Platformism

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I hear a lot about platformism and people slandering the idea of it. What I understand about platformism is it is for tactical and ideological unity. What more does it mean and those against it could you tell me your critiques.

[The Feral Underclass]

Classical platformism is very different to neo-platformist leftism of groups like the WSM and L&S.

Classical platformism was a rather over-the-top and neurotic reaction to the fact that the Ukrainian revolution had been crushed by a seemingly more organised and dedicated force.

The concepts of tactical and theoretical unity, federalism and collective responsibility are not controversial in and of themselves, but Makhno proposed formulating centralised structures to control ensure that they existed instead of upholding the anarchist principles of free association and autonomy, none of which are mutually exclusive. There's also the principle of discipline. Of course there is a need for commitment and people must be dedicated to what they're doing, but who has the authority to determine discipline, which in turn implies punishment. This is not how you build an anarchist movement.

Neo-platformism has developed to usually include leftist ideas like support for national liberation, trade unions, transitional demands and the "popularisation" of their politics. For example L&S don't refer to themselves as an explicitly anarchist-communist organisation.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Classical platformism was a rather over-the-top and neurotic reaction to the fact that the Ukrainian revolution had been crushed by a seemingly more organised and dedicated force.

To be fair it was also a response to the disorganisation of the synthesist French federations (of which I'd probably side with Makhno) and the need for an explicitly anarchist communist organisation.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Oh and it's definitely worthwhile reading the actual document. lol

The Organisational Platform of Libertarian Communists (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform/plat_preface.html)

[The Feral Underclass]

To be fair it was also a response to the disorganisation of the synthesist French federations (of which I'd probably side with Makhno) and the need for an explicitly anarchist communist organisation.

Which is ironic considering some neo-platformist organisations refuse to do so. In any case, it was still an overreaction.

[bellyscratch]

Neo-platformism has developed to usually include leftist ideas like support for national liberation, trade unions, transitional demands and the "popularisation" of their politics. For example L&S don't refer to themselves as an explicitly anarchist-communist organisation.

Is this to attract non-anarchists in hope to convert them or just to have a broader movement?

[Jack]

I consider Platformism to be the most effective model for a revolutionary organization, it's principles are not contradictory to anarchism, but rather foster it while still being a revolutionary organization.

[The Feral Underclass]

Is this to attract non-anarchists in hope to convert them or just to have a broader movement?

Probably both.

[The Feral Underclass]

I consider Platformism to be the most effective model for a revolutionary organization, it's principles are not contradictory to anarchism, but rather foster it while still being a revolutionary organization.

It depends on what kind of platformism you're referring to. I'd also like to see you square the execution of discipline and unity via a centralised body with anarchist principles such as free association and autonomy.

[Jack]

It depends on what kind of platformism you're referring to. I'd also like to see you square the execution of discipline and unity via a centralised body with anarchist principles such as free association and autonomy.


It is a voluntary organiztion, not exerting power over people, but rather for them. Centralization is just for coordination between groups that will help them maintain the same direction of Libertarian Communism. There is free association, if you don't like Platformist groups there are plenty of others out there, or start your own. It doesn't take any resources, just people who agree with you.

Discipline is nessacary for a revolutionary group. To be truly effective we need to minimize individualistic tendencies within the movement that will distract people from their duty to the collective, and to the movement.

[Forward Union]

Yes well the key thing is that it's a tradition more than an Ideology, and not so easy to point to as a specific set of beliefs. It refers, really, to any form of Anarchism that bases it's organsational methods on the discussion document; the organisational platform of the libertarian communists. The discussion document was intended to draw out the most organized and sensible militants to then set about forming "General Unions of Anarchists". It had an incredibly hostile reception, and never really had a significant impact on the Anarchist movement.

It is easily one of the most controversial forms of Anarchism (within Anarchism) and has been a scattered fringe tendency with the exceptions of the Ukranian Revolution and the Korean revolution in which the platformist organization principals were central to the limited successes of the Makhnovists and the Korean Anarchist Federation.

Regardless of all this history, I think today, Platformism really describes any group or individual that adheres to the Anarkismo Statement. And/or the Anarkismo projects goals. This has adherants in pretty much every continent, but one of the most enthusiastic supporters is the FARJ in Brazil. http://www.farj.org (http://www.farj.org/)



Editoral statement

We identify ourselves as anarchists and with the "platformist", anarchist-communist or especifista tradition of anarchism. We broadly identify with the theoretical base of this tradition and the organisational practice it argues for, but not necessarily everything else it has done or said, so it is a starting point for our politics and not an end point. The core ideas of this tradition that we identify with are the need for anarchist political organisations that seek to develop:


Theoretical Unity
Tactical Unity
Collective Action and Discipline
Federalism

Anarchism will be created by the class struggle between the vast majority of society (the working class) and the tiny minority that currently rule. A successful revolution will require that anarchist ideas become the leading ideas within the working class. This will not happen spontaneously. Our role is to make anarchist ideas the leading ideas or, as it is sometimes expressed, to become a "leadership of ideas".

A major focus of our activity is our work within the economic organizations of the working class (labour organizations, trade unions, syndicates) where this is a possibility. We therefore reject views that dismiss activity in the unions because as members of the working class it is only natural that we should also be members of these mass organizations. Within them we fight for the democratic structures typical of anarcho-syndicalist unions like the 1930's CNT. However, the unions no matter how revolutionary cannot replace the need for anarchist political organisation(s).

We also see it as vital to work in struggles that happen outside the unions and the workplace. These include struggles against particular oppressions, imperialism and indeed the struggles of the working class for a decent place and environment in which to live. Our general approach to these, like our approach to the unions, is to involve ourselves with mass movements and within these movements, in order to promote anarchist methods of organisation involving direct democracy and direct action.

We actively oppose all manifestations of prejudice within the workers' movement and society in general and we work alongside those struggling against racism, sexism, [religious] sectarianism and homophobia as a priority. We see the success of a revolution and the successful elimination of these oppressions after the revolution being determined by the building of such struggles in the pre-revolutionary period. The methods of struggle that we promote are a preparation for the running of society along anarchist and communist lines after the revolution.



We oppose imperialism but put forward anarchism as an alternative goal to nationalism. We defend grassroots anti-imperialist movements while arguing for an anarchist rather than nationalist strategy.

We recognise a need for anarchist organisations who agree with these principles to federate on an international basis. However, we believe the degree of federation possible and the amount of effort put into it must be determined by success at building national or regional organisations capable of making such international work a reality, rather than a matter of slogans.http://www.anarkismo.net/

[Pogue]

I really don't understand the significance of it, its like one of those odd ideas that gets alot of attention because it knocks about the movement for a while. Its really obscure but its quite divisive. Really odd.

[Jack]

I really don't understand the significance of it, its like one of those odd ideas that gets alot of attention because it knocks about the movement for a while. Its really obscure but its quite divisive. Really odd.

Platformist groups are easily the most active, clearheaded groups around. Just look at the WSM and NEFAC.

[Pogue]

Platformist groups are easily the most active, clearheaded groups around. Just look at the WSM and NEFAC.

Yeh certainly there are good groups who claim to adhere to it but I don't see why the idea as a whole is so controversial or seen as important. It never struck me as clear, interesting or relevant, and stinks of petty ghetto political disputes that happen when a movement is ridiculously tiny. I just don't see the whole debate about it.

[Forward Union]

It depends on what kind of platformism you're referring to. I'd also like to see you square the execution of discipline and unity via a centralised body with anarchist principles such as free association and autonomy.

Well, I don't know any platformists, past or present, that have advocate a centralized political body, or have such a thing in their constitutions.

"Executive committee" is an archaic term I admit, but essentially it means a group that executes (carry's out) decisions. This is not centralized, it's a mandated group. The mandate comes from the organisations' delegate conventions. It literally explains this in the following sentence. Which I have quoted below.


Yeh certainly there are good groups who claim to adhere to it but I don't see why the idea as a whole is so controversial or seen as important. It never struck me as clear, interesting or relevant, and stinks of petty ghetto political disputes that happen when a movement is ridiculously tiny. I just don't see the whole debate about it.It's about the following paragraph;
With a view to the co-ordination of the activity of all the Union's adherent organisation, a special organ will be created: the executive committee of the Union. The committee will be in charge of the following functions: the execution of decisions taken by the Union with which it is entrusted; the theoretical and organisational orientation of the activity of isolated organisations consistent with the theoretical positions and the general tactical line of the Union; the monitoring of the general state of the movement; the maintenance of working and organisational links between all the organisations in the Union; and with other organisations.

Also, platformism denies complete branch autonomy. The democratic will of the entire organisation becomes the Federations policy, and then all the groups that participated in the decision making process have to adhere to the majority decision. For me this is common sense, and the most effective means of organising Anarchism. For others, it's not individualist enough. This was a reaction to the fact that "In all countries, the anarchist movement is represented by several local organisations advocating contradictory theories and practices, having no perspectives for the future, nor of a continuity in militant work, and habitually disappearing, hardly leaving the slightest trace behind them" Which I feel is still an issue today.

[The Feral Underclass]

It is a voluntary organiztion, not exerting power over people, but rather for them.

That's how all political authority justifies itself.


Centralization is just for coordination between groups that will help them maintain the same direction of Libertarian Communism.

But anarchism is based on the concept of decentralisation.


There is free association, if you don't like Platformist groups there are plenty of others out there, or start your own. It doesn't take any resources, just people who agree with you.

But people don't always agree and they shouldn't always agree, otherwise how do you develop analysis? And free association doesn't mean "agreeing with everyone", it means being able to dissent. Together if necessary of in the spirit of debate.

Platformist groups aim to remove that process or at best limit it.


Discipline is nessacary for a revolutionary group. To be truly effective we need to minimize individualistic tendencies within the movement that will distract people from their duty to the collective, and to the movement.

I'm not arguing against having discipline, I'm asking you how you can justify exerting it onto people and remain true to anarchist principles.

[ls]

Yeh certainly there are good groups who claim to adhere to it but I don't see why the idea as a whole is so controversial or seen as important. It never struck me as clear, interesting or relevant, and stinks of petty ghetto political disputes that happen when a movement is ridiculously tiny. I just don't see the whole debate about it.

It seems pretty clear in my mind, at least it seems to mean in its most basic essence; using platforms to spring your ideas from which may be temporary, some people wish to have let's say, a more solid base.

I think if you can grasp what I'm saying there it's fairly clear?..

[The Feral Underclass]

Was Makhno a platformist before the platform was written?

The Ukrainian revolutionary army probably had elements of proto platformism within it, but Makhno himself clearly said that the army was not the embodiment of the revolution. He was quite clear that the decentralised, autonomous worker and peasant collectives that expressed themselves separate to the army were what the revolution was.

It seems to me that some people like to hijack the Ukrainian revolutionary army as some model for platformism, when in actual fact even if that was the case, (which it isnt) it's actually no at all relevant to the Ukrainian revolution. Indeed platformism wasn't even adopted as a tradition until after it was written 5 years later.

[The Feral Underclass]

Platformist groups are easily the most active, clearheaded groups around. Just look at the WSM and NEFAC.

Not in the UK or most of Europe.

[Pogue]

Does it boil down to whether or not the whole group has to share a common goal which everyone has to support?

[ls]

That's how all political authority justifies itself.

Except it's by the people, it's not headed by anyone after all.


But anarchism is based on the concept of decentralisation.

It at least to me, does not seem to be centralisation as you put it, but mandates to which everyone agrees with, it's not exactly coerced I think.

It all really depends on how you manage it, consensus can be coerced too for example, the pressure of people upon a dissenter may cause the dissenter to crumble and go the way of the majority.


But people don't always agree and they shouldn't always agree, otherwise how do you develop analysis?

It's not like it entirely side-steps people's opinions on everything, discussion does not have to be directly within the confines of the decision-making process.


And free association doesn't mean "agreeing with everyone", it means being able to dissent. Together if necessary of in the spirit of debate.

I feel you get yours and a collectives' voices heard in democracy.


Platformist groups aim to remove that process or at best limit it.

I'd say organise it into working myself.


I'm not arguing against having discipline, I'm asking you how you can justify exerting it onto people and remain true to anarchist principles.

I think it remains true to anarchist principles, it allows dissent really, you are never forced to remain in the group for example, I'm pretty sure about what you're going to say to that, but its.. well there are just points at which disagreement becomes too much aren't there.

[The Feral Underclass]

Does it boil down to whether or not the whole group has to share a common goal which everyone has to support?

Without being able to dissent from it. That's the key issue. Of course you need an organisation that strives for a common goal, but people must be free to dissent from it without being reprimanded, which is what people like LTS suggests.

[Jack]

Jack[/B] http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1415785#post1415785)
It is a voluntary organiztion, not exerting power over people, but rather for them.
That's how all political authority justifies itself.


Quote:
Centralization is just for coordination between groups that will help them maintain the same direction of Libertarian Communism.
But anarchism is based on the concept of decentralisation.

Right, but it's not against a coordinating body. Obviously communication and coopreration is going to happen between communes in a postrevolutionary society, it needs to happen between collectives in a pre-revolutionary society. The members are free to dissasociate with the organization.


Quote:
There is free association, if you don't like Platformist groups there are plenty of others out there, or start your own. It doesn't take any resources, just people who agree with you.
But people don't always agree and they shouldn't always agree, otherwise how do you develop analysis? And free association doesn't mean "agreeing with everyone", it means being able to dissent. Together if necessary of in the spirit of debate.

Platformist groups aim to remove that process or at best limit it.

Free association also includes the freedom to NOT associate. Platformist groups do not want to accept members who are ideologically different from the group, it helps keep the collective going in one direction instead of argueing and fighting amongst eachother, hindering progress.


Quote:
Discipline is nessacary for a revolutionary group. To be truly effective we need to minimize individualistic tendencies within the movement that will distract people from their duty to the collective, and to the movement.
I'm not arguing against having discipline, I'm asking you how you can justify exerting it onto people and remain true to anarchist principles.

Because we are not doing it to people without their consent. Before joining any organization you have to agree with its aims and practices. You cannot distract from the goal of Libertarian Communism with petty individualistic wants and needs. Then you belong with the post left "anarchists". The organization needs to be as decisive, focused, and organized as possible to best work in a revolutionary, or oppressive, situation.

[Pogue]

Without being able to dissent from it. That's the key issue. Of course you need an organisation that strives for a common goal, but people must be free to dissent from it without being reprimanded, which is what people like LTS suggests.

Oh I see. Thats quite a difference. I assume thats also the difference between L&S and AFed then.

Well I mean in an anarchist/libertarian communist organisation how far can opinions diverge? I can't see what you'd lose a vote on in an anarchist group that as an anarchist you'd find so shockingly bad you'd feel betrayed or a major need to dissent from.

[Jack]

Not in the UK or most of Europe.

For smaller groups working in areas with very little anarchist influence, they seem to do quite well.

[Forward Union]

Was Makhno a platformist before the platform was written?

The Ukrainian revolutionary army probably had elements of proto platformism within it, but Makhno himself clearly said that the army was not the embodiment of the revolution. He was quite clear that the decentralised, autonomous worker and peasant collectives that expressed themselves separate to the army were what the revolution was.

I think proto-platformism is an acceptable term to use.

[Pogue]

Well really if we're going to take ourselves seriously in a revolutionary situation we have to accept the majority decision and go with it, unless it blatantly contradicted anarchist principles.

[Forward Union]

Not in the UK or most of Europe.

Well, in Italy and France the Platformists have organisations numbering in the hundreds. The WSM are hyper active. And Platformists are also have the only Class Struggle presence in Norway.

[The Feral Underclass]

Except it's by the people, it's not headed by anyone after all.

You cannot build a viable and inclusive organisation if you are exerting political will and discipline onto members, irrespective of whether it's "voluntary".


'It at least to me, does not seem to be centralisation as you put it, but mandates to which everyone agrees with, it's not exactly coerced I think.

It all really depends on how you manage it, consensus can be coerced too for example, the pressure of people upon a dissenter may cause the dissenter to crumble and go the way of the majority

I'm not following what you're saying.


It's not like it entirely side-steps people's opinions on discussion does not have to be directly within the confines of the decision-making process.

But on most things?


discussion does not have to be directly within the confines of the decision-making process.

You've lost me again.


I feel you get yours and a collectives' voices heard in democracy.

Again, I don't follow.


I'd say organise it into working myself.

No, don't get that either.


I think it remains true to anarchist principles, it allows dissent really you are never forced to remain in the group for example

You can't build a coherent and viable movement if you kick everyone out that disagree's with you until you're left with what?

The world is too big and has too many people in it for that to work. You have to accommodate dissent and open disagreement or you will achieve nothing.

[Pogue]

You cannot build a viable and inclusive organisation if you are exerting political will and discipline onto members, irrespective of whether it's "voluntary".



I'm not following what you're saying.



But on most things?



You've lost me again.



Again, I don't follow.



No, don't get that either.



You can't build a coherent and viable movement if you kick everyone out that disagree's with you until you're left with what?

The world is too big and has too many people in it for that to work. You have to accommodate dissent and open disagreement or you will achieve nothing.

But for example post-revolution in the workers councils. If 80% of the people vote and say 'We're going to run things like this', the 20% have to accept it and move on.

[Forward Union]

Without being able to dissent from it. That's the key issue. Of course you need an organisation that strives for a common goal, but people must be free to dissent from it without being reprimanded, which is what people like LTS suggests.

The point is, if the group agrees a strategy, and you are not participating in it, you are inactive. Inactive membership should be discarded no?

You are free to disagree with the strategy, and discussion should be had whenever members wish to discuss things. You are free to propose amendments, to organise factions and even propose and debate alternative strategies.

Being removed for not agreeing with the organisation and nor participating in it is hardly being "reprimanded"

I don't believe in organising with people I disagree with. Over the past 5 or so years I've been involved and participated in many Anarchist groups. I've been in meetings where I had to debate against people who didn't think capitalism was the problem. I've been involved in groups that had people who both supported and opposed the privatization of the NHS, and people who saw no difference. Not only does this mean that we can't involve ourself in resisting the privatisation of the NHS, it also means people can't find out what our organisations' view of healthcare is for example. Platformist groups I have seen in UK, Ireland and Mexico have avoided this whole dilema.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think proto-platformism is an acceptable term to use.

But what relevance does that term even have on the Ukrainian revolution.

You keep using the Ukrainian revolution as a model for platformism and that's misleading if not totally dishonest.

[The Feral Underclass]

But for example post-revolution in the workers councils. If 80% of the people vote and say 'We're going to run things like this', the 20% have to accept it and move on.

It depends on what model you're using. But that's fine. If it's majority voting yeah, they do, but that 20% are free to publicly dissent from that decision and publicly argue against it while still remaining a part of that council.

That's the point.

[The Feral Underclass]

Being removed for not agreeing with the organisation and nor participating in it is hardly being "reprimanded"

Removing people from your organisation because they do not agree with certain things you do is achieving nothing.

[Pogue]

It depends on what model you're using. But that's fine. If it's majority voting yeah, they do, but that 20% are free to publicly dissent from that decision and publicly argue against it while still remaining a part of that council.

That's the point.

They can argue, sure, but if that means they refuse to participate then surely thats an irreoncilable problem?

I still don't see how far anarchists can disagree for this to become an issue.

[Forward Union]

Removing people from your organisation because they do not agree with certain things you do is achieving nothing.

They're not being removed for not agreeing, they're being removed for not participating. But people should be removed who do not have a certain level of political unity. Even you agree with this (Some of us saw ex-AF preston lots rants on Libcom)

By artificially holding people together who don't agree on what to do, or even act contrary to eachother, you do even less than not achieve.

[The Feral Underclass]

They can argue, sure, but if that means they refuse to participate then surely thats an irreoncilable problem?

Is it a problem in the first place? What you're arguing is that by disagreeing with a decision and not participating in it this means that you are no longer able to ever participate in making decisions. I don't see how that's particularly beneficial to anything except perhaps some pointless notion of tactical unity, which is totally self-serving and redundant if you're limiting those you can be united with.

Just because some people may disagree with one collective decision does not mean they disagree with every decision that is likely to ever be made ever.

[The Feral Underclass]

They're not being removed for not agreeing, they're being removed for not participating.

I still don't see what that's achieving.

[ls]

You cannot build a viable and inclusive organisation if you are exerting political will and discipline onto members, irrespective of whether it's "voluntary".

I don't see it as exerting will and discipline, it is more like organising people properly, I see that as being beneficial to everyone.



I'm not following what you're saying.

That consensus is not foolproof either.


But on most things?



You've lost me again.

In the consensus-based decision making process you of course discuss why a dissenter has dissented with them. You appear to have to have that discussion within the confines of the decision making process but not outside of it.

What I'm saying is that in the democratic decision making process, why do you think people won't discuss it like you would in consensus based decision making, except outside of the decision making process itself. I think that's fairly easy to follow.


Again, I don't follow.

Ok, so you said:
And free association doesn't mean "agreeing with everyone", it means being able to dissent. Together if necessary of in the spirit of debate.

What I'm saying is that in the democratic decision making process, dissent takes a different form from that which you consider, namely it gets counted and you may have discussions about it separately and outside of the decision making process.


No, don't get that either.

You were saying that Platformist organisations seek to limit or control the consensus based decision making process. I was simply saying my opinion is that it organises it into a more efficient way of working and doesn't really change it in any other way.


You can't build a coherent and viable movement if you kick everyone out that disagree's with you until you're left with what?

The world is too big and has too many people in it for that to work. You have to accommodate dissent and open disagreement or you will achieve nothing.

I think it does accommodate dissent, just not in the way you think, you can have discussions with others involved outside of the decision-making process if you feel that is necessary, open disagreement at a final level is a different matter, you will never, no matter how hard you try, be able to accommodate absolutely everyone.

[Pogue]

Is it a problem in the first place? What you're arguing is that by disagreeing with a decision and not participating in it this means that you are no longer able to ever participate in making decisions.

Well I mean say in a revolutionary situation we had a strong organisation that looked like it could pull an action that could have far reaching positive consequences, but some people thought it was the wrong way to go and didn't participate thus it failed, that'd be a problem. But I can't see where people in the same organisation would disagree enough as to have a major falling out anyway. I'd say we'd all be mature enough as to just accept the majority decision. Sure we could oppose it but if we withdrew from it, we'd be fucking up the organisation.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well I mean say in a revolutionary situation we had a strong organisation that looked like it could pull an action that could have far reaching positive consequences, but some people thought it was the wrong way to go and didn't participate thus it failed, that'd be a problem.

That would suggest to me that the people refusing to participate were an important element to this whole thing succeeding so it's probably better to accommodate their dissent.


But I can't see where people in the same organisation would disagree enough as to have a major falling out anyway. I'd say we'd all be mature enough as to just accept the majority decision. Sure we could oppose it but if we withdrew from it, we'd be fucking up the organisation.

If people wish to withdraw from a decision that is a justified thing for them to do based on their free association.

[Forward Union]

Well I mean say in a revolutionary situation we had a strong organisation that looked like it could pull an action that could have far reaching positive consequences, but some people thought it was the wrong way to go and didn't participate thus it failed, that'd be a problem. But I can't see where people in the same organisation would disagree enough as to have a major falling out anyway. I'd say we'd all be mature enough as to just accept the majority decision. Sure we could oppose it but if we withdrew from it, we'd be fucking up the organisation.


Well it's not only the Platformists that came to such conclusions after visiting reality.

The Syndicalists also came to similar (perhaps even stronger) conclusions;
We are introducing a slight variation in anarchism into our programme. The establishment of a revolutionary Junta. As we see it, the revolution needs organisms to oversee it, and repress, in an organised sense, hostile sectors. As current events have shown such sectors do not accept oblivion unless they are crushed.

There may be anarchist comrades who feel certain ideological misgivings, but the lesson of experience is enough to induce us to stop pussy-footing.



"Toward a Fresh Revolution" - The Friends of Durruti

Arguably this document actually fits into the Platformist tradition. Though the FOD never claimed any association with it.

[Pogue]

Interesting, I can see now its quite a valid argument.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think it does accommodate dissent, just not in the way you think, you can have discussions with others involved outside of the decision-making process if you feel that is necessary, open disagreement at a final level is a different matter, you will never, no matter how hard you try, be able to accommodate absolutely everyone.

Saying to a group of people, you can disagree with this decision but you have to follow it irrespective of how much you disagree is not accommodating dissent. That's enforcing political will.

The difference in attitude here is that platformists seem to think that if you run into this problem you can just solve it by kicking people out of the organisation, where as non-platformists realise this to be a wholly destructive and ultimately pointless thing to do.

How does kicking people out of your organisation strengthen anything or move towards theoretical and tactical unity. It doesn't. It just makes your organisation smaller.

[Tjis]

I believe most of the criticism on the platform back then and now was because it's supporters understood it differently than their critics. This was partly due to bad wording, and partly due to bad translations. If you read the criticism and the responses to the criticism by various members of the delo truda group (the writers of the platform, it wasn't just Makhno you know), it becomes clear that they didn't intend any kind of centralized authority.

http://nestormakhno.info/english/supporg.htm is a good one. It's a response to some good questions that were raised, for example the question of wether the majority would be coercing the minority because of the theoretical and tactical unity, and whether a platformist group was supposed to lead the revolution (the answer to both is no by the way).

[Forward Union]

Saying to a group of people, you can disagree with you have to follow this decision irrespective of how much you disagree with it is not accommodating dissent. That's enforcing political will.


They don't have to follow the decission, they can leave. The AF have a similar policy of dissociation. If you don't oppose Religion, we will "dissociate" with you. It's unnavoidable.


How does kicking people out of your organisation strengthen anything or move towards theoretical and tactical unity. It doesn't. It just makes your organisation smaller.

In the same way having Anarcho-Capitlaists in your organisation wouldn't be useful.

[Pogue]

If there was a vote on it and it doesn't go your way you have to accept it? Surely thats democracy and the basis for how our councils in communism will function?

[The Feral Underclass]

They don't have to follow the decission, they can leave. The AF have a similar policy of dissociation. If you don't oppose Religion, we will "dissociate" with you. It's unnavoidable.

But we have a clear set of lowest common denominators. This is done cover the fact that regardless of whether people agree with those principles, they may not agree with future tactical or theoretical decisions.


In the same way having Anarcho-Capitlaists in your organisation wouldn't be useful.That's not a comparable situation. If I join the AF because I agree with it's aims and principles and consider myself to be an anarchist communist and then they make a decision to back reforms in the NHS and I dissent from that position, I should still be able to be an AF member without having to abide by a decision I do not agree with.

Again, how is kicking me out going to be beneficial?

[Forward Union]

If there was a vote on it and it doesn't go your way you have to accept it? Surely thats democracy and the basis for how our councils in communism will function?

Exactly. You can't just carry on the discussion forever or refuse to go along with it as TAT would have us do.

[The Feral Underclass]

If there was a vote on it and it doesn't go your way you have to accept it? Surely thats democracy and the basis for how our councils in communism will function?

Why do you have to accept it? I don't have to accept something I don't agree with? By what authority will you make me accept it?

You're fetishising the majority as some kind of inherent authority that is right no matter what and therefore has automatic legitimacy. The "majority" is not some magical entity that will make the worlds problems go away.

[The Feral Underclass]

Exactly. You can't just carry on the discussion forever or refuse to go along with it as TAT would have us do.

If you've really concluded that from what I've argued in this thread then you are truly an idiot.

[Forward Union]

But we have a clear set of lowest common denominators. This is done cover the fact that regardless of whether people agree with those principles, they may not agree with future tactical or theoretical decisions.

The point is that you don't object to kicking people out for disagreements you consider fundemental for the well being of the federation. My view is that lowest common denominator politics leads to lowest common denomiator activity.

I think we need higher levels of activity and clearer, more focussed involvement, and this requires a higher level of unity.

[Forward Union]

If you've really concluded that from what I've argued in this thread then you are truly an idiot.

Have you ever had a discussion that didn't involve derogatory language? Or are you naturally a twat

[Pogue]

Why do you have to accept it? I don't have to accept something I don't agree with? By what authority will you make me accept it?

Democracy. If we all argued on it, had our chance but the organisation as a whole decided that in majority it backed one point of view, thats how the organisation would act. If you disagree with it, thats tough because your individual opinion has succumbed to democracy. If what was decided on didn't contradict the principles of the organisation then you dissenting would be ridiculous and unfair on the rest of the group, and harmful to the meeting. If it was so shocking bad, i.e. if you felt it contradicted anarchism, then surely you'd leave? What function would dissent within the group have? What would you do if you didn't agree but wanted to stay in the group? If 90% of the group was moving the group in the direction of the vote, and you went completely against it (say refused to join an action the rest of the group voted to join) what function would you have beeing in that organisation?

[Forward Union]

Why do you have to accept it? I don't have to accept something I don't agree with? By what authority will you make me accept it?

By the authority of the majority.


You're fetishising the majority as some kind of inherent authority that is right no matter what and therefore has automatic legitimacy. The "majority" is not some magical entity that will make the worlds problems go away.


Exactly. And he is right to do so. In decision making there are three outcomes. Complete agreement. Majority, and Minority. They are legitimate in that order.

If you don't agree with the majority position on the overal activity of the organisation (the strategy), you can continue to disagree, and propose a re-vote or make a new proposal. Or you can leave.

But if you don't go along with the agreed strategy, or act against it, you're not really part of the organisation are you?

[Tjis]

Why do you have to accept it? I don't have to accept something I don't agree with? By what authority will you make me accept it?

You're fetishising the majority as some kind of inherent authority that is right no matter what and therefore has automatic legitimacy. The "majority" is not some magical entity that will make the worlds problems go away.
No majority should have the right to force a minority into things, but the Dielo Truda didn't say it should be like that.



We reckon, first of all, that for the sake of unity of the Union, the minority should, in such cases, make concessions to the majority. This would be readily achievable, in cases of insignificant differences of opinion between the minority and majority. If, though, the minority were to consider sacrificing its viewpoint an impossibility, then there would be the prospect of having two divergent opinions and tactics within the Union; a majority view and tactic, and a minority view and tactic.

In which case, the position will have to come under scrutiny by the Union as a whole. If, after discussion, the existence of two divergent views on the same issue were to be adjudged feasible, the co-existence of those two opinions will be accepted as an accomplished fact.

Finally, in the event of agreement between majority and minority on the tactical and political matters separating them proving impossible, there would be a split with the minority breaking away from the majority to found a separate organization.
(from http://www.anonym.to/?http://nestormakhno.info/english/supporg.htm)
So nobody would be forcing anyone to do anything. It's not even "agree with us or be kicked out". If the organisation as a whole thinks it's feasible to have two views, then that is no problem.

[The Feral Underclass]

The point is that you don't object to kicking people out for disagreements you consider fundemental for the well being of the federation.

And my point is that would never happen because they would never have joined in the first place and if they do then they lied and should leave.


My view is that lowest common denominator politics leads to lowest common denomiator activity.That's a stupid view.


I think we need higher levels of activity and clearer, more focussed involvement, and this requires a higher level of unity.I don't accept that small groups of platfomists is the best way to achieve that. Look at the Trotskyist movement. There are hundreds of different little sects that have achieved what you fetishes and look where they are.

Unfortuantely for you I already saw what you'd written before you removed it. Alas I didn't get to the quote button in time. Suffice to say it is clearer now that all you wish is for people to agree with you so that you can do what it is you want to do.

I don't see how your tactics for organisation are any different to the Bakuninist methods, only you're more open about your contempt towards those who disagree with you.

[The Feral Underclass]

Have you ever had a discussion that didn't involve derogatory language?

Yes. But most of the time those I'm having discussions with are able to follow what I'm saying without resorting to hyperbole and strawman and if they do, I call them idiots, because that's what they are.

[Pogue]

What sort of issues can you guys see an anarcho-communist organisation splitting over? Surely we could have the maturity to accept defeat by democracy and go along with an anarcho communist position that perhaps deviates ever so slightly from our preffered approach?

[Forward Union]

And my point is that would never happen because they would never have joined in the first place and if they do then they lied and should leave.


Equally true for any other organisation that requires high levels of agreement.



That's a stupid view.And that's not a criticism.


I don't accept that small groups of platfomists is the best way to achieve that. Look at the Trotskyist movement. There are hundreds of different little sects that have achieved what you fetishes and look where they are.Like say, the 4th international that effectively has control over Britains rails?


I don't see how your tactics for organisation are any different to the Bakuninist methods, only you're more open about your contempt towards those who disagree with you.Im not really sure what you mean by Bakuninist methods? have you called me a trotskyist and a bakunist in the same post?

[The Feral Underclass]

Democracy.

Then in that case you argue that the state has legitimate authority because it was voted for by majority.

And this doesn't answer my question anyway. "Democracy" (I don't really think that's what you're talking about) doesn't have authority. If I don't want to participate in your decisions then you don't suddenly have authority to do what you want to me unless you attempt to exert it, in which case you're no longer an anarchist.


If we all argued on it, had our chance but the organisation as a whole decided that in majority it backed one point of view, thats how the organisation would act. If you disagree with it, thats tough because your individual opinion has succumbed to democracy.You need to start viewing majority voting less as a concept that can be theoretically banded about and more as a actual reality on the lives of those participating within it.

If a majority of people decide to participate in a decision that's there choice, but if a minority choose not to participate in it that is their choice and there exists no actual authority to impose participation on a minority unless by coercian.

I'm not talking about abstract theoretical concepts, I'm talking about real, objective dynamics.

[The Feral Underclass]

Surely we could have the maturity to accept defeat by democracy and go along with an anarcho communist position that perhaps deviates ever so slightly from our preffered approach?

That is usually the case.

What is being discussed here is the authority by which a majority can impose it's decision onto a minority.

[Forward Union]

That is usually the case.

What is being discussed here is the authority by which a majority can impose it's decision onto a minority.

As opposed to what? a minority imposing it's veto onto the majority? or continuous discussion until a complete agreement is made? or a split? or what?

[The Feral Underclass]

Complete agreement would have been preferential in the first place, but no. It would result in a minority simply not participating in the decision of the majority...

And yes, more discussion. Always more discussion. It's how you develop ideas.

"Debate is progress" - Karl Marx.

[Tjis]

As opposed to what? a minority imposing it's veto onto the majority? or continuous discussion until a complete agreement is made? or a split? or what?
Consensus or, if neccesary, a split.
Majority vote isn't neccesarily bad, but everyone must agree that they'll accept the outcome. In fact, if everyone agrees on that, it becomes a consensus.

[Forward Union]

Complete agreement would have been preferential in the first place, but no.

Agreed.


It would result in a minority simply not participating in the decision of the majority...Would they be free to act against it?
Assuming not, and assuming we stick to my example of this agreement being "an overall strategy" they would no longer be participating in the organisation in any way. And I have no interest in working with dead weight.

This is preferable to groups all over the place doing their own things completely unaccountably.

[Raúl Duke]

But if you don't go along with the agreed strategy, or act against it, you're not really part of the organisation are you?

While I understand why it would be good, in a tactical, to kick out those who act against the majority, but those who refuse to act along with the agreed strategy should not be kicked out in my opinion.

[Hoxhaist]

could someone sum up what platformism is for me?

[Bright Banana Beard]

could someone sum up what platformism is for me?
It that anarchist who believe in tactical and theoretical unity in a organization in order to combat the individualism that causes the breakup.

[Tjis]

To anyone interested in the platform, please keep in mind that the platform was a draft, written with the intention to spark a discussion which would flesh out the finer points. Some points are missing, others aren't very well explained. That's why it's important to not only read the actual "Platform", but also the questions and critics of others in the anarchist world, and the replies to them from the Delo Truda group. The actual Platform itself isn't the holy scripture of platformism.

A lot can be found on http://www.nestormakhno.info.


While I understand why it would be good, in a tactical, to kick out those who act against the majority, but those who refuse to act along with the agreed strategy should not be kicked out in my opinion.
I agree with this. So did the original authors of the platform.
I requote, from a clarification about the platform by the writers:


We reckon, first of all, that for the sake of unity of the Union, the minority should, in such cases, make concessions to the majority. This would be readily achievable, in cases of insignificant differences of opinion between the minority and majority. If, though, the minority were to consider sacrificing its viewpoint an impossibility, then there would be the prospect of having two divergent opinions and tactics within the Union; a majority view and tactic, and a minority view and tactic.

In which case, the position will have to come under scrutiny by the Union as a whole. If, after discussion, the existence of two divergent views on the same issue were to be adjudged feasible, the co-existence of those two opinions will be accepted as an accomplished fact.

Finally, in the event of agreement between majority and minority on the tactical and political matters separating them proving impossible, there would be a split with the minority breaking away from the majority to found a separate organization.

(http://nestormakhno.info/english/supporg.htm)
So according to the original authors, the majority shouldn't kick out the minority for disagreeing. Generally, unity is preferred of course, either through consensus or through a minority sacrificing their view for the sake of unity. But if this is impossible, multiple views can possibly co-exist. Even if members can't agree with eachother over something, it's usually not worth splitting up over. Only in severe cases where this is impossible should they split. For example, as you said, if one group actively works against the goals of another group, then there's no gain in having a common organization.

[Tjis]

could someone sum up what platformism is for me?
Alright, I guess I'll have a go at this.
The Platform is a document written in 1926 by anarchist exiles from Russia, calling themselves the "Delo Truda" group. It discusses the social revolution, the need for an anarchist organisation and the role such an organisation should have in the revolution. In its last chapter it discusses the structure such an organisation should have.

Platformism a way of setting up a revolutionary anarchist organization. The goal is not to lead the revolution (which Marxist group tend to want), or be the skeleton of the future society (as anarcho-syndicalist suggest their organizations should be). The idea is that all revolutions are done by the working class, not a revolutionary group.
Therefore goal is to radicalize the rest of the working class and to make sure that the working class movement that follows is and stays anarchist (and isn't hijacked by any group claiming to be the solution to everyones problems, if only they are in power). From this movement, all necessary structures for the defense of the revolution and for the future society will originate.

The points it suggests an organization should adhere to are


unity of theory
unity of action
collective responsibility
federalism

Unity of theory and action are very important. It is very important that the organization is very clear about their core ideology and strategy. These are the views they wish to share with the rest of the working class and the main ways to spread these views after all! The message is most powerful if all members agree on these points.
On other, less important points, such a strong consensus isn't needed however. If a large majority disagrees with a small minority, the minority can voluntarily sacrifice their view in an issue and go with the majority. If there's disagreement about a particular strategy, but the suggested strategies aren't mutually exclusive, both strategies can be used, by different people. In both cases there's still consensus, though it's weaker.
And for many things, nothing is decided at all. There's probably no strategy that'll work everywhere, so every member group of the federation will do their own thing, as long as it is in line with the theory and tactic of the organization.

I think the collective responsibility one is most interesting. As I said above, every member is involved in the decision making about the theory and action of the organization, and a consensus is actually required to come to a decision. Therefore, every member is responsible for what their organization says and does. They agreed with it after all.
The other way around also applies: everything individuals in the organization do is in line with the organization's theory and action, and therefore the entire organization is responsible for what its members do.
Because of this collective responsibility, the members of such an organization are disciplined. Simply because being responsible for the theory and strategy is a good incentive to follow them.

Finally federalism is the structure of the organization. It means various groups, united for a common cause, without any group having any authority over any other group. There is a so-called Executive Committee though, which was described as follows:


In order to coordinate the activity of all of the Union's affiliated organizations, a special body is to be established in the form of an Executive Committee of the Union. The following functions will be ascribed to that Committee: implementation of decisions made by the Union, as entrusted; overseeing the activity and theoretical development of the individual organizations, in keeping with the overall theoretical and tactical line of the Union; monitoring the general state of the movement; maintaining functional organizational ties between all the member organizations of the Union, as well as with other organizations.
It's function is less evil than the above quote makes it sound. The committee can't make any decisions, and can only do the things the members of the organization tell it to do. What it is intended to do is doing any every day jobs that tend to be necessary in large organizations, maintaining communication within the organization, keeping track of what is happening in the various groups of the organization and making sure that no group is doing things that go against the tactic that was agreed on. If this happens, its function is to tell the group about this, and if nothing changes, to call for a meeting to discuss the matter. They don't have any authority to punish anyone for not following the tactic that was agreed on as some seem to fear. It also goes without saying that all its members are elected and immediately recallable by a majority vote.

While platformism can theoretically be applied to any kind of revolutionary current, it's authors and all platformist organizations I know of are anarchist communist.

[DancingLarry]

Perhaps one of those advocating for platformism can illustrate with precision and specificity how platformism differs in any meaningful manner from the Leninist doctrine of "democratic centralism"?

[Forward Union]

Perhaps one of those advocating for platformism can illustrate with precision and specificity how platformism differs in any meaningful manner from the Leninist doctrine of "democratic centralism"?

The difference is that there is no body of people that can make decisions on behalf of the organisation. In Leninism you elect delegates who then act in a leadership role.

In platformism you elect temporary delegates who make decisions based on their mandate, in a delegates convention. The agreement they come to, based then becomes established policy at least until the next DC. You don't have "upper structures" that govern "the lower structures" as with Leninism.


It's function is less evil than the above quote makes it sound. The committee can't make any decisions, and can only do the things the members of the organization tell it to do. What it is intended to do is doing any every day jobs that tend to be necessary in large organizations, maintaining communication within the organization, keeping track of what is happening in the various groups of the organization and making sure that no group is doing things that go against the tactic that was agreed on.

Exactly

[The Feral Underclass]

Would they be free to act against it?

It depends what it meant to "act against it". But if they wanted to propagate against my decision but remained within the aims and principles that is their choice. They would have to form into a faction obviously.

They're intervention would contribute to public debate, wouldn't it. And that's a good thing.


Assuming not, and assuming we stick to my example of this agreement being "an overall strategy" they would no longer be participating in the organisation in any way.No, they not be participating in that strategy. That's something quite different to not participating in the organisation.


And I have no interest in working with dead weight.This is difference in attitude. I don't consider people who agree with the same fundamental principles but who disagree with me about tactics as "dead weight".

They are still contributing comrades, who believe the same things and wish to fight for the same thing.


This is preferable to groups all over the place doing their own things completely unaccountably.What groups? Who are you talking about? You often allude to "groups" and "movements" not acting together or being accountable, but you never actually identify them.

[Forward Union]

What groups? Who are you talking about? You often allude to "groups" and "movements" not acting together or being accountable, but you never actually identify them.

I could literally pick anything. Whitechapel Anarchist Group hardly works in coordination with RGA, RGA hardly works in coordination with HSG or LCAP (Thanks to L&S this is actually a lot less true, as RCAP is soon to be set up), and they hardly work in coordination with Sheffield AF, and from what I gather they dont work in much coordination with say, the London branch.

Now that is not to dismiss the hard work all these grorups do, It's just to say they don't work in coordination. I also don't want you to think I am suggesting that there is no correspondence, or cooperation between these groups, there are anomalous joint projects. Whitechapel have been incredibly busy organising things for the G20, and producing a paper. RGA has been doing community surveys, Sheffield has been producing the fargate speaker and is involved in anti-militarism and anti ID lockons.

We're a fucking mess.

[The Feral Underclass]

We're a fucking mess.

You've not explained what it is you think is a mess? Is it the fact that these groups are not united in a theoretical and tactical way? As Sheffield AF are in Sheffield and RGA in Reading, I'm not sure that there is anything we could co-ordinate together? Certainly there has been no formal request for joint co-ordination. If you want groups to work together, propose something, otherwise what's your point?

[Forward Union]

You've not explained what it is you think is a mess? Is it the fact that these groups are not united in a theoretical and tactical way?

Exactly, as I have already quoted "In all countries, the anarchist movement is represented by several local organisations advocating contradictory theories and practices, having no perspectives for the future, nor of a continuity in militant work, and habitually disappearing, hardly leaving the slightest trace behind them" I don't think I need to attach too many annotations to explain why this is an incredible problem for a group of people trying to overthrow Capitalism and the State.

[The Feral Underclass]

"In all countries, the anarchist movement is represented by several local organisations advocating contradictory theories and practices, having no perspectives for the future, nor of a continuity in militant work, and habitually disappearing, hardly leaving the slightest trace behind them"
But that's just not true is it. There are anarchist communist organisations all over the world that have existed for decades, with long and important traditions, who are united on theory and practice and who consistently achieve militancy.

I'm not claiming that there aren't issues, but they certainly aren't the issues you are talking about. Perhaps you should pay more attention to the tradition you belong and the politics you claim to espouse, instead of focusing on uniting a disparate conglomeration of insurrectionaryists, individualists and primitivists.

[Pogue]

Then in that case you argue that the state has legitimate authority because it was voted for by majority.


And this doesn't answer my question anyway. "Democracy" (I don't really think that's what you're talking about) doesn't have authority. If I don't want to participate in your decisions then you don't suddenly have authority to do what you want to me unless you attempt to exert it, in which case you're no longer an anarchist.


No, because we criticise the state for other reasons other than that. Its brutality, how unnecesary it is, the things it does which we don't vote for, its futility, etc.

Democracy underpins humans living together. You have to accept the decision if you agreed to enter a democratic organisation. Otherwise its not democracy ebcause its not rule by the many, its rue by whoever can kick up the most fuss.

[The Feral Underclass]

No, because we criticise the state for other reasons other than that.

So you agree that its democracy is legitimate then?


Its brutality, how unnecesary it is, the things it does which we don't vote for, its futility, etc.

It's merely exercising it's democratic authority.


Democracy underpins humans living together.

What does that actualy mean?


You have to accept the decision if you agreed to enter a democratic organisation.

Why?


Otherwise its not democracy ebcause its not rule by the many, its rue by whoever can kick up the most fuss.

Again, you're not divorcing the concept form the reality. The ideal is all well and good, but the reality - the practice of democracy - is a human dynamic.

If a large group of people decide to do something, they will do it. If a small group of people decide to do something else, they will do that. And that small group of people are justified to do what they decide without being reprimanded, discplined or ostrecised. Otherwise it's not democracy, it's coercian.

[Forward Union]

But that's just not true is it. There are anarchist communist organisations all over the world that have existed for decades, with long and important traditions, who are united on theory and practice and who consistently achieve militancy.

I think two of the best examples of that are the FARJ in Brazil and the FDCA in Italy, who are both Anarkismo affiliates. Though you are absolutely right. We can't be too unfair, there are Anarchist Communists out there who have taken on board certain lessons and have done very well.

But I think you're drawing too much from these exceptions. Take the Fédération Anarchiste for example, though it has technically existed for a long time, it has had practically no continuity in it's activities over the years. It's been doing the same thing over and over for a long time. And achieved nothing. Local branches come and go, repeat mistakes etc. Long lasting existance is not an achievement in and of itself.

[Forward Union]

So you agree that its democracy is legitimate then?

Don't be silly. We don't live in a democracy. But more importantly, neither me nor HLVS have recognized the right of an individual or group of individuals to make decisions about all of us based on their own wisdom.

We have proposed democratically forming agreements between all of us, and then this majority will acts as an authority. Platformism does not allow for ellections of people who then govern the organisation. So stop trying to make that false conenction.

Now who's indulging in hyperbole

[The Feral Underclass]

But I think you're drawing too much from these exceptions. Take the Fédération Anarchiste for example, though it has technically existed for a long time, it has had practically no continuity in it's activities over the years. It's been doing the same thing over and over for a long time. And achieved nothing. Local branches come and go, repeat mistakes etc. Long lasting existance is not an achievement in and of itself.


They were not my exceptions, they were yours.

The FA is a synthesist organisation, and synthesism will inevitably cause problems, but this is not really the point that you were originally making. If the FA is your example of why we need platformism, that's a very weak argument.

It isn't that we need platformism, it's that we shouldn't attempt synthesism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Don't be silly. We don't live in a democracy.

Actually we do. It's called representative democracy whereby political organisations are given mandates by majority voting. Which is what you advocate.


But more importantly, neither me nor HLVS have recognized the right of an individual or group of individuals to make decisions about all of us based on their own wisdom.Neither have I. I have argued that people don't have to participate in majority decisions if they decide not to and that the majority has no authority to enforce that decision, except with coercion.


We have proposed democratically forming agreements between all of us, and then this majority will acts as an authority.I'm aware of what you're proposing. That's why I'm participating in this debate...


Platformism does not allow for ellections of people who then govern the organisation. So stop trying to make that false conenction.Yet it calls for the creation of centralised bodies that are mandated with authority to enforce majority decisions on minorities and to discipline members for not being disciplined. That's called coercion.

I'm not going to repeat myself, I've stated quite clearly what my argument is.


Now who's indulging in hyperboleYou don't understand my argument.

[Forward Union]

Actually we do. It's called representative democracy whereby political organisations are given mandates by majority voting. Which is what you advocate.

No it isn't. I do not accept the right of representatives to make exclusive personal decisions on my behalf that directly affect me. In other words, I do not advocate a central body that acts as a government. I have never advocated that, and nor has any platformist in the past or present.

What I have advocated is a democratic process, where sovereignty and decision making power rests in the majority, in which every member has a right to participate in the forming of that process and a right to dissent from it. But must fulfil membership requirements in order to remain within the organization. If they do not, the organisation has every right to remove them from their ranks.


Yet it calls for the creation of centralised bodies that are mandated with authority to enforce majority decisions on minorities and to discipline members for not being disciplined.

Which is the worst way of running an Anarchist organisation apart from all the other ways.

[The Feral Underclass]

Which is the worst way of running an Anarchist organisation apart from all the other ways.

Then stop advocating it.

[Forward Union]

Then stop advocating it.

But I'm compelled to get things done.

[The Feral Underclass]

But I'm compelled to get things done.

Then get them done for christ sake!

[Tjis]

Yet it calls for the creation of centralised bodies that are mandated with authority to enforce majority decisions on minorities and to discipline members for not being disciplined. That's called coercion.
No. It doesn't call for that. While the platform is a bit silly worded about this, the "executive committee" (Assuming you were talking about that) has no authority. It has no way to enforce majority decisions (Besides the only way there could even be a majority decision to enforce is if the minority agrees with the majority for the sake of unity) and it can definitely not discipline members.

I posted about it earlier. Did you read that?


It's function is less evil than the above quote makes it sound. The committee can't make any decisions, and can only do the things the members of the organization tell it to do. What it is intended to do is doing any every day jobs that tend to be necessary in large organizations, maintaining communication within the organization, keeping track of what is happening in the various groups of the organization and making sure that no group is doing things that go against the tactic that was agreed on. If this happens, its function is to tell the group about this, and if nothing changes, to call for a meeting to discuss the matter. They don't have any authority to punish anyone for not following the tactic that was agreed on as some seem to fear. It also goes without saying that all its members are elected and immediately recallable by a majority vote.

[Forward Union]

No. It doesn't call for that. While the platform is a bit silly worded about this, the "executive committee" (Assuming you were talking about that) has no authority. It has no way to enforce majority decisions (Besides the only way there could even be a majority decision to enforce is if the minority agrees with the majority for the sake of unity) and it can definitely not discipline members.

I posted about it earlier. Did you read that?

To back this up further, Workers Cause (delo Truda) produced a document called "a supplement to the platform" which was intended to be a general response or an "FAQ" to all the letters of objection they received. On executive Committees (my emphasis);
Q) Since you are federalists, you apparently have in mind the existence of an Executive Committee that will be in charge of the "ideological and organizational conduct of the activity of the isolated groups". That type of organization is to be found in all parties, but it is possible only if one accepts the majority principle. In your organization, will each group be free to prescribe its own tactics and establish its own tactics and establish its own stance vis-a-vis each given issue?


A) THE QUESTION OF MAJORITY AND MINORITY IN THE ANARCHIST MOVEMENT


The author broaches this by linking it to our idea of an Executive Committee of the Union. If the Union's Executive Committee has, besides other functions of an executive nature, also that of "steering the activity of isolated groups from a theoretical and organizational point of view," must that steering not be coercive? Then, are groups affiliated to the Union to be free to proscribe their own tactics and determine their own stance with regard to each given matter? Or are they to be obliged to abide by the overall tactic and the overall positions to be laid down by the Union's majority?

Let it be said, first of all, that in our view, the Union's Executive Committee cannot be a body endowed with any powers of a coercive nature, as is the case with the centralist political parties. The General Anarchist Union's Executive Committee is a body performing functions of a general nature in the Union. Instead of "Executive Committee," this body might carry the title of "Chief Union Secretariat". However, the name "Executive Committee" is to be preferred, for it better encapsulates the idea of the executive function and that of initiative. Without in any way restricting the rights of isolated groups, the Executive Committee will be able to steer their activity in the theoretical and organizational sense. For there will always be groups inside the Union that will feel burdened by various tactical issues, so that ideological or organizational assistance will always be necessary for certain groups. It goes without saying that the Executive Committee will be well placed to lend such assistance, for it will be, by virtue of its situation and its functions, imbued with the tactical or organizational line adopted by the Union on a variety of matters.

But if, nevertheless, some organizations or others should indicate a wish to pursue their own tactical line, will the Executive Committee or the Union as a body be in a position to prevent them? In other words, is the Union's tactical and policy line to be laid down by the majority, or will every group be entitled to operate as it deems fit, and, will the Union have several lines to start with?

As a rule, we reckon that the Union, as a body, should have a single tactical and political line. Indeed, the Union is designed for the purpose of bringing an end to the anarchist movement's dissipation and disorganization, the intention being to lay down, in place of a multiplicity of tactical lines giving rise to intestinal frictions, an overall policy line that will enable all libertarian elements to pursue a common direction and be all the more successful in achieving their goal. In the absence of which the Union would have lost one of its main raisons d'etre.

However, there may be times when the opinions of the Union's membership on such and such an issue would be split, which would give rise to the emergence of a majority and a minority view. Such instances are commonplace in the life of all organizations and all parties. Usually, a resolution of such a situation is worked out.

We reckon, first of all, that for the sake of unity of the Union, the minority should, in such cases, make concessions to the majority. This would be readily achievable, in cases of insignificant differences of opinion between the minority and majority. If, though, the minority were to consider sacrificing its viewpoint an impossibility, then there would be the prospect of having two divergent opinions and tactics within the Union; a majority view and tactic, and a minority view and tactic.

In which case, the position will have to come under scrutiny by the Union as a whole. If, after discussion, the existence of two divergent views on the same issue were to be adjudged feasible, the co-existence of those two opinions will be accepted as an accomplished fact.

Finally, in the event of agreement between majority and minority on the tactical and political matters separating them proving impossible, there would be a split with the minority breaking away from the majority to found a separate organization.

Those are the three possible outcomes in the event of disagreement between the minority and majority. In all cases, the question will be resolved, not by the Executive Committee which, let us repeat, is to be merely an executive organ of the Union, but by the entire Union as a body: by a Union Conference or Congress.

A Supplement To The Organisational Platform (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/supporg.htm)