What exactly was FAI?

[Black Sheep]

I am reading a book on the spanish civil war, Anthony Beevor's.

What exactly was FAI? The little information i've read so far in the book has confused me.What was their tendency, and could you give me more information about the clash of some members (of the CNT? of the FAI? i'm confused) with the leadership that led to the formation of the Syndicalist Party.

thanks

[Pogue]

They were an organisation of anarcho-communists who stated aim was to try and maintain an explicitly anarcho communist presence in the CNT against the aims of pure syndiclaists or mroe mdoerate factions. They aimed to promote anarchist politics within the union, one of the goals of anarcho-syndicalism.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Iberian Anarchist Federation to tranlsate it....

Would I be right in saying they were a more insurrectionalist organisation?

[Pogue]

Iberian Anarchist Federation to tranlsate it....

Would I be right in saying they were a more insurrectionalist organisation?

Not really. They just wanted to maintain a strong anarchist presence in the CNT-FAI, as the CNT-FAI wasn't actually that overwhelmingly anarchist.

Libcom has some good analysis of the group, I'll quote from them if an argument ensues and post the links when I find them.

[x359594]

Two studies of the FAI: Anarchist Organization: A History of the FAI by Juan Gomez Casas and We, the Anarchists by Stuart Christie.

As noted above, the FAI was a formation dedicated to keeping the CNT on a revolutionary path.

[Искра]

They were an organisation of anarcho-communists who stated aim was to try and maintain an explicitly anarcho communist presence in the CNT against the aims of pure syndiclaists or mroe mdoerate factions. They aimed to promote anarchist politics within the union, one of the goals of anarcho-syndicalism.
This.

I would rather use "reformist" that "pure" syndicalists.

Today FAI is something like AFed. They are in same international.

[Devrim]

They were an organisation of anarcho-communists who stated aim was to try and maintain an explicitly anarcho communist presence in the CNT against the aims of pure syndiclaists or mroe mdoerate factions. They aimed to promote anarchist politics within the union, one of the goals of anarcho-syndicalism.

I am not 100% sure, and I may be wrong on this, but I don't think the FAI was an anarcho communist organisation. As far as I know it was based on Voline's 'theory of Synthesis', which basically argued for a united anarchist organisation comprised of anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalist, and anacrho-individualists.

Voline wrote a document called "Le problème organisationnel et l'idée de synthèse" in 1926 in response to 'Arshinov's Platform', where basically he argued that the three strands of anarchism could be united in one organisation. I think the FAI was formed on this basis in 1927 with the first meetings having taken place in France.

Devrim

[Pogue]

I am not 100% sure, and I may be wrong on this, but I don't think the FAI was an anarcho communist organisation. As far as I know it was based on Voline's 'theory of Synthesis', which basically argued for a united anarchist organisation comprised of anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalist, and anacrho-individualists.

Voline wrote a document called "Le problème organisationnel et l'idée de synthèse" in 1926 in response to 'Arshinov's Platform', where basically he argued that the three strands of anarchism could be united in one organisation. I think the FAI was formed on this basis in 1927 with the first meetings having taken place in France.

Devrim

Well it would have to be anarcho communist, because it was active in a working class organisation, and anarchists whom take a class strugglist approach are only ever going to be anarcho communists, aren't they.

[Devrim]

Well it would have to be anarcho communist, because it was active in a working class organisation, and anarchists whom take a class strugglist approach are only ever going to be anarcho communists, aren't they.

I think though that the FAI was a very inhomogeneous organisation, which as well as being active in the CNT also included a lot of stuff that would be called 'lifestylist' today. Basically it was a network of affinity groups with everyone doing their own thing.

Devrim

[Pogue]

I think though that the FAI was a very inhomogeneous organisation, which as well as being active in the CNT also included a lot of stuff that would be called 'lifestylist' today. Basically it was a network of affinity groups with everyone doing their own thing.

Devrim

I'd see it more as a pressure group which sought to advance anarchist ideas within a mass organ of the working class. Maybe some 'lifestylist' type people were involved, the same way many organisations might invariably attract some lifestylist types, without it impacting upon their overall purpose as an organisation.

[Absolut]

Voline wrote a document called "Le problème organisationnel et l'idée de synthèse" in 1926 in response to 'Arshinov's Platform', where basically he argued that the three strands of anarchism could be united in one organisation. I think the FAI was formed on this basis in 1927 with the first meetings having taken place in France.

Correct me if Im wrong, I havent read Volines works (didnt know he had written what youre referring to either), and I only recently came accross a copy of the Platform, but isnt what you say Voline wrote, pretty much what Makhno and Arshinov argued in the Platform? I dont have the pamphlet in front of me right now, but Im pretty sure that the authors of the Platform argued for a unitary organisation, made out of pretty much all sorts of anarchists. A united anarchist organisation. Sorry if Im going off-topic.

[Devrim]

Correct me if Im wrong, I havent read Volines works (didnt know he had written what youre referring to either), and I only recently came accross a copy of the Platform, but isnt what you say Voline wrote, pretty much what Makhno and Arshinov argued in the Platform? I dont have the pamphlet in front of me right now, but Im pretty sure that the authors of the Platform argued for a unitary organisation, made out of pretty much all sorts of anarchists. A united anarchist organisation. Sorry if Im going off-topic.

No, they argued for very different things. To put it in very simple terms the 'Platform' argues for a tight organisation with 'theoretical and tactical unity'. Voline argued for more of a broad church. 'Dielo Truda', the group which published the platform attacked Voine's approach:


Those comrades who champion the notion of a theoretical synthesis of anarchism's various currents have quite another approach to the organizational question. It is a pity that their view is so feebly spelled out and elaborated and that it is thus hard to devise a thorough-going critique of it. Essentially, their notion is as follows: Anarchism is divided into three strands -- communist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism and individualist anarchism. Although each of these strands has features particular to itself, all three are so akin and so close to one another that it is only thanks to an artificial misconception that they enjoy separate existences.



In order to give rise to a strong, powerful anarchist movement, it is necessary that they should fuse completely. That fusion, in turn, implies a theoretical and philosophical synthesis of these teachings that we can tackle the structure and format of an organization representing all three tendencies. Such then is the content of the synthesis thus conceived, as set out in the "Declaration on Anarchists' Working Together", and a few other articles by comrade Volin carried by The Anarchist Messenger and Delo Truda. We are in total disagreement with this idea. Its inadequacy is glaringly obvious. For a start, why this arbitrary division of anarchism into three strands? There are others as well. We might mention, say, Christian anarchism, associationism, which, be it said in passing, is closer to communist anarchism than to individualist anarchism. Then again, what precisely is the consistency of the "theoretical and philosophical" discrepancies between the aforementioned three tendencies, if a synthesis between them is to be devised?


http://libcom.org/library/problem-of-organisation-and-notion-of-synthesis

Devrim

[Absolut]

No, they argued for very different things. To put it in very simple terms the 'Platform' argues for a tight organisation with 'theoretical and tactical unity'. Voline argued for more of a broad church. 'Dielo Truda', the group which published the platform attacked Voine's approach

Interesting, I didnt know about this. Do you perhaps have any links to Volines work? I tried a quick search, but I couldnt find anything.

Thanks for the link!

[Devrim]

His book 'The Unknown Revolution' is online:
http://www.ditext.com/voline/unknown.html
Actually, he was a close friend of Marc in the ICC, who paid him for German lessons that he didn't want when Voline was too proud to accept his charity in France during World War Two.

Devrim

[Absolut]

His book 'The Unknown Revolution' is online:
http://www.ditext.com/voline/unknown.html
Actually, he was a close friend of Marc in the ICC, who paid him for German lessons that he didn't want when Voline was too proud to accept his charity in France during World War Two.

Devrim

I actually own that one already, but I havent gotten around to reading all of it yet. However, I was under the impression that The Unknown Revolution dealt mostly with the anarchists and anarchist ideas in Russia before, during and after the revolution, not that it was a theoretical work.

[Devrim]

I actually own that one already, but I havent gotten around to reading all of it yet. However, I was under the impression that The Unknown Revolution dealt mostly with the anarchists and anarchist ideas in Russia before, during and after the revolution, not that it was a theoretical work.

Sorry, I thought you meant his work in general. This text is a little hard to find. I can't even find a French copy on-line though it is in the national library in Paris, and was reprinted in the 80s.

Devrim

[Pogue]

His book 'The Unknown Revolution' is online:
http://www.ditext.com/voline/unknown.html
Actually, he was a close friend of Marc in the ICC, who paid him for German lessons that he didn't want when Voline was too proud to accept his charity in France during World War Two.

Devrim

Would you rate this? It looks quite interesting.

[Devrim]

Would you rate this? It looks quite interesting.

Actually, I have never read it. I have heard it is worthwhile though. He was after all an participant in many of the events he describes so even as a primary source I imagine it would be worthwhile.


He was engaged in cultural and educational activity among the workers of the city when he met Father Gapon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Gapon) and joined his petition movement; on Bloody Sunday (1905) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_%281905%29) he was with a group that was turned back by soldiers before it could reach the Winter Palace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Palace). During the ensuing strikes he took the lead in creating the first St. Petersburg Soviet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_Soviet) in order to coordinate aid and information for the workers; although quiescent much of the year and finally suppressed in December after the Russian Revolution of 1905 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_of_1905), the Soviet was revived during the February Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution) of 1917.
...
He took part in the Russian Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War), at first in the Ukrainian anarchist organization Nabat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabat), then (from August 1919) in the army of Nestor Makhno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno). Arrested by the Bolsheviks in January 1920, he was released from prison along with other anarchists in October because of a treaty between the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) and Makhno's army, rearrested a month later, and thanks to the intervention of the Red Trade Union International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Trade_Union_International), during its Congress Съезд Красного Профинтерна) held in Moscow in the summer of 1921, he was finally expelled from the country.

In fact, I might give it a GO.

Devrim

[ls]

Voline is awesome, I would recommend anything by em, nonetheless thanks for that Devrim.

[Pogue]

i'l get that then thx

[Absolut]

Sorry, I thought you meant his work in general. This text is a little hard to find. I can't even find a French copy on-line though it is in the national library in Paris, and was reprinted in the 80s.

Devrim

So the only copies out there are in French? If that is the case, it doesnt matter to me anyways, I dont know a word French. Thanks anyways.

[syndicat]

I've found Voline to be unreliable. I've found accounts that he gives that are contradicted by other accounts such as Arshinov, or Emma Goldman or whoever. His comments about Makhno, for example, are unreliable as he had a very nasty personal conflict with Makhno and was apparently not above lying about him, according to some anyway.

The members of the FAI were probably almost all advocates of "anarchist communism" or "libertarian communism" altho the Spanish anarchists of that era had sometimes a rather flexible idea of what this might be. But they wouldn't have called it an "anarcho-communist organization" because that term wasn't in use back then. Anarcho-communism or libertarian communism was the goal, not a description of the organization. The FAI was not a unitary organization and different affiliates had different views. The so-called "affinity group" was the original basis, but this was replaced in the revolution with large geographic chapters, in order to compete more effectively with the Communist Party. Nonetheless, the Friends of Durruti Group for example were an affiliate of the FAI even tho some of those supporting the CNT joining the Popular Front government were also in the FAI leadership (like Felix Carrasquer for example). However, it would going a bit far to call FAI synthesist. There were non-communist anarchists in the CNT but these were mainly among the treintistas, not in the FAI. The CNT was the main field of activity of the FAI, tho. Anarchists did do other things, especially the ateneos, which were in part programs for popular education, or the Mujeres Libres organization.

[Devrim]

I've found Voline to be unreliable. I've found accounts that he gives that are contradicted by other accounts such as Arshinov, or Emma Goldman or whoever. His comments about Makhno, for example, are unreliable as he had a very nasty personal conflict with Makhno and was apparently not above lying about him, according to some anyway.


Maybe Goldman and Arshinov are wrong. I don't know I haven't even read it. It is a primary source though and must be valuable in that sense alone.


However, it would going a bit far to call FAI synthesist.

I thought that you would be a person who would know, but wasn't it set up based on the 'synthesis'.

Devrim

[Искра]

Voline is awesome, I would recommend anything by em, nonetheless thanks for that Devrim.
Why? To me idea of 'uniting anarhcists in one big organisation' is idiotic.
I don't wanna be anymore in organisation with individualists or today's insurrectionists. I don't wanna be in organisation with people who think that 'classes do not exist' etc.
Voline's work is utopian and only person who don't have any kind of practice will fall for that (no offence I'm not referring to you). In this kind of organisation you spend 99% of your time arguing and 1% of the time running from responsibility. When will you work?

[Искра]

Since you were talking about Voline and Platform here's anarcho-syndicalist critics of it:
G.P. Maximoff: Constructive anarchism (http://libcom.org/library/constructive-anarchism-debate-platform-g-p-maksimov)

Enjoy.

[Absolut]

I don't wanna be in organisation with people who think that 'classes do not exist' etc.

How do they not acknowledge classes? I tried doing some googling and checking around, but I couldnt find anything about them saying that classes do not exist. On the contrary, I found stuff from both insurrectionary and individualist anarchism where they talk about both the class struggle and the classless society.

" In otherwords the direct actions of a small group can only be successful if
they are taken up across the working class"

"Insurrectionalists often recognize class struggle where the reformist left refuse to."

"As might be imagined, individual desires are central to insurrectionalism but not as with the rugged individualism of the 'libertarian right'. Rather "The desire for individual self-determination and self-realization leads to the necessity of a class analysis and class struggle""

Anarchism, insurrections and insurrectionalism by Joe Black (http://www.ainfos.ca/06/jul/ainfos00232.html)

Now, if you would be so kind, please direct me to the place where you heard the insurrectionary anarchists deny the existance of a class, because I am eager to learn.

[syndicat]

In regard to FAI, if they were "synthesist" they would have no basis for rejecting the treintistas who were also anarchists. But the FAI was set up in part to challenge the treintista anarchists for influence within the CNT. In fact in 1932 the FAI got the treintista controlled unions expelled from the CNT (along with the Leninist controlled unions).

In regard to insurrectionary anarchists, they are anti-organizational. This means they do not support any ongoing organization of workers such as rank and file organizations or self-managed unions...or any kind of mass social movement organization. I was just reading "Rolling Thunder" which is an insurrectionist journal in USA. They favor only coming together on an ad hoc basis for an action. They are also vanguardist and substitutionist since they substitute the militancy of small groups of anarchists or radicals for mass self-activity of the working class. "Rolling Thunder" has no concept apparently of the distinction between mass activity and organization, on the one hand, and actions of small bands of anarchists or other actions of an already radicalized minority.

The FAI were not "insurrectionary anarchists" as this is currently understood because their main field of activity was in mass organizing...workplaces, CNT unions, tenant strikes, popular education via the ateneos etc. They also were pro-organizational...as can be seen from the various organizations they built.

There have been two invitation only conferences of pro-organizational anarchists with a class struggle perspective in the USA in the past two years. So called "insurrectionary anarchists" weren't invited because we don't see them as being part of the same movement.

[ls]

Why? To me idea of 'uniting anarhcists in one big organisation' is idiotic.
I don't wanna be anymore in organisation with individualists or today's insurrectionists. I don't wanna be in organisation with people who think that 'classes do not exist' etc.

What are you talking about when you say 'classes do not exist', I have no idea what you are referring to.


Voline's work is utopian and only person who don't have any kind of practice will fall for that (no offence I'm not referring to you). In this kind of organisation you spend 99% of your time arguing and 1% of the time running from responsibility. When will you work?

So you think all of Voline's work on history and theory is completely worthless just because you disagree with some of the ideas? Also, what organisation are you referring to, he was in a few different ones.

[Black Sheep]

CNT is national confederation of labor.Was it founded with an anarchist tendency, or did it get one with FAI's influence?

[syndicat]

CNT started out as a revolutionary syndicalist union with a commitment to libertarian communism.