, 
harmful to the work of emancipation of labor.

Authority is always linked to the exploitation and subjugation of the 
masses. It arises from this exploitation, where it is created in the 
interests of the masses. Authority without violence and without 
exploitation loses all reason for being.

The State and Authority deprive the masses of initiative, stifle the 
spirit of creation and free activity, and cultivate in them a servile 
psychology of submission, expectation, the hope of climbing the social 
ladder, blind trust in guilds, and the illusion of sharing Authority. 
Yet the emancipation of workers is only possible through the process of 
direct revolutionary struggle waged by the vast working masses and their 
class organizations against the capitalist system.

The conquest of power by social-democratic parties, through 
parliamentary means, under the current order, will not advance the 
emancipation of labor one step, for the simple reason that the 
bourgeoisie will hold the entire economy and politics of the country in 
its hands. The role of socialist authority will thus be reduced to 
reforms and improvements to this same bourgeois regime. (Examples: 
McDonald's, the social-democratic parties of Germany, Sweden, and 
Belgium, which have come to power in capitalist societies).

Seizing power through social upheaval and the organization of a 
so-called "  proletarian state  " cannot further the cause of genuine 
labor emancipation.

The state, initially built supposedly for the defense of the revolution, 
inevitably ends up being inflated with its own needs and 
characteristics, becoming the goal itself, producing specific privileged 
castes on which it relies: it subjects the masses by force to its needs 
and those of the privileged castes and consequently re-establishes the 
foundation of capitalist authority and the state: the habitual 
enslavement and exploitation of the masses by violence (example: the " 
worker and peasant state  " of the Bolsheviks).

6. The role of the masses and the role of anarchists in the social 
struggle and in the social revolution.
Comment : Obviously, the editors of the Platform could not have fully 
anticipated the evolution of social structures in France. Furthermore, 
the assertion that "  The State must perish, not one day in the future 
society, but immediately  " cannot be taken literally. It is, moreover, 
contradictory to the following paragraph on the transitional period. 
During the revolutionary process, anarchists participate in the creation 
of counter-powers within society. The convergence of these 
counter-powers can lead, through the loss of legitimacy of the State, to 
a situation of dual power. It is only at this point, when the dominated 
social classes have organized themselves en masse within this emerging 
power, that the State can be destroyed and replaced by it.

Finally, another point must be emphasized. We generally agree with the 
logic described here. However, the political situation has profoundly 
changed over the last century. On the one hand, anarchism is far more 
marginalized. On the other hand, doubts have crept into other 
revolutionary movements regarding Leninist strategy. Self-management 
practices have emerged within movements where they were not expected. 
Therefore, in our view, anarchists must take on a new, complementary 
task: to popularize self-management ideas as widely as possible and to 
draw all self-management movements into a dynamic that promotes the 
autonomy of the social movement and the creative dynamism of the masses. 
It is no longer possible to imagine that anarchists alone could 
undertake all the tasks described below. The discourse, without changing 
its substance, must replace anarchism with the broader concept of 
self-management. Rereading this paragraph in this light gives it much 
greater relevance.

The main forces of the social revolution are the urban working class, 
the peasant masses, and a part of the working intelligentsia.

Note: While the working intelligentsia, like the urban and rural 
proletariat, is an oppressed and exploited class, it is relatively more 
divided than the workers and peasants due to the economic privileges 
granted by the bourgeoisie to some of its members. Therefore, in the 
early days of the social revolution, only the less affluent strata of 
the intelligentsia will take an active part.

The anarchist conception of the role of the masses in social revolution 
and in the construction of socialism differs in a way that is typical of 
statist parties. While Bolshevism and related currents believe that the 
working masses possess only destructive revolutionary instincts, being 
incapable of creative and constructive revolutionary activity-the main 
reason why this activity must be concentrated in the hands of men 
forming the state government or the Central Committee of the 
Party-anarchists, on the contrary, believe that the working masses carry 
within them enormous creative and constructive potential, and they 
aspire to remove the obstacles preventing its manifestation.

Anarchists see the State as the primary obstacle, usurping the rights of 
the masses and depriving them of all functions of economic and social 
life. The State must perish, not someday in the future society, but 
immediately. It must be destroyed by the workers on the first day of 
their victory and must not be re-established in any form whatsoever. It 
will be replaced by a federalist system of workers' production and 
consumption organizations, federally unified and self-governing. This 
system excludes both the organization of Authority and the dictatorship 
of any party whatsoever.

The Russian Revolution clearly illustrates this orientation of the 
social emancipation process in the creation of the system of workers' 
and peasants' soviets and factory committees. Its unfortunate error was 
its failure to dismantle, in a timely manner, the organization of state 
power, first under the Provisional Government and then under the 
Bolsheviks. Taking advantage of the workers' and peasants' trust, the 
Bolsheviks reorganized the bourgeois state to suit the prevailing 
circumstances and then used this state to stifle the creative activity 
of the masses by suppressing the free system of soviets and factory 
committees, which represented the first steps toward building a 
non-state, socialist society.

The actions of anarchists can be divided into two periods: the period 
before the revolution, and the period during the revolution. In both 
cases, anarchists can only fulfill their role as an organized force with 
a clear understanding of the objectives of their struggle and the means 
leading to the realization of those objectives.

The fundamental task of the General Anarchist Union, in revolutionary 
times, must be the preparation of workers and peasants for the social 
revolution.

By denying formal (bourgeois) democracy, the Authority of the State, and 
by proclaiming the complete emancipation of labor, anarchism accentuates 
to the maximum the rigorous principles of the class struggle: it awakens 
and develops in the masses class consciousness and revolutionary class 
intransigence.

It is precisely in the spirit of class intransigence, anti-democratism, 
and the ideals of anarchist communism that the libertarian education of 
the masses must be undertaken. But education alone is not enough. What 
is also necessary is a certain anarchist organization of the masses. To 
achieve this, work must proceed in two directions: firstly, in the 
selection and grouping of revolutionary working and peasant forces on a 
libertarian communist theoretical basis (specific libertarian communist 
organizations); secondly, in the grouping of revolutionary workers and 
peasants on an economic basis of production and consumption (production 
organizations of revolutionary workers and peasants, free workers' and 
peasants' cooperatives, etc.).

The working and peasant classes, organized on a basis of production and 
consumption and imbued with the tenets of revolutionary anarchism, will 
be the primary bulwark of the social revolution. The more these groups 
become conscious and organized in an anarchist manner from this moment 
onward, the more they will demonstrate a will for intransigence and 
libertarian creation at the time of the revolution.

As for the working class in Russia, it is clear that after eight years 
of Bolshevik dictatorship, which stifles the natural needs of the 
masses, free activity demonstrates, better than anyone else, the true 
nature of all power; this class possesses enormous potential for the 
formation of a mass anarchist movement. Organized anarchist militants 
must immediately, with all their available strength, address these needs 
and opportunities, so as not to allow them to degenerate into reformism 
(Menshevism). With equal urgency, anarchists must apply themselves with 
all their might to organizing the poor peasantry, crushed by state 
power, seeking a way out and harboring enormous revolutionary potential.

The role of anarchists in revolutionary periods cannot be limited to the 
mere propaganda of slogans and libertarian ideas.

Life appears as the arena not only for the propaganda of this or that 
conception, but also to the same degree as the arena for the struggle, 
strategy and aspirations of these conceptions to the direction of social 
and economic life.

More than any other conception, anarchism must become the guiding 
conception of the social revolution because it is only on the 
theoretical basis of anarchism that the social revolution can lead to 
the complete emancipation of labor.

The leading role of anarchist ideas in the revolution signifies an 
anarchist orientation of events. This driving theoretical force should 
not be confused, however, with the political leadership of statist 
parties, which ultimately leads to state power.

Anarchism aspires neither to the conquest of political power nor to 
dictatorship. Its primary aspiration is to help the masses take the 
authentic path of social revolution and socialist construction. But it 
is not enough for the masses to take the path of social revolution. It 
is also necessary to maintain this orientation of the revolution and 
these objectives: the abolition of capitalist society in the name of 
that of free workers. As the experience of the Russian Revolution of 
1917 showed us, this latter task is far from easy, primarily because of 
the many parties that seek to steer the movement in a direction opposed 
to social revolution.

Although the masses express themselves deeply in social movements 
through anarchist tendencies and slogans, these tendencies and slogans 
remain scattered and uncoordinated, and consequently fail to organize 
the driving force of libertarian ideas necessary to maintain anarchist 
orientation and objectives within the social revolution. This driving 
theoretical force can only be expressed through a collective 
specifically created by the masses for this purpose. Organized anarchist 
elements constitute precisely this collective. The theoretical and 
practical duties of this collective at the time of the revolution are 
considerable.

He must demonstrate his initiative and deploy total participation in all 
areas of the social revolution: that of the orientation and general 
character of the revolution, that of the positive tasks of the 
revolution in the new production, that of the civil war and the defense 
of the revolution, of consumption, of the agrarian question, etc...

On all these questions and on many others, the masses demand a clear and 
precise answer from the anarchists. And since the anarchists advocate a 
conception of revolution and of the structure of society, they are 
obliged to give a clear answer to all these questions, to link the 
solution to these problems to the general conception of libertarian 
communism, and to devote all their energies to its effective realization.

Only in this case do the General Anarchist Union and the anarchist 
movement fully fulfill their driving theoretical function in the social 
revolution.

7. The transitional period
Commentary : The Platform fundamentally challenges the Bolshevik 
conception of the transition period, asserting that "  the workers' 
takeover of productive and social functions will draw a clear line 
between the statist and non-statist eras  ." Should we conclude from 
this that everything will be completed by this workers' seizure of 
power? Obviously not! Because then they will "  only begin the 
construction of a free society  ." It will therefore be a transitional 
period between capitalism and communism.

This question takes on even greater significance today with the 
ecological crisis destabilizing our societies. We will not only have to 
adapt our production methods to the principle of "  from each according 
to their ability, to each according to their needs  ," but also take 
ecological imperatives into account. This will not happen overnight.

Socialist political parties understand the expression "  period of 
transition  " to mean a specific phase in the life of a people, the 
characteristic features of which are: a break with the old order of 
things and the establishment of a new economic and political system, a 
system which, however, does not yet represent the complete emancipation 
of the workers.

In this sense, all the minimum programs of socialist political parties, 
for example the democratic program of the opportunist socialists or the 
program of the "  dictatorship of the proletariat  " of the communists, 
are programs of the transitional period.

The essential feature of these minimum programs is that they all 
consider it impossible, for the moment, to fully realize the ideals of 
the workers: their independence, their freedom, their equality, and 
consequently, they retain a whole series of institutions of the 
capitalist system: the principle of state constraint, private ownership 
of the means and instruments of production, wage labor, and several 
others, according to the goals to which this or that program of the 
parties refers.

Anarchists have always been principled opponents of such programs, 
believing that the construction of transitional systems that maintain 
the principles of exploitation and constraint of the masses inevitably 
leads to a further growth of slavery.

Instead of establishing minimum political programs, anarchists have 
always defended the idea of immediate social revolution which would 
deprive the capitalist class of economic and political privileges and 
put the means and instruments of production, as well as all the 
functions of economic and social life, back into the hands of the workers.

Anarchists have maintained this position to this day.

The idea of a transitional period, according to which the social 
revolution must lead not to a communist society but to a system X, 
preserving the elements and remnants of the old capitalist system, is 
inherently anti-social. It threatens to reinforce and develop these 
elements to their former proportions, and sets events back.

A striking example of this is the regime of the "  dictatorship of the 
proletariat  " established by the Bolsheviks in Russia.

According to them, this regime was only supposed to be a transitional 
stage towards total communism. In reality, this stage has in fact led to 
the restoration of class society, at the heart of which, as before, are 
the workers and poor peasants.

The central focus in building a communist society does not lie in 
guaranteeing every individual unlimited freedom to satisfy their needs 
from the very first day of the revolution, but rather in conquering the 
social base of that society and establishing the principles of 
egalitarian relations between individuals. As for the question of a 
greater or lesser abundance of goods, it is not a matter of principle 
but rather a technical problem.

The fundamental principle upon which the new society will be built, the 
principle upon which this society will, so to speak, rest and which must 
not be restricted in any way, is that of equality of relations, freedom, 
and the independence of the workers. Now, this principle represents 
precisely the fundamental primary demand of the masses, in whose name 
they will rise up only for social revolution.

One of two things will happen: either the social revolution will end 
with the defeat of the workers, in which case it will be necessary to 
start preparing for the struggle again, for a new offensive against the 
capitalist system; or it will bring about a victory for the workers, in 
which case the latter, having seized the means enabling them to 
self-administer - of the land, of production and of social functions - 
will begin the construction of the free society.

This is what will characterize the beginning of the building of 
communist society which, once started, will then follow the course of 
its development without interruption, constantly strengthening and 
perfecting itself.

In this way, the takeover of productive and social functions by workers 
will draw a clear line of demarcation between the statist era and that 
of non-statism.

If it wants to become the spokesperson for the masses in struggle, the 
flag of an entire revolutionary social era, anarchism must not 
assimilate its program to the survivals of the outdated world, to the 
opportunistic tendencies of systems and periods of transition, nor hide 
its fundamental principles, but, on the contrary, develop and apply them 
to the maximum.

8. Anarchism and trade unionism
Comment : This section reflects the duality of the libertarian communist 
struggle as it enjoys near-universal consensus today. On the one hand, 
the struggle for the development of a pluralistic and autonomous social 
movement. On the other, the struggle for the libertarian communist 
societal project. Libertarian communism is meaningless without its 
complement, revolutionary syndicalism.

But here again, and for the same reasons as in the paragraph "  The role 
of the masses and the role of anarchists  ", we invite the reader to " 
replace anarchism with the broader concept of self-management  ".

We consider the tendency to oppose libertarian communism to syndicalism 
and vice versa to be artificial, devoid of any foundation or meaning.

The concepts of anarchism and syndicalism belong to two different 
realms. While communism-that is, a free society of equal workers-is the 
goal of the anarchist struggle, syndicalism-that is, the revolutionary 
workers' movement organized by profession-is only one form of the 
revolutionary class struggle. By uniting workers on the basis of 
production, revolutionary syndicalism, like any professional group, 
lacks a fixed theory; it does not possess a worldview that addresses all 
the complex social and political questions of contemporary reality. It 
always reflects the ideology of various political groups, particularly 
those most actively active within its ranks.

Our attitude towards revolutionary syndicalism stems from what has just 
been said. Without concerning ourselves here with resolving in advance 
the question of the role of revolutionary unions in the aftermath of the 
revolution, that is to say whether they will be the organizers of all 
new production, or whether they will cede this role to workers' soviets, 
or even to factory committees, we believe that anarchists must 
participate in revolutionary syndicalism as one of the forms of the 
revolutionary workers' movement.

However, the question as it arises today is not whether or not 
anarchists should participate in revolutionary syndicalism, but rather 
how and for what purpose they should take part.

We regard the entire preceding period, up to the present day, when 
anarchists entered the revolutionary syndicalist movement as individual 
militants and propagandists - as a period of artisanal relations with 
the professional labour movement.

Anarcho-syndicalism, which seeks to forcefully introduce libertarian 
ideas into the left wing of revolutionary syndicalism by creating 
anarchist-type unions, represents a step forward in this respect; but it 
does not yet entirely transcend the empirical method. For 
anarcho-syndicalism does not necessarily link the work of "anarchizing" 
the syndicalist movement with the organization of anarchist forces 
outside of that movement. Yet, it is only on the condition of such a 
link that it is possible to "anarchize" revolutionary syndicalism and 
prevent it from veering toward opportunism and reformism.

Considering revolutionary syndicalism solely as a professional workers' 
movement lacking a defined social and political theory, and consequently 
powerless to resolve the social question on its own, we believe the task 
of anarchists within this movement is to develop libertarian ideas, to 
orient it in a libertarian direction, in order to transform it into an 
active force of social revolution. It is crucial never to forget that if 
syndicalism does not find timely support from anarchist theory, it will 
inevitably rely on the ideology of some state political party.

French trade unionism, which once shone with anarchist slogans and 
tactics, subsequently fell under the influence of the Bolsheviks on the 
one hand, and especially on the other hand of the opportunistic 
right-wing socialists, is a striking example.

But the task of anarchists within the ranks of the revolutionary 
workers' movement can only be fulfilled if their work is closely linked 
to and reconciled with the activities of the anarchist organization 
outside the trade union. In other words, we must enter the revolutionary 
professional movement as an organized force, responsible for the work 
carried out in the trade unions to the general anarchist organization, 
and guided by it.

Without limiting ourselves to the creation of anarchist unions, we must 
seek to exert our theoretical influence on revolutionary syndicalism as 
a whole, in all its forms (the IWW, the Russian Professional Unions, 
etc.). We can only achieve this goal by working as a rigorously 
organized anarchist collective, and in no way as small, empirical groups 
lacking both organizational ties and theoretical convergence.

Anarchist groups in companies and factories, concerned with the creation 
of anarchist unions, leading the struggle in revolutionary unions for 
the preponderance of libertarian ideas in unionism, groups oriented in 
their action by a general anarchist organization: such are the meaning 
and forms of the attitude of anarchists towards the revolutionary 
unionism attached to it.

https://plateformecl.org/la-plateforme-darchinov-partie-generale/
_________________________________________
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