Ben Debney’s article ‘Platformism vs. Syndicalism ‘ addresses what he sees as a false dichotomy between different tendencies within the anarchist movement. He wants to assure us that the old debates are misunderstood and that the ‘platformist-syndicalist symbiosis of the CNT-FAI stands as a paradigm’ (2026) from which we can still learn. But in doing so, he is downplaying the theoretical disagreements, misidentifying the central actors in the discussion, and ultimately avoiding the strategic issues that made this debate important in the first place.
Libértame (machine translation)||Debney’s conviction that anarchists can cooperate across different currents is correct. Bookchin aptly describes the experience of the CNT and the FAI as “the heroic years,” and I share his recognition of the courageous struggle of their rank-and-file members. But heroism is not synonymous with organization, and we must analyze the past sensibly and without idealizing it. Fundamentally, the CNT and the FAI lacked coordination, improvised instead of developing strategies, and their lack of theoretical development led them to collaborate with the state and, ultimately, to defeat.
There is a misconception that platformism and anarcho-syndicalism are distinct ideologies, but they can be understood as strategic variations within anarchism aimed at achieving a stateless communist society. While the different tendencies may have bitter arguments, it is important to avoid fragmentation and sectarianism in the petty sense—but this should not come at the expense of important tactical and theoretical issues. Some of the points raised here may appear to be a clash of opinions, or a competition for the title of best anarchist historian, but I believe it is necessary to address and consider them in turn.
The first issue is one of definition. Debney refers to Malatesta as a platformist, which must be refuted since it conflates Malatesta’s preference for anarchist organization with platformism itself. Platformism is not simply an inclination towards organization; it is a specific current within anarchist communism with its own specific principles. Malatesta was drawn to the principles outlined in The Platform, but he never claimed them as his own. In fact, he initially criticized The Platform harshly, arguing that the model proposed by Delo Truda would, in practice, become a hierarchical vanguard party in the Bolshevik style. He debated this with Makhno, who, in turn, believed that Malatesta’s reliance on pluralistic organizations only promised long-term ineffectiveness. This was no minor argument; In essence, it affected the core of what anarchist organizations should be, although Malatesta and Makhno eventually acknowledged that many of their own disagreements were due to language barriers and a lack of context.
At the same time, Sébastien Faure wrote his article “The Anarchist Synthesis,” in which he questioned why anarchists should divide themselves into opposing “schools” (anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, and individualist anarchism) when they could unite without sacrificing their principles. In his view, division was a luxury anarchists could not afford: a synthesis could mutually enrich each tendency without diluting them into a lowest common denominator.
Delo Truda recognized from experience that this unity of tendencies would collapse the moment the situation demanded clarity and coordination, as had happened in the slaughterhouse of the Russian Civil War. For veterans of that conflict, Faure’s model was hopeless from the outset: too slow, too contradictory, and incapable of coordinated action. How can people with incompatible social and organizational visions and differing revolutionary strategies participate in a mass struggle? In contrast, Delo Truda advocated tactical and theoretical unity and collective responsibility: the means to become a revolutionary force.
Like platformism and anarcho-communism, Debney conflates syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism. In modern times, this confusion is common because the broader syndicalist tradition has largely disappeared and due to the dominance of the CNT’s legacy, but this ignores the fact that historically, syndicalism was a multi-tendency movement, not inherently anarchist. Why does this matter here? Because the CNT explicitly identified with anarchism in 1919, declaring that its desired end was anarchist communism.
This explicit definition means that the CNT was not, at least in theory, a neutral mass union, but a political-ideological organization. Its articulated anarchist program only further complicates the central idea of Debney’s argument. If the CNT was itself an anarchist organization, why was it necessary for the FAI, also anarchist, to keep it “on the anarchist path” (CNT 1936)? What emerges is an organizational overlap: the CNT appears simultaneously as a union and a political body, while the FAI functions as a political network and a pressure group. Rather than a clear “platformist-syndicalist symbiosis,” it is an agreement that is both ambiguous and unstable—the kind of thing that The Platform sought to overcome. This is not merely a semantic question; it determines whether the CNT is understood as a mass organization or as an explicitly anarchist political union—two distinct modes with radically different implications for revolutionary strategy.
Although the CNT maintained a formal commitment to anarchist communism, it was never a fully anarchist organization. Only a third of its members were anarchists; the rest were militant, class-conscious workers attracted by the CNT’s effectiveness or because it was the strongest union in their area (Heath 2022, 312). Often, workers join unions during conflicts only to leave them or maintain a paper membership once some kind of resolution has been reached, and this is what happened with the CNT. To illustrate this point, Baker uses the 1932 example of three hundred workers who joined the CNT in Casas Viejas, joining mainly “because it was necessary to find a job, and they did not subsequently absorb anarchist ideas” (2023, 294–295).
From a pessimistic point of view, an organization can formally commit to an ideology without achieving genuine adherence from its members as a whole. The Australian Labor Party (ALP), for example, maintained a constitutional, albeit symbolic, commitment to socialism for 94 years. From the perspective of both platformists and anarcho-syndicalists, this need not be a problem. The priority remains the mass organization of workers, all the better if it takes place within a union predisposed toward anarchist goals. The question is how to extend the struggle beyond immediate economic gains and cultivate a genuinely revolutionary consciousness. Who carries out this work? According to Debney, the answer is the IAF, right?
Debney presents the CNT as the practical force of the masses, with the FAI acting in the background as a kind of moral guardian against corruption. However, Frank Mintz, a CNT labor historian, directly contradicts this view, arguing that describing the two organizations as “mutually complementary is historically inaccurate” (2013, 179), even though this claim is sometimes repeated within the CNT itself. Debney further characterizes the FAI as a platformist organization, but unfortunately, this too is misleading. Far from having any kind of ideological unity, FAI members often had “a minimum of anarchist convictions” (Christie 1997, 46), and as for tactical unity, the FAI deliberately avoided any form of leadership.
“This is what historians from outside should understand once and for all: that neither Durruti, nor Ascaso, nor García Oliver—to name only the great spokesmen of the CNT—issued any directives to the ‘masses,’ much less handed over any operational plan or conspiratorial scheme to the bulk of the CNT members.” (Carrasquer quoted in Christie 1997, 47)
Debney claims that the FAI functioned as a “forum” for reflection and meditation on the CNT’s “revolutionary gymnastics,” a kind of contemplative and guiding conscience for the movement. The reality was much more confusing. Even Bookchin, who was reluctant to criticize the organizational weaknesses of both the CNT and the FAI, points out that the FAI:
“…it was not a politically homogeneous organization that followed a fixed ‘line’…The FAI was not theory-oriented; indeed, it produced few theorists of any ability… It placed actions above ideas, courage above circumspection, impulse above reason and experience… within the FAI there was no consensus on how to proceed in a revolutionary situation. On this critical question it contained divided tendencies whose basic disagreements were never fully resolved.” (Bookchin 1998, 224).
In contrast, the “conscious minority” within the CNT was convinced that the working class was capable of revolutionary transformation without the need for ideological development or leadership. Makhno, on the other hand, recognized the treacherous path the Spanish anarchists were treading, pointing out that these organizational deficiencies seriously undermined their chances of success.
“As I see it, the FAI and the CNT must… be able to convene action groups in every town and city: likewise, they must not be afraid to assume the reins of the strategic, organizational and theoretical revolutionary leadership of the workers’ movement.” (Makhno 1931).
This advice was ignored, and the consequences of the FAI’s ideological and strategic underdevelopment were severe. By 1933, the FAI was controlled by “uprooted intellectuals and economic planners,” essentially a “structure of vested interests that served to curb the spontaneous revolutionary activity of the rank and file and to repress the new generation of revolutionary activists” (Christie 1997, vii-viii).
Following the failure of the fascist coup and the effective disintegration of the state, the CNT and FAI found themselves wielding de facto authority in large swathes of Spain. Instead of consolidating this revolutionary situation, their leaders dedicated themselves to… subordinating the revolution to a state that had already collapsed! Members of the CNT leadership accepted government posts, and steps were soon taken to integrate the CNT’s armed formations into the republican military command structure.
Whether survival could have been guaranteed by following the revolutionary path is conjecture; the only thing on which we can base our analysis is the fact that collaboration proved catastrophic. The Stalinist secret police arrested and murdered thousands of anarchists, and within the Republican army, where the Communist Party and Soviet advisors wielded disproportionate influence, anarchist units were deliberately sent on “precipitous ‘kamikaze’ attacks that would almost certainly end in the massacre of the libertarian troops” (Téllez 1974, 31). Things came to a head with the events of May 1937 and, ultimately, the defeat of the Republic.
It could be argued that the fall of the CNT and the FAI was due to their having strayed too far from anarchism, rather than blaming anarchism itself, as Marxists are wont to do. The fact that the CNT’s ruling clique led it down this path certainly went against the wishes of the majority of its members, including Durruti, “who wholeheartedly endorsed the arguments for an immediate social revolution” (Mintz 2013, 190). In 1975, J. Manuel Molina, one of the founders of the FAI, explained the mistake the Spanish made in ignoring La Plataforma:
“The Platform of Archinov and other Russian anarchists had very little influence on the movement in exile or within the country. Very few defenders. They knew that we had become very radical and viewed any modification or revision [of anarchism] with reservations. The Platform was an attempt to renew, to give greater character and capacity to the international anarchist movement in light of the Russian Revolution, particularly in Ukraine. Today, after our own experience, it seems to me that their effort was not fully appreciated.” (quoted in Casas 1986, 106).
The Platform emerged to address the weaknesses stemming from organizational ambiguity. For anarchist-communists, the key lesson is that mass organizations and political organizations operate on different levels: confusing them leads to strategic drift. Trade unions can articulate the economic interests of their members, but they cannot build long-term strategies, ideological unity, or coherent revolutionary programs. These are tasks that belong to specific political organizations with a shared theory, collective responsibility, and the capacity to intervene on multiple fronts.
Platformists do not fetishize discipline; they insist on theoretical and tactical unity because without a common political line, organizations cannot act effectively. This is why anarchist-communists disagree with Debney’s belief that “the organizational ingenuity of the CNT-FAI has yet to be surpassed” (2026). The Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU) clearly understood this lesson, with militants organized in unions, neighborhood committees, student movements, and armed self-defense groups, always as a coordinated political project. Strategically intervening in the labor movement, it “led much of the general strike and factory occupations that fought the 1974 military coup” (Lawson 2022). The strength of the FAU lay in its clarity: an organization capable of analyzing the situation, setting strategic priorities, and acting. The fact that rank-and-file members of the Communist Party of Australia were able to radicalize the Building Workers’ Federation during the 1960s and 1970s demonstrates that this can also be achieved here.
Debney advocates for “multiple strategies,” asks us to “trust our own judgment,” and urges us to “work together” (2026), but this is not the point. It is not a question of whether different approaches can coexist, but whether they can produce a coherent revolutionary approach. This is why the debate remains important. Fundamental problems persist. Trade unions tend toward reformism because they must represent all workers, not just the most radical stratum; political groups risk becoming detached from the working class; and movements struggle to coordinate across sectors and communities. We cannot overcome these kinds of problems by appealing to the memory of the CNT and the FAI as they existed a century ago.
The lesson from the CNT-FAI experience is that revolutionary organization requires a clear understanding of what different forms of organization can and cannot do. The kinds of questions we need to ask ourselves are: what types of organizations build power, how do we maintain revolutionary momentum, how do we achieve coordination without centralization, and so on.
In Australia, it makes no sense to emulate the experience of the CNT and the FAI in the 1930s. Trade unionism found some expression in the IWW and the OBU, but it never consolidated as a mass movement. The ALP and the Australian Workers Union ensured that the labor movement developed along parliamentary and bureaucratic lines, leading Lenin to ask: “What kind of peculiar capitalist country is this, in which the representatives of the workers predominate… and yet the capitalist system is not in danger?” (1913). Subsequently, there is no mass trade union movement to symbolize. What exists are highly bureaucratized unions, atomized communities, and a small anarchist milieu with limited organizational capacity. In this context, anarcho-syndicalism “does not solve the organizational problems of anarchism, since it is concerned only with penetration into the unions, and… little can be done in the workers’ movement if an anarchist organization is not created first” (Casas 1986, 103).
If we are serious about change, we shouldn’t want a subculture where all anarchists get along at the expense of coherence. What we need are political organizations that can develop militants and intervene meaningfully. The FAU demonstrated that even numerically small groups can shape the terrain and act effectively in complex situations by understanding the material conditions through careful analysis (FAU 1972). While the Spanish forever demonstrated “the potential of the working-class masses to overthrow the state and capitalism through mass insurrection,” the Uruguayans underscored the fact that “blind action is useless just as theory without practice is useless” (Lawson 2022).
Both offer vital lessons, but it is a dead end to try to resurrect the 1930s. Ultimately, Debney’s article reveals a profound ignorance of important debates. The solution is not to ignore them, but to engage with them to avoid the traps into which anarchists have already fallen and to find organizational solutions within the Australian context. The organizational form determines the strategic capacity of a movement.
References
Baker, Zoe. 2023. Means and Ends: The Revolutionary Practice of Anarchism in Europe and the United States. Boy: AK Press.
Bookchin, Murray. 1998. The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868–1936. Boy: AK Press.
Christie, Stuart. 1997. We, the Anarchists! A Study of the Iberian Anarchist Federation (FAI) 1927–1937. Oakland: AK Press.
National Confederation of Labor. 1936. Resolutions from the Zaragoza Congress . https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/confederacion-nacional-del-trabajo-cnt-the-cnt-resolutions-from-the-zaragoza-congress-1936
Debney, Ben. 2026. “Platformism vs. Syndicalism.” Class Autonomy. https://classautonomy.info/platformism-vs-syndicalism/ .
Delo Truda. 1926. Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dielo-truda-workers-cause-organisational-platform-of-the-libertarian-communists .
Uruguayan Anarchist Federation. 1972. Huerta Grande: Theory, Ideology and Political Practice. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/federacion-anarquista-uruguaya-huerta-grande .
Gómez Casas, Juan. 1986. Anarchist Organization: The History of the FAI. Montreal-Buffalo: Black Rose Books.
Heath, Nick. 2022. The Idea. Newtownabbey: Just Books.
Lawson, Tommy. 2022. Foundational Concepts of the Specific Anarchist Organization. https://www.theanarchistlibrary.org/library/tommy-lawson-foundational-concepts-of-the-specific-anarchist-organisation .
Lenin, Vladimir. 1913. “In Australia.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/13.htm .
Makhno, Nestor. 1931. “Open Letter to the Spanish Anarchists.” https://libcom.org/article/17-open-letter-spanish-anarchists .
Mintz, Frank. 2013. Anarchism and Worker’s Self-Management in Revolutionary Spain. Oakland: AK Press.
Tellez, Antonio. 1974. Sabate: Guerrilla Extraordinary. London: Cienfuegos Press Book Club.
Discover more from Class Autonomy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
