Let's discuss the platform

[Tjis]

The Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists is not the holy scripture. It's a basis for further discussion. This initial discussion was attempted in difficult times, it's participants didn't have a common language to discuss in and letters reached their destination with huge delays or sometimes not at all. With the rise of fascism further discussion pretty much ceased.

The general consensus among anarchists these days (with some notable exceptions) seems to be that the Platform should be rejected altogether. I think this is a shame. As I said, the platform is not a holy scripture. It was written to start a discussion among anarchists about how to organize ourselves. The direct reason for this was the perceived lack of organization among Russian anarchists during the revolutions which was seen as one of the reasons that allowed the Bolsheviks to gain their power relatively unopposed. This is still a very valid threat to any possible future revolution. During any revolution, anti-authoritarianism must be the dominant ideology, or what happened in 1917 will happen again. The best way I see to achieve this is to have a large federation of anarchist groups with a common theory, who work together to make this theory the dominant ideology of the working class.

So I suggest that we continue the discussion about the platform. It would be too much of a waste to disregard it altogether. Please give your arguments against the platform, places where you see possibility for improvement or reasons why we should reject it altogether.

Some points that I'd personally like to see the opinions of others on:
Is the platform anarchist at all? If not, what points conflict with anarchism?
Does it make sense to have an organization at all without a mass working class movement?
Do we need to have a unified theory and action to be effective?
Your views on collective responsiblity. Should someone be held accountable for acting against the agreed on tactics for example? why or why not? If someone should be held accountable, what should be the consequences?
Should decision making be by consensus, majority vote or something else? If by majority vote, what about the minority? Should they be held accountable for acting against something they voted against? If by consensus, what to do when a consensus can't be reached?

Note that these questions aren't meant to represent any of my opinions on the matter. Apart from the second paragraph I tried to leave out my own opinions so that this thread will be about discussing the Platform, not my personal opinions on the Platform. I'll give them later :).

The reason I'm posting this in Theory, instead of the Anarchist group is because I'm interested in the opinions of Marxists as well. However, this topic is meant to discuss ways to organize an anarchist organization. That means that the structure of the organization must be anarchist as well. So please refrain from arguing for a hierarchical party structure because that can only lead to an ideology flame war.

Finally, for those that have no clue what the hell I'm talking about, or if you only vaguely know what it is about but never actually read it, you can read the platform here:
http://nestormakhno.info/english/newplatform/org_plat.htm
and an important follow-up whith clarifications here:
http://nestormakhno.info/english/supporg.htm

[Pogue]

Is the platform anarchist at all? If not, what points conflict with anarchism?

Yes, it is. It calls for an organisation which will most effectively be able to help agitate for the working class to bring about a libertarian communist/anarchist revolution. None of the points actually conflict with anarchism at all, it's just that there is a tendency within our movement amongst some to see authoritarianism at every turn. It is only within the anarchist movement that an idea as simple as democracy is seen with suspicion and I think its a sign of the pathetic weaknesses of our movement that its really an issue.

I know that some feel the idea of democracy surmounts majority rule which is oppressive, but this is absurd to me, for two reasons:

Firstly, and this ties in with the ideas of theoretical and tactical unity espoused in the Platform, there is no point in being in a group if you don't agree on politics as a group. If, as happens in some anarchist groups, you do not have a shared ideology in the group and a shared plan, then you are not a group, you are a social club operating under a collective name and you will not get anything done of worth.

Secondly, I do not see how anarcho communists can disagree so much with each other to make the decision of a majority so abhoerent to the minority. We're all anarchists (hence a General Union of Anarchists), we all have the same drive, motivations. So I don't see why it is that some people are so fearful of the idea of democratic rule in a group. The anarchist 'movement' is the only political movement in the world to find these ideas so horrifying, which is probably one of the main reasons we're currently so insignificant.


Does it make sense to have an organization at all without a mass working class movement?

Yes, because that organisation can seek to build up that mass organisation of the working through advocacy of the forming it, i.e. by distributing propoganda, agitating within the class, etc, and also because that political group cana gitate within pre-existing mass working class organisations which may have some shortcomings in the eyes of anarchists. For example, although the IWW is not a mass organisation, it has a fairly decent amount of working class people in it and is growing. An anarchist group can organise and discuss within this group to aid its effectiveness and generally contribute to its direction.

Although I do not believe a group of pre-revolutionary period anarchists can form the working class organisation alone they can influence and aid its developement, so that when it is emerging or does emerge, or within organisations like the IWW which could be an important part of it when it does emerge, it already has an organised group of anarchists within it to spread our ideas and try to influence and help others.


Do we need to have a unified theory and action to be effective?

As I said before, I don't see how there can be much disagreement between anarcho communists, but we need to have unified positions on things to go into unified action. So I'd say both are neccesary. As mentioned before, if members of a 'group' are not unified in action they are not a group, as they are not acting collectively and thus they are useless. Say for example this situation: L&S (my organisation, a platformist group) decides by democratic vote to go to a picket, but 3 out of 10 members don't agree with going to this particular picket, so they don't go, and actively go elsewhere, then they are not part of our group because they are not doing what we're doing. As such there is no point in them being in our group.


Your views on collective responsiblity. Should someone be held accountable for acting against the agreed on tactics for example? why or why not? If someone should be held accountable, what should be the consequences?

If someone acts against the agreed tactics then they should have mentioned that they wouldn't when we voted on it and discussed it. If they couldn't be won over and it was still a major issue for them (i.e. they disagreed on a major action, as opposed to a small decision) then they should probably leave the organisation because theres no point in them being in it, as the organisation exists purely to carry out those sorts of actions.

But this could get stupid. You shouldn't kick someone out the moment they disagree slightly. We do need dialogue but ultimately decisions must come down to a vote in the name of efficiency and democracy. But as I said I don't see how people could disagree so much for such a situation to occur.

The only consequence would be we'd talk to them about how worthwhile it is them staying in the group any longer, and if they still wouldn't respect the majority decision then they should leave.

On the question of someone going against the groups decision, if they did it in our name obviously they'd be dealt with quite severely, but thats true of any group. If they did it as an indvidual they'd get spoken to about it, and ultimately expelled from the organisation because acting against the collective decision is against ehr ules of the organisation (and most non-anarchist organisations).


Should decision making be by consensus, majority vote or something else? If by majority vote, what about the minority? Should they be held accountable for acting against something they voted against? If by consensus, what to do when a consensus can't be reached?

Consensus is undemocratic and takes far too long. It doesn't lead to decisions in the bets interests of the group and allows for vocal or stubborn minorities to affect the whole organisation in the name of not wanting to cause arguments. I think history has shown how well consensus has served anarchist groups.

I don't see why anyone would act against something they voted against. I'd probably suggest to them not to vote for something they don't intend to act with.

On the question of consensus not being reached, well thats the idea of platformism. Within my group we discuss issues, debate them, and yes, we do try to reach a consensus as such, in that we try to convince each other of our views and deal with any issues people have with other people's opinions.

But ultimately if no consensus can be reached we vote on it. And the majority decision is passed. I don't see how this is controversial at all.

[Devrim]

I think that in general 'the Platform' was a positive doccument. It was an attempt to draw lessons from defeat of the Russian revolution, and in my opinion was a step in a positive direction.

That doesn't mean that I am an anarchist, but I do see that there is a revolutionary current within anarchism, and that this doccument was an expression of that.

However, I think that it must be stressed that it is merely an organizational doccument. The political positions adopted by the 'platformists' today are in no means a direct consequence of this doccument, nor are they neccesarly oppossed to it, and in my opinion differ little from Trotskyism.

Devrim

[Pogue]

I think that in general 'the Platform' was a positive doccument. It was an attempt to draw lessons from defeat of the Russian revolution, and in my opinion was a step in a positive direction.

That doesn't mean that I am an anarchist, but I do see that there is a revolutionary current within anarchism, and that this doccument was an expression of that.

However, I think that it must be stressed that it is merely an organizational doccument. The political positions adopted by the 'platformists' today are in no means a direct consequence of this doccument, nor are they neccesarly oppossed to it, and in my opinion differ little from Trotskyism.

Devrim

Would you mind substantiating on the latter claim about the political positions of platformists differing little from Trotskyists, perhaps using examples of such positions from platformists groups?

[Tjis]

However, I think that it must be stressed that it is merely an organizational doccument. The political positions adopted by the 'platformists' today are in no means a direct consequence of this doccument, nor are they neccesarly oppossed to it, and in my opinion differ little from Trotskyism.
This is an important point. Platformism isn't a tendency at all. However sometimes It is put in tendency lists together with anarcho-syndicalism and such. This is wrong. There should be no confusion about this. The platform itself is about how to organize an anarchist organization and what role such an organization should have. The tendency associated with it is communist anarchism. Platformism is not a tendency.

[MilitantWorker]

I mean, lets be real here.

The only thing that really makes platformism stand out is its call for federalism, which I have mixed feelings about.

I'm not an anarchist, have never been a member of an anarchist organization. But a lot of what has been said above I sympathize with.

The issue at hand seems to be more about the role of the individual revolutionary as that person relates to the class and the class struggle.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The only thing that really makes platformism stand out is its call for federalism, which I have mixed feelings about.


Federalism isn't exclusive to Platformism. It is an idea deep rooted in Anarchism. Kropotkin supported Federalism as did all of the main Anarchist thinkers of the time which came before the Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists was released.

[Pogue]

Federalism isn't exclusive to Platformism. It is an idea deep rooted in Anarchism. Kropotkin supported Federalism as did all of the main Anarchist thinkers of the time which came before the Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists was released.

I don't think any anarchist doesn't support it.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't think any anarchist doesn't support it.

Yeah exactly. I was just highlighting the fact that it wasn't exclusive to the platform by using an example of someone who was around before the concept of Platformism was developed but supported Federalism.

[Devrim]

Would you mind substantiating on the latter claim about the political positions of platformists differing little from Trotskyists, perhaps using examples of such positions from platformists groups?

It is difficult for me to give examples at the moment because of technical computer problems (I can't cut and paste). How would you say that they differed in practical politics today? I don't mean their positions ok the Russian revolution but their positions today. Apart from a rejection of parlimemtarianism, which you van also see in the more leftwing Trotskyists, I can't see much of a difference.
Devrim

[Pogue]

It is difficult for me to give examples at the moment because of technical computer problems (I can't cut and paste). How would you say that they differed in practical politics today? I don't mean their positions ok the Russian revolution but their positions today. Apart from a rejection of parlimemtarianism, which you van also see in the more leftwing Trotskyists, I can't see much of a difference.
Devrim

It depends on what platformists and what Trotskyists you speak too. Platformism is an organisational model not an ideological strand.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Firstly, thanks to Tjis for your serious OP. I would be very interested in following this discussion in this thread if it picks up (which I hope it does because I think this could be a good discussion, going by the way you have approached it).

I have never read the Platform before and having done so, I can say I enjoyed it. I think it is a good text, it reads well and is (largely) very coherent.

On the content of the Platform, I think Devrim makes some good general comments. The Platform (as representative of the work of Dielo Truda and the anarchist movement more generally) does certainly represent a reaction against the degeneration of the Russian Revolution. However, maybe Devrim could clarify his identification of the Platform as a "step in a positive direction", I'm not sure if it can really be called that.

I think Devrim is also right on the document being an organisational one and not one intended to elaborate political positions. Of course, the two can never be divorced, and rightly so, as such the document does in fact contain a certain political content. Matter of fact I think one of the major weakness with the Platform is precisely this political content, eg. the identification of the failure of the Russian Revolution as an inevitable outcome of the politics of the Bolsheviks (something Tjis also mentions in the OP), the comments on a post-revolutionary state, the revolutionary nature of the peasantry, etc.

However, I think that the organisational methods set out are very coherent. Anarchists who reject the platform on the basis that it is in contradiction with anarchist principles or antithetical to the goals of the anarchist movement are in my opinion just plain silly and the criticism raised against the anti-organisational tendencies of anarchists is completely legitimate. This is not to say I think they are entirely correct. As Intifada notes, I think the major problem that I can identify with the platform is on the question of federalism and centralism.

[Devrim]

It depends on what platformists and what Trotskyists you speak too. Platformism is an organisational model not an ideological strand.

I think that 'Platformism' represents a very real political current today. Yes, the Platform itself is an organizational doccument, but I think that the groups around Anarkismo do represent a defined tendecy. Without going into into too much detail it is a tendency that supports working through the trade unions to the pint of touting for people to vote for so-called 'radical' leaders for positions as high as General Secretary, and support for nationaldefenccw against imperialism.
Devrim

[Pogue]

I think that 'Platformism' represents a very real political current today. Yes, the Platform itself is an organizational doccument, but I think that the groups around Anarkismo do represent a defined tendecy. Without going into into too much detail it is a tendency that supports working through the trade unions to the pint of touting for people to vote for so-called 'radical' leaders for positions as high as General Secretary, and support for nationaldefenccw against imperialism.
Devrim

I need specific examples before I could deal with the issue of national defence, Devrim. I was attracted to L&S, a platformist organisation, based more upon the organisational method and attitude of the group, and assumed their politics were not going to be abhorent seeing as they are anarchists.

I suppose your referencing Dooley here. I can see what your saying here, I have had thoughts about this myself. I don't think anyone in L&S had any illusions about Dooley in regards to the trasnformations of unions into radical roganisations based on the leadership. We hardly focused a phenomenal amount of effort into supporting him. For me and from talking to others, them too, it was based upon the recognition that a more militant union leader would make it easier for more militant action throughout the union. I think, for example, Bob Crow as head of RMT shows the benefits of this.

We have actually spoke about this in L&S. I suppose you could call it hope and optimism with intrigue too. Rather than simply denouncing Dooley outright because some mythical law dictates that no union leader can ever be more radical, we wanted to see what would actually happen if he got elected.

I think if certain Trotskyists in rhetoric or action sound like us I suppose it hilights more how alot of them, especially the SWP, seem to have an idea of a worker's state different to the traditional conception of it in Leninist circles. The difference in attitudes between our groups would probably be seen best however in our emphasis more on direct action, as well as our believe in mass organisations of the class not led or controlled by us, but ones we participate it.

I'd probably need you to elaborate further though. We actually discussed this at Marxism, how some Trotskyist ideas and method is close to some anarchist ideas, or less far apart than we thought. What this means in terms of the direction of both ideologies and their positions is a matter of debate.

[Devrim]

I need specific examples before I could deal with the issue of national defence, Devrim

I would suggest that you read Wayne price writing on the last war in Lebanon on Anarkismo.


I was attracted to L&S, a platformist organisation, based more upon the organisational method and attitude of the group, and assumed their politics were not going to be abhorent seeing as they are anarchists.

Anarchists can have a whole range of politics from internationalist positions to ‘critical’ support’, though they don’t term it like this, for groups such as Hezbollah and the IRA, just to give an example. I personally find these type of politics quite abhorrent, and anti-working class.


I suppose your referencing Dooley here. I can see what your saying here, I have had thoughts about this myself.

I was referring to Dooley, but I could have equally been referring to the WSM’s support for Des Derwin, or other examples. Dooley is not an isolated case.


I don't think anyone in L&S had any illusions about Dooley in regards to the trasnformations of unions into radical roganisations based on the leadership.

This sounds exactly like Trotskyists talking about the Labour Party, or indeed trade union elections. I think that there is a deep problem with a type of politics like this, which in my opinion act to reinforce illusions within the working class that electing new union leaders is the solution. The fact that the leftists don’t have any illusions in this themselves just shows in my opinion their contempt for workers. It comes across like you know, but think that the working class is to stupid to understand it.


We hardly focused a phenomenal amount of effort into supporting him.

I don’t think the fact that L&S doesn’t put much effort into the political perspectives has got much to do with it.


For me and from talking to others, them too, it was based upon the recognition that a more militant union leader would make it easier for more militant action throughout the union. I think, for example, Bob Crow as head of RMT shows the benefits of this.

Do you believe that this is the case? Is there a particular level of militancy within the RMT that marks it out as significantly different from other unions?

I read the other day that 60% of the strike days lost in the UK last year were in the Post Office. The CWU has a leadership which is generally seen as not at all left or militant. Though for those who can remember back in the day, Billy Hayes used to be a member of BLOC, and I think also Militant. He is a pretty good example of the strategy of electing leftwing union leaders.


We have actually spoke about this in L&S. I suppose you could call it hope and optimism with intrigue too. Rather than simply denouncing Dooley outright because some mythical law dictates that no union leader can ever be more radical,

It is not about some ‘mythical law’, but about the role of the unions today. Of course, there can be more ‘radical’ union leaders and as the class struggle intensifies there will be. That doesn’t mean that they still won’t act against workers’ struggles. It is not about denouncing one man, but understanding the role of the unions.


we wanted to see what would actually happen if he got elected.

Maybe you should look to the historical experience of the working class.


I think if certain Trotskyists in rhetoric or action sound like us I suppose it highlights more how a lot of them, especially the SWP, seem to have an idea of a worker's state different to the traditional conception of it in Leninist circles.

I don’t think the idea of a workers’ state has got anything to do with it at all though I don’t think that the SWP’s conception is very different from the traditional one. We, by the way, don’t believe that there is such a thing as a ‘workers’ state’.


The difference in attitudes between our groups would probably be seen best however in our emphasis more on direct action, as well as our believe in mass organisations of the class not led or controlled by us, but ones we participate it.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘direct action’ here. Does it mean voting for left union officials? The SWP say much the same thing about mass organisations of the class.


I'd probably need you to elaborate further though. We actually discussed this at Marxism, how some Trotskyist ideas and method is close to some anarchist ideas, or less far apart than we thought.

I think that they are just trying to recruit you, but it is true that some anarchists are very close to Trotskyism. I think that Trotskyism is a thoroughly anti-working class current though, and the extent that anarchists are close to it reflects how they are too.

Devrim

[Pogue]

I would suggest that you read Wayne price writing on the last war in Lebanon on Anarkismo.

I will. I don't really hold Anarkismo as my ideological bible though. I'm in L&S because I want people whom I can be active with, as well as because of the fact alot of L&S'ers are also Wobs.



Anarchists can have a whole range of politics from internationalist positions to ‘critical’ support’, though they don’t term it like this, for groups such as Hezbollah and the IRA, just to give an example. I personally find these type of politics quite abhorrent, and anti-working class.


I've never encountered this but rest assured I don't hold such positions.


I was referring to Dooley, but I could have equally been referring to the WSM’s support for Des Derwin, or other examples. Dooley is not an isolated case.

Fair enough. I'm pretty much in agreement with you on the Dooley question. I was jsu tinterested to see what would have happened. But I appreciate this could be seen by an examination of working class history.


This sounds exactly like Trotskyists talking about the Labour Party, or indeed trade union elections. I think that there is a deep problem with a type of politics like this, which in my opinion act to reinforce illusions within the working class that electing new union leaders is the solution. The fact that the leftists don’t have any illusions in this themselves just shows in my opinion their contempt for workers. It comes across like you know, but think that the working class is to stupid to understand it.

I'm sorry if you gained that position but it isn't one I hold. I think your exagerating here and perhaps being a bit dramatic. I believe in the working class self organising to acheive its aims through direct action, I can honestly say any support I had personally for Dooley was grounded in an interest in how things would pan out if he was put in charge.


Do you believe that this is the case? Is there a particular level of militancy within the RMT that marks it out as significantly different from other unions?

I read the other day that 60% of the strike days lost in the UK last year were in the Post Office. The CWU has a leadership which is generally seen as not at all left or militant. Though for those who can remember back in the day, Billy Hayes used to be a member of BLOC, and I think also Militant. He is a pretty good example of the strategy of electing leftwing union leaders.

I don't think there is any rule of thumb which says that a more left wing leader makes a more militant union across the board, but I think Bob Crow's attitudes certainly help the RMT. Although I agree he is part of a wider miltiant tradition.


It is not about some ‘mythical law’, but about the role of the unions today. Of course, there can be more ‘radical’ union leaders and as the class struggle intensifies there will be. That doesn’t mean that they still won’t act against workers’ struggles. It is not about denouncing one man, but understanding the role of the unions.


True.


Maybe you should look to the historical experience of the working class.

OK.


I don’t think the idea of a workers’ state has got anything to do with it at all though I don’t think that the SWP’s conception is very different from the traditional one. We, by the way, don’t believe that there is such a thing as a ‘workers’ state’.


What do you think the SWP's conception is and then the traditional one is? When I hear what the SWP call a state on paper I don't think it sounds too different from what I beleive will come about post-revolution, I think its largely an issue of emphasis and semantics. Its an issue other comrades have said they are unclear on and which needs to be cleared up. Perhaps your position on the non-existence of a 'workers state' and what will, in its place, need to be used to defend a revolution will clear things up for us.


I am not sure what you mean by ‘direct action’ here. Does it mean voting for left union officials? The SWP say much the same thing about mass organisations of the class.

What the SWP say and what they do is very different. Compare their anti-fascist rhetoric to their anti-fascist activities.


I think that they are just trying to recruit you, but it is true that some anarchists are very close to Trotskyism. I think that Trotskyism is a thoroughly anti-working class current though, and the extent that anarchists are close to it reflects how they are too.

If we assume that I now recognise new union leaders has no impact on the class struggle, how do you think my ideas are anti-working class, and how are yours not? I don't think our ideas are that thoroughly different, but then I am sitll trying to get ym head around what excactly it is the ICC believe.

[Devrim]

Edit: there seems to be some icon at the top suggesting I am angry. I am not.

Edit: Edited that out (Leo)


I'm sorry if you gained that position but it isn't one I hold. I think your exagerating here and perhaps being a bit dramatic. I believe in the working class self organising to acheive its aims through direct action, I can honestly say any support I had personally for Dooley was grounded in an interest in how things would pan out if he was put in charge.

I don't think that it is exaggerating at all. I think that it is a crucial question. If you believe, as you seem to, that electing left union leaders won't change things fundamentally, and that it isn't the solution to the problem, then I believe it is basically dishonest to call for workers to elect these leaders. To me it stinks of the idea that you can not be open with the working class. I think Marx wrote something in the Manifesto about "the communists disdain to conceal their ideas". If we know that the unions can't be changed by electing a left leadership, why do we call on workers to vote for them?

The 'I wanted to see what would happen' argument is very, very weak.


I don't think there is any rule of thumb which says that a more left wing leader makes a more militant union across the board, but I think Bob Crow's attitudes certainly help the RMT. Although I agree he is part of a wider miltiant tradition.

Please explain why you think that about Bob Crow. I also think that helping the RMT is very different from helping the workers.


What do you think the SWP's conception is and then the traditional one is? When I hear what the SWP call a state on paper I don't think it sounds too different from what I beleive will come about post-revolution, I think its largely an issue of emphasis and semantics.

I don't think that it is the focus of this thread, but I think that to clear it up we need to know what your understanding of the 'traditional' position is. Have you read 'State and Revolution' for example? At the time many people said that Lenin was making a turn to anarchism, and in many ways that is the classic conception.


Perhaps your position on the non-existence of a 'workers state' and what will, in its place, need to be used to defend a revolution will clear things up for us.

Again a bit off topic, you can look at our pamphlet on the 'Period of Transition' here though: http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/transition


What the SWP say and what they do is very different. Compare their anti-fascist rhetoric to their anti-fascist activities.
Yes, quite true, we haven't seen how anarchist would behave in a similar situation in the UK though.


If we assume that I now recognise new union leaders has no impact on the class struggle, how do you think my ideas are anti-working class, and how are yours not?

I wasn't actually suggesting that yours were. For us the key question is internationalism. In the Second World War Trotskyism betrayed and ended up lining up behind the imperialists. Siince then I think that it is possible to find some Trotskyist group that has taken a side (and often others on the other side) in every one of the world's war and ethnic conflicts. This is what we mean when we classify Trotskyism as an anti-working class current. We classify anarchists who take the sides of different national facions the same way.


I don't think our ideas are that thoroughly different, but then I am sitll trying to get ym head around what excactly it is the ICC believe.

I don't think that they are that difficult really. Maybe I just don't explain them very well.

Devrim

[Pogue]

I don't think that it is exaggerating at all. I think that it is a crucial question. If you believe, as you seem to, that electing left union leaders won't change things fundamentally, and that it isn't the solution to the problem, then I believe it is basically dishonest to call for workers to elect these leaders. To me it stinks of the idea that you can not be open with the working class. I think Marx wrote something in the Manifesto about "the communists disdain to conceal their ideas". If we know that the unions can't be changed by electing a left leadership, why do we call on workers to vote for them?

The 'I wanted to see what would happen' argument is very, very weak.



OK then, Dooley was a mistake.


Please explain why you think that about Bob Crow. I also think that helping the RMT is very different from helping the workers.

Any point I make her other than agreeing with you will probably lead me into an argument which I don't agree with. I fundamentally agree with you - the leadership doesn't matter.


I don't think that it is the focus of this thread, but I think that to clear it up we need to know what your understanding of the 'traditional' position is. Have you read 'State and Revolution' for example? At the time many people said that Lenin was making a turn to anarchism, and in many ways that is the classic conception.

I haven't read it. I judge Lenin by what he did. What he did was far from anarchistic.


Again a bit off topic, you can look at our pamphlet on the 'Period of Transition' here though: http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/transition (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/transition)

I don't think its off topic. I'm not arguing with you here. I've stated I agree with you on most of this and I recognise the whole Dooley thing was a naive position to take. I maintain it would have been interesting to see what happened, but I understand thats a weak reason to support him. Which is why in future I intend to stay away from such campaigns.


Yes, quite true, we haven't seen how anarchist would behave in a similar situation in the UK though.

I can't speak for other anarchists. I can only speak based on my own positions and the positions of the groups I am in. But if you take Antifa to be an anarchist organisation, they recognise the need for a solely class based and militant response to fascism and they do this.

I don't think we can really say what we intend to do after a revolution except make sure we keep the emphasis on workers control, revolutionary politics, etc.


I wasn't actually suggesting that yours were. For us the key question is internationalism. In the Second World War Trotskyism betrayed and ended up lining up behind the imperialists. Siince then I think that it is possible to find some Trotskyist group that has taken a side (and often others on the other side) in every one of the world's war and ethnic conflicts. This is what we mean when we classify Trotskyism as an anti-working class current. We classify anarchists who take the sides of different national facions the same way.

I think this position is an area of weakness deriving from the desire for ideological purity on behalf of left communists. In WW2 I wouldn't want my organisation to say 'We support the Allies' because we wouldn't have, but personal circumstances often contradict politics to an extent. For example, if I was a Jew living in Poland during WW2 I would have allied with anyone I could as a partisan to stop myself getitng sent to a death camp. Would this contradict anarchist politics because I'd be allying with certain political elements I deem anti-working class? It wouldn't come up as an issue to me because my main motivation would be to prevent getting myself killed.


I don't think that they are that difficult really. Maybe I just don't explain them very well.

Well to me they are unclear. However this could just be a result of the way I look at an tendencies ideas and categorise them. Either way when I've queried left communist positions in the group forums I've not really been left any clearer. As an tendency I believe it is quite confused. I think I'd need a one to one talk with a left communist to really clarify things.

[Devrim]

OK then, Dooley was a mistake.
...
Any point I make her other than agreeing with you will probably lead me into an argument which I don't agree with. I fundamentally agree with you - the leadership doesn't matter.

So we can agree that it was a mistake. I think that the thing that is then important to understand is why these sort of mistakes happen. I think that there is a tendency within anarchism to just write things off as mistakes. The Spanish anarchists joining the government was a 'mistake'...but why are these mistakes made?

I would put it down in this case to a lack of theoretical understanding about the nature of the unions, and a lack of thinking through how revolutionaries approach the issue. The result is people making a seemingly random decision on each and every issue, and a complete lack of coherence.

It is a question that L&S needs to ask itself. Should revolutionaries campaign for the election of left wing union leaders? If so, why? If not, why not? But ultimately it needs a deeper understanding of the nature of the unions.


I haven't read it. I judge Lenin by what he did. What he did was far from anarchistic.

What did Lenin do? In 1915, he was at the forfront of communist politics, rejecting national defence and arguing for turning the imperialist war into a civil war. In 1917, against the majority of the party, he succesfully argued for the need for the soviets to assume power. Yet in 1921, he ended up taking the side of the state against the working class at Krondstadt.

Lenin was at one point a great revolutionary. Did he make mistakes? Yes. Did he ultimately end up arrayed against the working class? Yes, but that does not negate his contribution.

'State and Revolution' was widely seen at the time as a move towards anarchism. Others argued that it was a reafirmation of Marxism. It does though provide the 'traditional position'; All power to the Soviets.



I think this position is an area of weakness deriving from the desire for ideological purity on behalf of left communists. In WW2 I wouldn't want my organisation to say 'We support the Allies' because we wouldn't have, but personal circumstances often contradict politics to an extent. For example, if I was a Jew living in Poland during WW2 I would have allied with anyone I could as a partisan to stop myself getitng sent to a death camp. Would this contradict anarchist politics because I'd be allying with certain political elements I deem anti-working class? It wouldn't come up as an issue to me because my main motivation would be to prevent getting myself killed.

There are times when people are forced into positions where they have to take action to defend their own lives. I don't think that anybody can condemn the actions of Jewish partisans in the Warsaw ghetto uprising on a personal level. However, there is a difference between fighting to save your life and trying to pretend that these things are revolutionary politics.

It may actually surprise you that one of the founder members of the ICC, Mark_Chiric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Chiric), was actually a jew, who was involved in Militant communist activity during the Second World War in France. Many other left communists across Europe struggled on internationalist lines, against both sides in the war. Many of them dying in the camps, and some of them murdered by Stalinists.


Well to me they are unclear. However this could just be a result of the way I look at an tendencies ideas and categorise them. Either way when I've queried left communist positions in the group forums I've not really been left any clearer. As an tendency I believe it is quite confused. I think I'd need a one to one talk with a left communist to really clarify things.

I am quite surprised by this as to me, even before I agreed with them, the ideas of the ICC seemed to have a deep consistance about them. I can understand people disagreeing, but to say we are 'confused' seems quite strange to me.

Devrim

[Pogue]

So we can agree that it was a mistake. I think that the thing that is then important to understand is why these sort of mistakes happen. I think that there is a tendency within anarchism to just write things off as mistakes. The Spanish anarchists joining the government was a 'mistake'...but why are these mistakes made?

I would put it down in this case to a lack of theoretical understanding about the nature of the unions, and a lack of thinking through how revolutionaries approach the issue. The result is people making a seemingly random decision on each and every issue, and a complete lack of coherence.

It is a question that L&S needs to ask itself. Should revolutionaries campaign for the election of left wing union leaders? If so, why? If not, why not? But ultimately it needs a deeper understanding of the nature of the unions.

I'll bring it up then.


What did Lenin do? In 1915, he was at the forfront of communist politics, rejecting national defence and arguing for turning the imperialist war into a civil war. In 1917, against the majority of the party, he succesfully argued for the need for the soviets to assume power. Yet in 1921, he ended up taking the side of the state against the working class at Krondstadt.

Lenin was at one point a great revolutionary. Did he make mistakes? Yes. Did he ultimately end up arrayed against the working class? Yes, but that does not negate his contribution.

'State and Revolution' was widely seen at the time as a move towards anarchism. Others argued that it was a reafirmation of Marxism. It does though provide the 'traditional position'; All power to the Soviets.

I agree with this, although you can see that Lenin was betraying the working class much earlier than 1921 if you read The Bolsheviks and Worker's Control.


There are times when people are forced into positions where they have to take action to defend their own lives. I don't think that anybody can condemn the actions of Jewish partisans in the Warsaw ghetto uprising on a personal level. However, there is a difference between fighting to save your life and trying to pretend that these things are revolutionary politics.

It may actually surprise you that one of the founder members of the ICC, Mark_Chiric (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Chiric), was actually a jew, who was involved in Militant communist activity during the Second World War in France. Many other left communists across Europe struggled on internationalist lines, against both sides in the war. Many of them dying in the camps, and some of them murdered by Stalinists.

So the ICC would in fact recognise worker's self defence during WW2 may have pushed them into less ideologically pure positions? Your critique of the partisan's has emerged in the past and it seemed incredibly unfair, but if that was just because of a lack of clarity and you do in fact now recognise they were neccesary then that's good.


I am quite surprised by this as to me, even before I agreed with them, the ideas of the ICC seemed to have a deep consistance about them. I can understand people disagreeing, but to say we are 'confused' seems quite strange to me.

I was referring to left communism, not the ICC in particular, as you can see I mentioned 'tendency' and 'left communism' there and not the ICC specifically. I don't see why you want an internationally centralised party nor how you envisage a revolution taking place and avoiding the mistakes it will have to avoid, and I don't understand the role you envisage yourselves taking as left communists.

[Devrim]

I agree with this, although you can see that Lenin was betraying the working class much earlier than 1921 if you read The Bolsheviks and Worker's Control.
I have. It was a short list though focusing on three major points. I think the Krondstadt one is crucial because it meant using armed power against the working class on a massive scale.


So the ICC would in fact recognise worker's self defence during WW2 may have pushed them into less ideologically pure positions? Your critique of the partisan's has emerged in the past and it seemed incredibly unfair, but if that was just because of a lack of clarity and you do in fact now recognise they were neccesary then that's good.

No, we don't recognise that the partisan's were 'neccesary'. The vast majority of them were about mobilisng workers to fight on behalf of the imperialists. What we recognise is that there are times when a class response seems almost impossible, and there are also times when workers have to fight for their lives. I think the ghetto uprising could possibly be an example of this. The partisans in general are not.


I don't see why you want an internationally centralised party
To centralise the experience and activity of revolutionaries internationally.


...nor how you envisage a revolution taking place

By the mass strike and the workers' councils seizing power.

...and avoiding the mistakes it will have to avoid,
Revolutions will always 'make mistakes'

...and I don't understand the role you envisage yourselves taking as left communists.
That of a revolutionary party arguing for communist politics in our workplaces, press, and the councils.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

Honestly, I'm not really a "fan" of it. I think it does raise some important points to consider, namely how a revolution can be steered in "the right direction". But the fact that it was and has been attacked by a broad swath of anarchists and tendencies also raises concerns with me; Voline was (vehemently) against it, Malatesta criticized it and Rocker used his influence in the IWA to work against it. The Platformist response to this is usually that those figures and others suffered from "knee-jerk anti-authoritarianism", or that they misunderstood the document itself. I don't think that the first criticism holds much water, but I think that the fact that so many people "misunderstood" the Platform probably points out a weakness of it. They claim in the document that all anarchist militants recognize the need for good organization, yet then go on to say that disorganization is tearing the anarchist movement apart...which doesn't make a terrible amount of sense.

[MilitantWorker]

from my perspective this has become an argument of federated vs centralized

i see a need for both.

sry guys its 5 am here and im going to bed. i have written on this a lot in various notes, ill try to gather them next post

[Devrim]

On the content of the Platform, I think Devrim makes some good general comments. The Platform (as representative of the work of Dielo Truda and the anarchist movement more generally) does certainly represent a reaction against the degeneration of the Russian Revolution. However, maybe Devrim could clarify his identification of the Platform as a "step in a positive direction", I'm not sure if it can really be called that.

I think that it is a step in a positive direction in that it stress organisation as opposed to what there was before. It is a move towards centralism.

Devrim

[Pogue]

Something I was unclear on that I've just had clarified having spoken to another member last night (I said I'd follow this up with the group)

L&S didn't back Dooley organisationally. A few members acting individually through contacts in the rank and file shop steward movement expressed support for him. It wasn't an organisational policy. I thought it was, but I did think that was odd. So that doesn't really act as a crticism of L&S.

[Devrim]

L&S didn't back Dooley organisationally. A few members acting individually through contacts in the rank and file shop steward movement expressed support for him. It wasn't an organisational policy. I thought it was, but I did think that was odd. So that doesn't really act as a crticism of L&S.

Is this what the famed 'platformist' "theoretical and tactical unity" means? Of course the political actions of members of an organisation reflect on that organisation.
Devrim

[Pogue]

Is this what the famed 'platformist' "theoretical and tactical unity" means? Of course the political actions of members of an organisation reflect on that organisation.
Devrim

All I said was that organisationally we didn't support Dooley, which clears up my earlier claim that we did.

[Devrim]

All I said was that organisationally we didn't support Dooley, which clears up my earlier claim that we did.

So what you are saying is that it is typical anarchist liberalism and lack of coherence. Everybody is allowed to have their own political positions and act upon them instead of acting in a collective manner.

Really what is then the point of having an organisation?

And what does "theoretical and tactical unity" mean?

Devrim

[Pogue]

So what you are saying is that it is typical anarchist liberalism and lack of coherence. Everybody is allowed to have their own political positions and act upon them instead of acting in a collective manner.

Really what is then the point of having an organisation?

And what does "theoretical and tactical unity" mean?

Devrim

I think the high point of when we acted like liberals was probably that time when we all went round Nick Clegg's for a sing song and a few pints, before holding a peaceful demonstration to ask for nicer capitalism.

I think you have L&S confused with the anarchist entryist faction into the Liberal Democrat Party.

Organisationally we didn't have a position on Dooley at all, so we weren't going against anything. Theoretical and tactical unity wasn't contradicted because we didn't talk about Dooley as an organisation.

A few members of that group and others decided we'd support him in his election at the time, this was done as I said through someone else who literally asked a comrade if they would help with Dooley's campaign.

I've brought this up for discussion although not formally yet, we haven't created a solid position on Dooley yet.

I think you misunderstand Platformism. Its not that we can't do anything outside of the group. We don't have an organisational position on the the Edo arms factory and the campaign to shut it but a few of us attended that anyway. If we had previously voted not to support it for whatever odd reason and we still went, that would be going against platformism and would mean there'd be no point in having an organisation.

[Devrim]

Organisationally we didn't have a position on Dooley at all, so we weren't going against anything. Theoretical and tactical unity wasn't contradicted because we didn't talk about Dooley as an organisation.

It is not about having a position about a particular man, but about having a position about unions and how revolutionaries should relate to them. The question is not whether to vote for this particular man, but whether to vote in elections for trade union General Secretarys in general. If you decide that you should, then it can be a question of whether you vote for a particular candidate, but it is in itself taking a position.

Is that the position that L&S has, that people should decide to vote in these type of elections individually based upon their personal assesment of the candidate? It is not much of a position, and in my view is abject 'do what you want' liberalism, but at least it is a position.

However, I suspect that L&S is even less coherent than that and has no position at all.


I think you misunderstand Platformism. Its not that we can't do anything outside of the group. We don't have an organisational position on the the Edo arms factory and the campaign to shut it but a few of us attended that anyway. If we had previously voted not to support it for whatever odd reason and we still went, that would be going against platformism and would mean there'd be no point in having an organisation.

I think you misunderstand the point. It is not about having a position on every seperate event, but a general framework, which encompases those events. The orientation towards the trade unions is a cruical issue in the class struggle not a single campaign.

Devrim

[Charlie Mowbray]

I totally agree with what Devrim says on this, and would have said the same if I had the time to sit down at length and type long(ish) texts for these boards.
And as you say:However, I think that it must be stressed that it is merely an organizational doccument. The political positions adopted by the 'platformists' today are in no means a direct consequence of this doccument, nor are they neccesarly oppossed to it, and in my opinion differ little from Trotskyism.

Not that much wrong with what's in the Platform , bearing in mind that it was to an extent of its time (1926) . It's modern Platformists I have a problem with in the main, for the same reasons you give.