Platformism

[bricolage]

If platformism is a just a method of organisation and not a school of anarchism does that mean platformist organisations can also be, and need to be, anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist or does platformism represent something else, in which case how would a post-revolutionary platformist society differ from a post-revolutionary anarcho-communist society? Also for those in platformist organisations do you also consider yourselves anarcho-communists or anarcho-syndicalists or are you just a platformist?

[Pogue]

I'm in a platformist organisation, L&S. I'd consider myself an anarcho-syndicalist. I wouldn't ever really describe myself as an Platformist as my main tendency, although alot of people tend to describe me as such. I don't really think it has much impact on my politics, I purely see it as an organisaitonal thing, although alot of people see it as having a political policy based element too.

I don't think it has radically different politics I just think it seeks to come to coherent positions on topics, which leads to some people denouncing it as un-anarchistic or at least removed from mainstream anarchism. I don't think this is the case. I think a large part of the original platform, aside from proposing how an anarchist organisation could better function, was also about us offering practical solutions and positions on certain topics usually blanket denounced by anarchists. For example simply saying 'We oppose national liberation struggles' - you need to go further than this and propose something in its place. Also on topics such as crime, and immigration, usually meant with anarchist prhases such as 'it will disappear under communism' and 'no borders'. Because we want to become a solid political force we want to actually produce solid policies on each of these topics from an anarchist viewpoint.

I also think platformism tends to take a 'what works' approach. So we will do whatever works to get our objectives across without staying religiously to unpractical principles, which could also lead to different positions or actions than other groups.

I think there is a danger with that though which I warn against. Obviously alot of libertarian principles have to be abided by otherwise your not lbiertarian anymore. So that doesn't mean as platformists we'd instill a dictatorship to implement anarchism form above or anything. it just means we might do some things other anarchists would reject. i guess a good example would be engaging with the unions, from a lbiertarian perspective.

So yeh as I said I consider myself an anarcho-syndicalsit but I am also a platformist. I don't think it represents a different ideology as such but alot of different tactics and attitudes, something which is good on one hand but on the other something which has to guard against conreradicting solid libertarian principles that are there for a reason - because anything else doesn't work.

[New Tet]

They're just garden-variety anarchists. They grow in bunches; often sprouting out of the well-tilled soil of Middleclass where Hobbits tend them with a loving hand.


Posibles particularidades ideológicas [editar (http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plataformismo&action=edit&section=2)]

Algunos de los plataformistas admiten como trasfondo doctrinal alguna forma de materialismo histórico (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialismo_hist%C3%B3rico) o "materialismo sociológico" (al estilo de Bakunin) como requisto indispensable para cualquier análisis anarquista y como declaración oficial de cualquier organización anarquista y no sólo como un punto de vista.
El hecho de que algunoss plataformistas asuman obligatoriamente el materialismo histórico no significa en absoluto que sean marxistas, ya que la forma específica de materialismo histórico marxista es el socialismo científico (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialismo_cient%C3%ADfico) que no es lo mismo que materialismo histórico.
Otra particularidad ideológica es que económicamente las organizaciones plataformistas postulan el comunismo libertario (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comunismo_libertario) cómo la única forma económica genuina del anarquismo, y de declaración obligatoria para toda organización de este tipo.

[kharacter]

I'm in a platformist organisation, L&S. I'd consider myself an anarcho-syndicalist. I wouldn't ever really describe myself as an Platformist as my main tendency, although alot of people tend to describe me as such. I don't really think it has much impact on my politics, I purely see it as an organisaitonal thing, although alot of people see it as having a political policy based element too.

I don't think it has radically different politics I just think it seeks to come to coherent positions on topics, which leads to some people denouncing it as un-anarchistic or at least removed from mainstream anarchism. I don't think this is the case. I think a large part of the original platform, aside from proposing how an anarchist organisation could better function, was also about us offering practical solutions and positions on certain topics usually blanket denounced by anarchists. For example simply saying 'We oppose national liberation struggles' - you need to go further than this and propose something in its place. Also on topics such as crime, and immigration, usually meant with anarchist prhases such as 'it will disappear under communism' and 'no borders'. Because we want to become a solid political force we want to actually produce solid policies on each of these topics from an anarchist viewpoint.

I also think platformism tends to take a 'what works' approach. So we will do whatever works to get our objectives across without staying religiously to unpractical principles, which could also lead to different positions or actions than other groups.

I think there is a danger with that though which I warn against. Obviously alot of libertarian principles have to be abided by otherwise your not lbiertarian anymore. So that doesn't mean as platformists we'd instill a dictatorship to implement anarchism form above or anything. it just means we might do some things other anarchists would reject. i guess a good example would be engaging with the unions, from a lbiertarian perspective.

So yeh as I said I consider myself an anarcho-syndicalsit but I am also a platformist. I don't think it represents a different ideology as such but alot of different tactics and attitudes, something which is good on one hand but on the other something which has to guard against conreradicting solid libertarian principles that are there for a reason - because anything else doesn't work.
I've been thinking a lot about platformism and 'The' platform, and this was a useful post.

I've also been thinking a lot about anarcho-syndicalism and trade unions, but I'm wondering, does the original platform encourage involvement with trade unions?

Also, would you consider yourself anarcho-communist or anarcho-collectivist in addition to being anarcho-syndicalist?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I think a large part of the original platform, aside from proposing how an anarchist organisation could better function, was also about us offering practical solutions and positions on certain topics usually blanket denounced by anarchists. For example simply saying 'We oppose national liberation struggles' - you need to go further than this and propose something in its place. Also on topics such as crime, and immigration, usually meant with anarchist prhases such as 'it will disappear under communism' and 'no borders'. Because we want to become a solid political force we want to actually produce solid policies on each of these topics from an anarchist viewpoint.
But non-platformist anarchists also propose alternatives to national liberation struggles and put forward solid positions on crime and immigration. So I can't see a difference here, unless by "produce solid policies on these topics from an anarchist viewpoint" you mean "support the state in repressing migrant workers". Which I really, really hope you don't mean.

[Pogue]

I've been thinking a lot about platformism and 'The' platform, and this was a useful post.

I've also been thinking a lot about anarcho-syndicalism and trade unions, but I'm wondering, does the original platform encourage involvement with trade unions?

Also, would you consider yourself anarcho-communist or anarcho-collectivist in addition to being anarcho-syndicalist?

I don't really distinguish myself between the two, nor do I think it is possible for us to do so. It will differ from place to place and the working class will make the decisions. Also, anarcho-collectivism is seen by many collectivists as just the precursor to anarcho-communism, i.e. collectivism will be implemented until communism is possible. I agree with this idea, so you could say I am both or neither. Its not something I'm overly concerned with, both are fine as they represent democratic workers control anyway.

[Pogue]

But non-platformist anarchists also propose alternatives to national liberation struggles and put forward solid positions on crime and immigration. So I can't see a difference here, unless by "produce solid policies on these topics from an anarchist viewpoint" you mean "support the state in repressing migrant workers". Which I really, really hope you don't mean.

I don't think platformists are the only people to really be concerned on such issues, its just that the view that as an ideology we need to focus on them more is an argument I hear more from members of my group, which is Platformist.

I don't understand the latter part of your post, it seems out of character. In what possible circumstance would you find me supporting the state in repressing migrant workers? Why do you even feel a need to doubt over my position on 'the state repressing migrant workers'? I take that as an insult and would like you to clarify that.

[New Tet]

I take that as an insult and would like you to clarify that.

Take it differently. Assume (yeah, yeah, I heard that long before some of you were born, thank you very much) that Mr. U. Farce, is hoping with all his heart that you are really a nice guy without personal rancor of any kind toward the guys and gals that pick my tomatoes.

It's a wise move, my friend, believe me. You do not want to cross a brasero, especially when he's holding your tomatoes in his callous hands.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I don't understand the latter part of your post, it seems out of character. In what possible circumstance would you find me supporting the state in repressing migrant workers? Why do you even feel a need to doubt over my position on 'the state repressing migrant workers'? I take that as an insult and would like you to clarify that.
I was just curious as to what the platformist line on immigration is, cos you were talking about how it was specifically different from the standard anarchist/no borders position. You do seem to much too smart and principled to support immigration controls, which is why I said I hoped that wasn't what you meant, but you seemed to be making an effort to distance platformism from no borders. Sorry if I phrased that in an overly hostile way. To me, you either support "no borders" or "some borders", but maybe I take too much of a black-and-white view of these things.

[Pogue]

I was just curious as to what the platformist line on immigration is, cos you were talking about how it was specifically different from the standard anarchist/no borders position. You do seem to much too smart and principled to support immigration controls, which is why I said I hoped that wasn't what you meant, but you seemed to be making an effort to distance platformism from no borders. Sorry if I phrased that in an overly hostile way. To me, you either support "no borders" or "some borders", but maybe I take too much of a black-and-white view of these things.

My point was that we don't just say 'No borders' and leave it at that because that is not the sort of solution which will bring people to your side because it implies you haven't thought it out. Its pure sloganeering and its become dogma that any discussion on immigration beyond the 'under anarchist communism there will be no borders' is to be hidden from. I think our movement needs to go into more detail on our views on immigration.

Peronsally my view is that its a matter of where they are distributed in a country, and the extent to which the community is made aware of the new arrivals, and also the extent to which they are integrated. I think there is enough room for immigrants to this country, the only country I can meaningfully discuss immigration in detail on due to the knowledge I have, but they are simply not distributed properly. I think there is an issue of lack of integration too. I think we can offer practical solutions, as libertarians, such as giving housing to migrants in areas with a lower population, putting the community in control and making sure they are integrated, instead of segregated, which happens to much now (i.e. people stay in one area with alot of people of their own ethnicity. Obviously this means people don't mix, get to know each other, and recognise their similarities, instead an image fo difference is brought about reinforced by the mainstream press and government).

I think its a complex issue, and simply saying 'no borders' is not a clever way to go about this as when it comes down to the practicalities of immigration we have to go into more detail. This means talking about issues such as too much density in some areas versus scarcity in others. I think people will see reason in this. This naturally leads into other issues such as job creation in areas outside of the already highly populated big cities, and housing.

So I criticise the dogma of just saying 'No borders' in a naive way when in reality its about mroe than that and we'll have to deal with more than that with immigration, which is not a problem, but is at the moment incredibly poorly mismanaged by a brutal government which doesn't give a fuck. I think as libertarians it is our duty to put our ideas ot better use, offering better tohught out and detailed solutions than we are known to do.

[The Feral Underclass]

My point was that we don't just say 'No borders' and leave it at that because that is not the sort of solution which will bring people to your side because it implies you haven't thought it out.

The working class will organise themselves, overthrow capitalism and the state and begin a transition to a stateless, classless society, eventually rendering nations irrelevant.

What other solution do you suggest we need?

[Pogue]

The working class will organise themselves, overthrow capitalism and the state and begin a transition to a stateless, classless society, eventually rendering nations irrelevant.

What other solution do you suggest we need?

What about in that period in between the establishment of the classless, stateless society, eventually rendering nations irrelevant?

[nuisance]

Vigourously masterbate and drink tea?
I think anarchists have quite comprehensibly covered various practices to engage in during the revolutionary period and you know that.

[The Feral Underclass]

What about in that period in between the establishment of the classless, stateless society, eventually rendering nations irrelevant?

What about it?

[The Feral Underclass]

EDIT: Forget it.

[ls]

The working class will organise themselves, overthrow capitalism and the state and begin a transition to a stateless, classless society, eventually rendering nations irrelevant.

What other solution do you suggest we need?

A FINAL SOLUTION!

Nah but seriously, going into more detail is never a bad thing. Especially if you're trying to convince someone that social-democracy is crap.

I've had conversations with people who were vehemently spouting xenophobic crap, but managed to eventually turn them around by pointing out the obvious contradictions that occur with workers here in the UK. Elaborating on your position beyond 'no borders' is not theoretically a good idea, it IS a good idea and it does a great deal to convince people that we should in fact have no borders.

[The Feral Underclass]

Nah but seriously, going into more detail is never a bad thing. Especially if you're trying to convince someone that social-democracy is crap.

Yes, but we, as anarchists or as people in organisations don't have the answers. We don't know what will happen, nor can we make claims that we do. The only people to work out those issues are the working class, collectively; organised and empowered.

It's obviously necessary to offer a frame-work of practice and ideas, but it is dangerously vanguardist and dishonest to suggest that we both know and should convince people that we have some blue print for how their lives should or will be.

[Pogue]

Vigourously masterbate and drink tea?
I think anarchists have quite comprehensibly covered various practices to engage in during the revolutionary period and you know that.

I don't think they really have. If someone is genuinely 'concerned about immigration' telling them we have an socio-economic system that will flawlessly erode borders isn't really going to cut it. It's quasi-religious, and ignores the fact there will be practical considerations during a revolutionary period. I think offering actual solutions backed up with statistics allows us to produce a coherent position on this. Imagine it like a mnifesto, but of libertarian socialists. Under immigration we mention what our take on it is, and for me and alot of members of my group the idea is that we spread it out properly, we make sure there is integration and also community control. If anything this is just a more detailed view than simply saying 'no borders' or 'under communism there will be no need for borders'.

[Pogue]

Yes, but we, as anarchists or as people in organisations don't have the answers. We don't know what will happen, nor can we make claims that we do. The only people to work out those issues are the working class, collectively; organised and empowered.

It's obviously necessary to offer a frame-work of practice and ideas, but it is dangerously vanguardist and dishonest to suggest that we both know and should convince people that we have some blue print for how their lives should or will be.

No, but as working class people ourselves we do have our own positions that we would like other working class people to agree with. Seeing as immigration is an topic every other ideology has a position on, I think it makes sense for us to also have this, especially as we have the best solutions to it.

[The Feral Underclass]

If someone is genuinely 'concerned about immigration' telling them we have an socio-economic system that will flawlessly erode borders isn't really going to cut it.

Why not? And in any case, if someone has a problem with immigration, then we have to explain to them what the actual issues are.


It's quasi-religious, and ignores the fact there will be practical considerations during a revolutionary period.No one is ignoring that fact at all. It's perfectly obvious that there will be the need for "practical considerations during a revolutionary period", but that doesn't mean we need to lay them out now. Not least of all because it would be totally impossible to do so.


I think offering actual solutions backed up with statistics allows us to produce a coherent position on this.Well go on then...


Imagine it like a mnifesto, but of libertarian socialists. Under immigration we mention what our take on it is, and for me and alot of members of my group the idea is that we spread it out properly, we make sure there is integration and also community control. If anything this is just a more detailed view than simply saying 'no borders' or 'under communism there will be no need for borders'.That's not detailed on any level, not even a basic one. What does "community control" and "integration" mean?


o, but as working class people ourselves we do have our own positions that we would like other working class people to agree with.I have an analysis I would like working class people to agree with, not a "position". My positions change depending on historical circumstance. My analysis however, remains pretty constant. The "positions" of societal organisation are not up to me or my organisation. They are up to workplaces and communities and I am one person with an opinion in a community and workplace.


Seeing as immigration is an topic every other ideology has a position on, I think it makes sense for us to also have thisEven if it doesn't make sense? I'm not really sure I follow what you mean by "ideology" having positions on immigration?

I mean, you can't realistically structure a societal immigration policy for a post revolutionary society. That's just ludicrous. You have no basis of understanding what will be needed, or indeed what the social, political and economic situations of any particular area will be in a period of such upheaval, in order to even get a sense of what will be needed. There's simply, absolutely no way you could effectively create some understanding of such things. Not only is it totally futile to attempt to do it, it seems pretty arrogant to assume that you have the right to take leadership over such matters, when it's not up to you or your organisation.

[Pogue]

Why not? And in any case, if someone has a problem with immigration, then we have to explain to them what the actual issues are.



Sure, and I think explaining how immigration is not an issue and could also be handled alot better than it is at the moment is all a part of this.


No one is ignoring that fact at all. It's perfectly obvious that there will be the need for "practical considerations during a revolutionary period", but that doesn't mean we need to lay them out now. Not least of all because it would be totally impossible to do so.


But following that logic we might as well propose no ideas for a post-capitalist society at all. That is of course ridiculous. There are some things we can meaningfully and accurately speculate about.


Well go on then...

Seeing as to do this would need for me to write up at least a few pages on the ethnic make up of Britain, the distribution of these people, and all the statistics disproving the claims that immigrants are lazy, criminals etc, I'm not going to do it now, but my point is we can conclusively prove there are better ways to manage immigration and that statistically and factually its not a problem.


That's not detailed on any level, not even a basic one. What does "community control" and "integration" mean?

As I said, it throws out more ideas than just making the claim 'under communism borders would be eroded'. If I was talking to someone on the street I'd elaborate on it more. Do you really want me too here?

[Forward Union]

If platformism is a just a method of organisation and not a school of anarchism does that mean platformist organisations can also be, and need to be, anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist or does platformism represent something else

That's a complicated issue. At the end of the day, Platformism is a tendancy or 'tradition' within Anarchist-communism. It's distinguishable from other forms of Anarchist Communism by it's organisational methods (collective discipline, federalism, tactical unity and theoretical unity)

However, the original platform and pretty much all later platformist organisations have also taken the political position of operation within mainstream unions as opposed to building Anarchist Unions or rejecting them outright.


Also for those in platformist organisations do you also consider yourselves anarcho-communists or anarcho-syndicalists or are you just a platformist? Well, I would not really object to being labeled any of those terms.


Well go on then...

One of the better Immigration articles... http://www.iwca.info/?p=10129

[Tomhet]

I view platformism as being a realistic approach to actually 'successful' anarchism.
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/index.htm
^ Nestor Makhnos words can explain better then I can.

[Forward Union]

The working class will organise themselves, overthrow capitalism and the state and begin a transition to a stateless, classless society, eventually rendering nations irrelevant.

What other solution do you suggest we need?

Migrant workers are being paid far below the minimum wage, being forced from their homes by economic conditions. They are hired throuh agencies who often break establish labour laws. (Labaour laws that were fought for by Anarchists long before even Nick Heath was born)

This situation is not only bad for the migrant workers, but the British workers who's wages are undercut by unionised migrant labour.

We need to propose practical solutions to these issues. "No Borders" in the here and now is nothing more than neo-liberal border deregulation gone mad. It will not fix but harden the problems of the working people. So while we ultimately do need to abolish borders, this must be done through strengthening class solidarity, and not through liberal networks like noborders. Agencies that beak Labour or Health and Safety law should be combated legally* by the Unions, Mirant workers should be approached and recruited by the Unions (who are currently not doing this, another reason we need to be active within them) Efforts must be made to unionise migrant labour and 'native' labour into the unions, and we must push for greater cooperation within unions internationally, aiming to build a labour international.



*not happening because of internal corruption which people lick Mick Dooley pledged to stop.

[Pogue]

I have an analysis I would like working class people to agree with, not a "position". My positions change depending on historical circumstance. My analysis however, remains pretty constant. The "positions" of societal organisation are not up to me or my organisation. They are up to workplaces and communities and I am one person with an opinion in a community and workplace.

And the role of revolutionaries is to offer their input to other members of the class. my input will be my position on immigration.



Even if it doesn't make sense? I'm not really sure I follow what you mean by "ideology" having positions on immigration?

I mean, you can't realistically structure a societal immigration policy for a post revolutionary society. That's just ludicrous. You have no basis of understanding what will be needed, or indeed what the social, political and economic situations of any particular area will be in a period of such upheaval, in order to even get a sense of what will be needed. There's simply, absolutely no way you could effectively create some understanding of such things. Not only is it totally futile to attempt to do it, it seems pretty arrogant to assume that you have the right to take leadership over such matters, when it's not up to you or your organisation.


I never said its up to me or my organisation. I said I have an opinion on it which I would like to be heard. I think its a good opinion. I think its an opinion consistent with my politics, so I will try to spread this opinion.

[ComradeOm]

The working class will organise themselves, overthrow capitalism and the state and begin a transition to a stateless, classless society, eventually rendering nations irrelevantThe problem of course being, as Russian anarchists discovered in 1917, that such vague sentiments are wholly inadequate when dealing with a real revolutionary situation. Platformism can be criticised from a variety of standpoints but it remains a tangible attempt by anarchists to organise themselves when faced with a genuine proletarian revolution. Personally, and this is just me, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt - if anarchists in revolutionary Russia believed that a more developed/unified organisational model was necessary then they were at least in a good position to judge

To criticise such efforts on the basis that "the working class will organise themselves" strikes me as crass determinism or 'pure mechanicalism'

[The Ungovernable Farce]

"No Borders" in the here and now is nothing more than neo-liberal border deregulation gone mad. It will not fix but harden the problems of the working people.
Do you mean the group or the general slogan?

So while we ultimately do need to abolish borders, this must be done through strengthening class solidarity, and not through liberal networks like noborders.You call No Borders liberal based on what?

Agencies that beak Labour or Health and Safety law should be combated legally* by the UnionsSo an activist group working to provide direct solidarity with migrant workers is liberal, but getting unions to prosecute people who break the law is revolutionary? What about agencies that stay within the law, but still completely fuck migrant workers over?

people lick Mick Dooley.I'm incredibly childish, I know, but I still laughed at this.

[The Feral Underclass]

Sure, and I think explaining how immigration is not an issue and could also be handled alot better than it is at the moment is all a part of this.

In the context of what, though? Like I've said, I do not accept that you have the ability to formalise a 'post-revolutionary policy' on immigration, unless you're psychic. If you're talking about how an "anarchist" organisation can form a policy for immigration under capitalism, then I think that's totally misguided and would ultimately have to rely on statist solutions,


But following that logic we might as well propose no ideas for a post-capitalist society at all.

Nothing of what I said allows you to follow to that conclusion. Saying you cannot formulate a post-revolutionary immigration policy right now does not mean you can say nothing about a post-capitalist society.


That is of course ridiculous. There are some things we can meaningfully and accurately speculate about.

Yes, there are some things that we can propose that are consist with how we view maintaining a transition to a communist society.


my point is we can conclusively prove there are better ways to manage immigration and that statistically and factually its not a problem.

Why do we need to "manage" immigration? Who would be doing this "managing"? What does it even mean to "manage" and why is it important?


As I said, it throws out more ideas than just making the claim 'under communism borders would be eroded'. If I was talking to someone on the street I'd elaborate on it more. Do you really want me too here?

Well, yeah. I don't know what you're talking about? I really don't see how you can have come up with a policy on immigration for a post-revolutionary society.

I also don't see why saying "under communism borders would be eroded" is a particularly bad thing to say: In fact, that's what we should be saying, because it's true and that's what we want. We want people to understand what that means, not conflate and compound people with administrative policies...


And the role of revolutionaries is to offer their input to other members of the class. my input will be my position on immigration.

Which I would consider to be wholly redundant when in reality the working class have far more important issues to worry about than immigration. The far-right peddle his issue as being vitally important, when in actual fact it's not.


I never said its up to me or my organisation. I said I have an opinion on it which I would like to be heard. I think its a good opinion. I think its an opinion consistent with my politics, so I will try to spread this opinion.

What is this opinion?

I cannot help but feel that all your talk of coming up with immigration policies kind of detracts from the real issues facing communities and workplaces. Exalting capitalist issues like immigration into this position of importance seems totally unnecessary.

I think you're playing into the hands of the far-right and the bourgeoisie by taking their issues and saying "well, the working class care about immigration therefore we must". Actually, immigration is used by these institutions to create fear and votes and to victimise sections of society who can bare the brunt of the economic failures of capitalism.

Immigration is not a problem, capitalism is. That's not the grand, idealistic narrative that you seem to be implying. It's objective fact and that's what we should be talking about.

[The Feral Underclass]

The problem of course being, as Russian anarchists discovered in 1917, that such vague sentiments are wholly inadequate when dealing with a real revolutionary situation.

It's not vague at all. If you must, let's take the Ukrainian and Spanish model. We have very clear historical examples of how to organise and what is successful and is not.


Platformism can be criticised from a variety of standpoints but it remains a tangible attempt by anarchists to organise themselves when faced with a genuine proletarian revolution.

The ideas inherent in the platform are fine. It's mostly common sense. We're talking about modern neo-platformist organisations who are, for all intent and purpose, talking nonsense.


To criticise such efforts on the basis that "the working class will organise themselves" strikes me as crass determinism or 'pure mechanicalism'

What is being talking about in this thread is not the needs or efforts to "tangibly organise ourselves as anarchists", but how immigration policy will operate in a post-revolutionary society.

They're two different things.

[Devrim]

I think its a complex issue, and simply saying 'no borders' is not a clever way to go about this as when it comes down to the practicalities of immigration we have to go into more detail. This means talking about issues such as too much density in some areas versus scarcity in others. I think people will see reason in this. This naturally leads into other issues such as job creation in areas outside of the already highly populated big cities, and housing.

I think that this quote highlights a certain problem. It is not the task of revolutionaries to manage capitalism or suggest ways in which the management of capitalism can be improved.

To give a completly different example, communists can join with workers in demanding things like a wage increase and no redundancies. They can not join with the unions in demanding that the wage increase should be funded by, for example, 'a 10% increase in productivity, and a increase of 5% in product size.

It is not the task of communists to get into an argument about immigration and population density.

Devrim

[Pogue]

I think that this quote highlights a certain problem. It is not the task of revolutionaries to manage capitalism or suggest ways in which the management of capitalism can be improved.

To give a completly different example, communists can join with workers in demanding things like a wage increase and no redundancies. They can not join with the unions in demanding that the wage increase should be funded by, for example, 'a 10% increase in productivity, and a increase of 5% in product size.

It is not the task of communists to get into an argument about immigration and population density.

Devrim

I think it is. If I heard someone trying to delude workers with claims that immigration is unsustainable then I would criticise them from my perspective and outline my opinion on it. I would do so to other people as well. It gets rid of a particular bourgeois myth and dispelling the one of migrants, especially migrant workers, is important for working class solidarity.

[Forward Union]

Do you mean the group or the general slogan?

The political position that argues for the abolition of borders before the abolition of capitalism.


So an activist group working to provide direct solidarity with migrant workers is liberal, but getting unions to prosecute people who break the law is revolutionary?Neither is distinctly revolutionary. Helping migrant workers, while a noble thing to do, is not building class power or combating capitalism. The most productive and strategic thing to do is to build cooperation between unions internationally, so they can fight for migrant workers rights. This turns it into a practical class issue, rather than a campaign for moral crusaders.

As for the Liberal comment, It's undeniable that a percentage of the involvement in No Borders comes from a radical liberal perspective. I remember discussing the network with a chap working in TheSquare social center in london, he handed me a leaflet which boldly proclamd a list of reasons to support mass economic migrations, the best one was that migrant workers and asylum seekers apparently bing in £800million to the economy per anum... "Yes Yes! more cheap labour please! open all the borders!!"

Again, abolishing borders without having a strong union movement to defend the mass influx of hyper wage slaves is the wet dream of every neoliberal politician since the 1800s. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4698881.html


What about agencies that stay within the law, but still completely fuck migrant workers over?They're next. But we don't have the physical strength to take industrial action against such bodies in general. Though there are probably instances where we can. Union density is less than 17% in the UK, this is horrific. We need to show that unions can win disputes and offer an alternative to party politics. This can be done through winning small disputes. Disputes where employers are breaking the law are much easier to win than cases where they are within the law.

But I want to be clear that I do of course I completely support action against employers who are fucking people over within the law. My comments refer to the construction industry, with two or three specific sites in mind (like the Olympic site)


I'm incredibly childish, I know, but I still laughed at this.Freudian slip :lol:

[Forward Union]

The ideas inherent in the platform are fine. It's mostly common sense.

So you've decided it's not Leninist now? You're becoming fucking soft!:lol:

Actually in seriousness, as you disagree with Collective Discipline, Federalism (yes you do, branches would be subject to the will of the organisation in a federation, anything else is a confederation), Tactical and Theoretical unity (?) as well as presumably disagreeing with the entire section on unions, arguing for anarchists to work within them, land reform (peasants are revolutionary) and revolutionary organisation
"Like any war, civil war can only be waged successfully by the workers if two principles fundamental to all military activity are observed: unity of operational planning and unity of common command. While the revolutionary army must of necessity be structured in accordance with specifically anarchist principles, it should not be regarded as a point of principle. It is merely the consequence of military strategy in the revolution, a strategic measure which the process of civil war will inevitably force the workers to take." I wonder which bits do you actually agree with as common sense?

And what the difference between neo-platformism and platformism is?

[Devrim]

It is not the task of communists to get into an argument about immigration and population density.I think it is. If I heard someone trying to delude workers with claims that immigration is unsustainable then I would criticise them from my perspective and outline my opinion on it. I would do so to other people as well. It gets rid of a particular bourgeois myth and dispelling the one of migrants, especially migrant workers, is important for working class solidarity.

Following the logic of that if population density got to a certain point would you argue that no more people should be allowed to come and live in the area? If it went higher still would you argue that, people should be removed from the area?

I don't belive that you would, but our arguments against immigration controls are not based on the sustainability of immigration within capitalism.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

So you've decided it's not Leninist now?

You're such an idiot. :rolleyes:


You're becoming fucking soft!:lol:No, you have just never understood what I've said and in that misunderstanding have attributed simplistic opinions to me. It's not my fault you're an idiot.


Actually in seriousness, as you disagree with Collective Discipline, Federalism (yes you do, branches would be subject to the will of the organisation in a federation, anything else is a confederation), Tactical and Theoretical unity (?) as well as presumably disagreeing with the entire section on unions, arguing for anarchists to work within them, land reform (peasants are revolutionary) and revolutionary organisation " I wonder which bits do you actually agree with as common sense? The AF is a federation, it's not a confederation and your attempt to highlight it as such is a failure on your part to understand the organisation. I have never "disagreed" with the idea of collective responsibility or tactical and theoretical unity. I am, after all, in an organisation in which those principles are within its constitution.

How those ideas are put into practice and managed by the organisation I am in may vary to yours or may not be "purist" in the platform sense, but I am perfectly content with the political and practical analysis.

And for the record, it should be pointed out that these concepts are not unique to the platform, nor to platformist organisations.


And what the difference between neo-platformism and platformism is?
Your shit brand of L&S "platformism" and the actual platform.

If you feel the need to justify yourself then go ahead, but I'm not going to respond to you. I couldn't care less how or why you consider yourself a platformist.

[Pogue]

If you feel the need to justify yourself then go ahead, but I'm not going to respond to you.


Disregarding the rest of your post which isn't addressed at me, I've seen you say this a few times. I don't see how this represents anything other than running away from an argument.

[The Feral Underclass]

Disregarding the rest of your post which isn't addressed at me, I've seen you say this a few times. I don't see how this represents anything other than running away from an argument.

I'm not running away, simply turning my back to it.

[Forward Union]

No, you have just never understood what I've said and in that misunderstanding have attributed simplistic opinions to me. It's not my fault you're an idiot.

I actually remember pointing out to you that the AF claimed to stand in the Platformist tradition and you blew your lid. But that was a while ago and you have made a good effort to revise history.


The AF is a federation, it's not a confederation

The only thing preventing it being a federation is that the "groups" are not constrained by anything agreed federally. So the federal structure does not exist, it doesn't have one.

A horizontal affiliation of autonomous groups linked by a common cause or set of principals is a confederation, not a federation.

Federations by dictionary definition have a 'central point'. While this is typically a state or Central Committee, in an Anarchist organisation I imagine it would be something akin to the Delegates Convention, General Assembly or annual conference depending on the specific nature of the group. The point is that the member-sections of a federation are subject to the decisions of the federal body, which is not the case in the AF.

[The Feral Underclass]

I actually remember pointing out to you that the AF claimed to stand in the Platformist tradition and you blew your lid. But that was a while ago and you have made a good effort to revise history.

I don't remember the actual conversation or the time in which this happened. You and your mates often thought I "blew my lid" when in actual fact I had done no such thing, other than disagree with you.

Which is the case now. The AF does not stand in a platformist tradition, nor does it consider itself platformist and never has.


The only thing preventing it being a federation is that the "groups" are not constrained by anything agreed federally. So the federal structure does not exist, it doesn't have one. Wrong.


Federations by dictionary definition have a 'central point'. While this is typically a state or Central Committee, in an Anarchist organisation I imagine it would be something akin to the Delegates Convention, General Assembly or annual conference depending on the specific nature of the group. The point is that the member-sections of a federation are subject to the decisions of the federal body, which is not the case in the AF.
Wrong again.

[Forward Union]

Wrong.

Wrong again.Well, as this is an issue over definitions; the dictionary can sort this out without issue. Unfortunately, they all seem to assume that Federalism is a system of government, however they all back up what I said, Federations have a central point which govern partially soverign member states.

However, this illustrates the point perfectly well enough, so I deleted all the dictionary definitions which oversold the point that I am right...



Confederation vs federation

By definition, the difference between a confederation and a federation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation) is that the membership of the member states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state) in a confederation is voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation#cite_note-14)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation#cite_note-15)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation#cite_note-16)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation#cite_note-17) A confederation is most likely to feature these differences over a federation:


(1) No real direct powers: many confederal decisions are externalised by member-state legislation.
(2) Decisions on day-to-day-matters are not taken by simple majority but by special majorities or even by consensus or unanimity (veto for every member).
(3) Changes of the usually a treaty, require unanimity.

Points One, Two and Three are absolutely true of the AF (I was actually shocked at how much so), and you have argued in favor of them any times.

[Forward Union]

Wrong.

Wrong again.Except I'm really not, and assertion wont fix anything. I took the liberty of compling a list of about 10 different definitions of Federation and Confederation, and would juxtapose them against each other to make my point, but decided against. So here the most concise quotation, read it and tell me if it sounds familiar;.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation)
Confederation vs federation

By definition, the difference between a confederation and a federation is that the membership of the member states in a confederation is voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not. A confederation is most likely to feature these differences over a federation:


(1) No real direct powers: many confederal decisions are externalised by member-state legislation.

In other words, decisions made by the confederal body are not binding, groups can choose to follow them or not. Like the AFs industrial strategy, or it's agreement to support Defy ID. Something you openly admit. AF members are expected to fulfill agreements voluntarily, they're are also free not to do anything, or to dissociate completely, but this is not in the best interests of the confederation. Something you may agree with, I am simply explaining to you why this is not a Federal body


(2) Decisions on day-to-day-matters are not taken by simple majority but by special majorities or even by consensus or unanimity (veto for every member).

AF works on consensus or 23rds majority still right?


(3) Changes of the constitution, usually a treaty, require unanimity.

Not sure exactly what the AF position on this is. I think it does require unanimity if I am not mistaken.

To hammer the point a little harder (let us assume for arguments sake that by federal government they mean any centrally soverign body. In our case something like a delegates convention or national assembly as I said earlier;
A Federation is a union comprising a number of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central ("federal") government.

A Confederation is an association of sovereign states or communities, usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution.

[2] (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070730024658AACZmP5)

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, as this is an issue over definitions; the dictionary can sort this out without issue.

That's strange, because the dictionary seems to define the words federal, federation and federating rather less prescriptively than your definitions.

What I have discovered is that broadly speaking, all of these words are defined by a union of separate entities organised under a central decision making body, but which maintain certain autonomy. This is how the anarchist federation exists.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the dictionary's definitions in the context of the anarchist federation. You may have different views on how a federation should organise itself, but that's up to you.

[Искра]

Confederation means more autonomy for subject than federation, right?
So, whats problem here? Why confederation "bad"?

[The Feral Underclass]

Confederation means more autonomy for subject than federation, right?
So, whats problem here? Why confederation "bad"?

It's not necessarily. "Forward" Union just seems to think that trying to prove the AF is a confederation means something important.

[Искра]

Can you explain why it's not necessarily? I'm curious.
I mean don't we want libertarian communist society to be confederate?

[Forward Union]

That's strange, because the dictionary seems to define the words federal, federation and federating rather less prescriptively than your definitions.[quote]

So you disagree with the definitions I have provided
[QUOTE]
What I have discovered is that broadly speaking, all of these words are defined by a union of separate entities organised under a central decision making body, but which maintain certain autonomy. This is how the anarchist federation exists.generally speaking you are right. However, if a Federation is a voluntary association, if agreements are externalized by members and the body works on consensus or super consensus then it is a Confederation.

Whenever you seem to loose an argument we seem to end up going in loops. I think I have sufficiently proved that the AF is not a federation. I think what you really disagree with is that this is of any significance.

Which it may or may not be except that this is a thread about platformism, we ought to discuss it's demands for federalism. "But quite often, the federalist principle has been deformed in anarchist ranks ... This false interpretation disorganised our movement in the past. It is time to put an end to it in a firm and irreversible manner.." etc etc

[The Feral Underclass]

So you disagree with the definitions I have providedYou claimed that the dictionary would solve this problem and then provided definitions not made by the dictionary. The dictionary is quite clear and I agree with its definitions.


generally speaking you are right. However, if a Federation is a voluntary association, if agreements are externalized by members and the body works on consensus or super consensus then it is a Confederation. Says who? You? I am perfectly content with the dictionary's definition of the word federation. There is no reason why a federation cannot organise itself differently to your expectations. And anyway, you're misusing the word confederation, which refers to complete separate entities united under a common treaty. The AF does not have complete separate entities, but groups bound by decision making bodies. They're called conference and the national delegate meetings. The fact that we use consensus is utterly irrelevant and bears no consequence to the definition of the word federation in practical reality (not the "reality" of your mind).


Whenever you seem to loose an argument we seem to end up going in loops.:lol:

Says the king of tautology. The audacity of it!


I think I have sufficiently proved that the AF is not a federation. I think what you really disagree with is that this is of any significance.You have proven that there is a prescriptive definition of the word federation. The dictionary is quite clear about the actual definition of the word federation, federal and federating and your prescription does not fall within it.


Which it may or may not be except that this is a thread about platformism, we ought to discuss it's demands for federalism. "But quite often, the federalist principle has been deformed in anarchist ranks ... This false interpretation disorganised our movement in the past. It is time to put an end to it in a firm and irreversible manner.." etc etc
Deformed? Yes, I suppose the dictionary can sometimes become quite inconvenient when you want to make a point.

[The Feral Underclass]

Can you explain why it's not necessarily? I'm curious.
I mean don't we want libertarian communist society to be confederate?

It's not necessarily bad, is what I meant. But perhaps you could ask "Forward" Union, he's positively obsessed.

[Patchd]

That's a complicated issue. At the end of the day, Platformism is a tendancy or 'tradition' within Anarchist-communism. It's distinguishable from other forms of Anarchist Communism by it's organisational methods (collective discipline, federalism, tactical unity and theoretical unity)

With all due respect, would you then argue that L&S weren't platformist as you've had a member openly come out saying that he was an Anarcho-Syndicalist?

How does revolutionary syndicalism fit in with Anarchist-Communism?

[Искра]

I didn't mean that confederation is bad, I think that its much better than federation, because if we live in federation or something like that, that means that we always have one "center body", right? Confederation means more autonomy to subject, and there for it's much better.
I don't see why is so much important to discus if AF is federation or confederation? What the purpose of this discussion?

[Pogue]

With all due respect, would you then argue that L&S weren't platformist as you've had a member openly come out saying that he was an Anarcho-Syndicalist?

How does revolutionary syndicalism fit in with Anarchist-Communism?

We have theoretical unity. My views on anarcho-syndicalism do not contradict the words or actions of the organisation, and as an anarcho-syndicalist I am also by extension an anarcho-communist, but I use the anarcho-syndicalist title because I think it has more relevancy to what I believe and the activism I do in relation to this belief. The things the group advocate and work towards don't contradict my ideology, which is anarcho-syndicalism, at all.

[The Feral Underclass]

We have theoretical unity.

Really? I know of at least two different occasions where members of L&S have been publically corrected by other members.


as an anarcho-syndicalist I am also by extension an anarcho-communist

But tactically they're two very different things.

[Forward Union]

Says who? You? I am perfectly content with the dictionary's definition of the word federation. There is no reason why a federation cannot organise itself differently to your expectations.

You're not addressing the key point that the AF perfectly fits within the three hallmarks that distinguish a confederation from a federation. The fact that it otherwise fits within the definition of Federation is not surprising because Confederations and Federations bear similarities (hence similar words) ... you seem to have fallen victim to this fact which shows a remarkable level of nativity...

Either you disagree with the given distinction between a confederation and a federation. In which case I can simply reference several political texts I find on google..

Or you don't accept that the AF is a voluntary association, has volontary adherence to decisions, and works on consensus (in which case, please quote the constitution)

If you dispute one or both of these points then we have a debate. If you don't, as you have failed to so far, then you've essentially lost as far as I am concerned.


And anyway, you're misusing the word confederation, which refers to complete separate entities united under a common treaty. The AF does not have complete separate entities, but groups bound by decision making bodies. They're called conference and the national delegate meetings.

Wrong, confederations have these two, the distinction between this and a federak body, is that in a confederation these bodies' decisions are externalized by member parts, and fulfillment of these decisions is voluntary... which is the nature of a confederation, and the reality in the AF. In a Federation, decisions made centrally are mandatory.


The fact that we use consensus is utterly irrelevant and bears no consequence to the definition of the word federation in practical reality

No it's not irrelevant because it's a distinguishing characteristic of a confederacy. You're level of objection is becoming absurd.

[Pogue]

Really? I know of at least two different occasions where members of L&S have been publically corrected by other members.

I don't think that theoretical unity means people never make mistakes. I think the main point is that as an organisation we share our positions, for example no one believes we should not work within the mainstream union rank and file.

[Pogue]

But tactically they're two very different things.


I think perhaps your understanding of anarcho-syndicalism is skewed.

[Искра]

Anarcho-Syndicalism is the method of Anarcho-Communism. Anarcho-Syndicalists are all Anarcho-Communists, I haven't met a one who's not... (and I wont) Also, Anarcho-Syndiclists openly claim that their alternative to capitalism is libertarian communism, which means that we are clearly anarcho-communists.

[Искра]

I don't think that theoretical unity means people never make mistakes. I think the main point is that as an organisation we share our positions, for example no one believes we should not work within the mainstream union rank and file.
But organization don't have to be platformist, so that members share their opinion... Theoretical unity can be in any other kind of an organization...

[Pogue]

But organization don't have to be platformist, so that members share their opinion... Theoretical unity can be in any other kind of an organization...

Sure, I'd just prefer to be in a group that strives for it in its organisation rather than trying to appeal to the wishes of a minority on every point. I think we need to put an emphasis on this unity if we're going to be a force that can meaningfully contribute to revolution.

[The Feral Underclass]

You're not addressing the key point that the AF perfectly fits within the three hallmarks that distinguish a confederation from a federation.

No I haven't. When you read my posts, try understanding the meaning of the words I've kindly constructed into sentences for you.


The fact that it otherwise fits within the definition of Federation is not surprising because Confederations and Federations bear similarities (hence similar words) ... you seem to have fallen victim to this fact which shows a remarkable level of nativity...

What, like the Christmas play?

If that's what you think, fine, I'm not going to spend my time trying to prove how not naive I am. Nevertheless, the definition of federation defined by the dictionary extends to the AF, so what's the issue? I can't see one.


Either you disagree with the given distinction between a confederation and a federation. In which case I can simply reference several political texts I find on google..

I accept that you have a particular understanding of the terms and that in your prescriptive interpretation you consider the AF to be a confederation. However, and I'll repeat, it's irrelevant as the AF firmly fits within the general definition of the term federation, so I don't really care about your prescriptive perspective. It's totally inconsequential.


Or you don't accept that the AF is a voluntary association, has volontary adherence to decisions, and works on consensus (in which case, please quote the constitution)

It depends what the decision is. Some are binding, others aren't.


If you dispute one or both of these points then we have a debate. If you don't, as you have failed to so far, then you've essentially lost as far as I am concerned.

I'm not competing with you. I totally accept that you have a prescriptive view of what a federation is, but who cares? It's not important or relevant to the organisation I am in. I'm sorry I don't care more.


Wrong, confederations have these two, the distinction between this and a federak body, is that in a confederation these bodies' decisions are externalized by member parts, and fulfillment of these decisions is voluntary... which is the nature of a confederation, and the reality in the AF. In a Federation, decisions made centrally are mandatory.

But, like I've repeated, that's not how the AF operates.


No it's not irrelevant because it's a distinguishing characteristic of a confederacy. You're level of objection is becoming absurd.

I don't accept that. I simply don't accept that consensus decision making makes something a confederacy, or that without it you're not one. That's what's absurd. The fact that you are so prescriptive about this whole thing, you simply cannot consider there may be variations of organisation and structure. You're so neurotic about this whole process issue it's fucking bizarre. Maybe you should find bigger things to care about?

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think that theoretical unity means people never make mistakes. I think the main point is that as an organisation we share our positions, for example no one believes we should not work within the mainstream union rank and file.

That's not particularly unique though? I mean the AF have united principles like this. We have a united perspective on unions and national liberation and all sorts of things. How does your particular brand of theoretical unity differ to the AF's?


I think perhaps your understanding of anarcho-syndicalism is skewed.

Really? I mean if you look traditionally at these two traditions I think it's perfectly plain to see that they share tactical differences.

[Искра]

Well, if you outvote the minority what is the problem?

Theoretical unity is the problem because if you work in anarchist syndicate, you can't expect to have one. Because, people in the syndicate are not all anarchists. They learn theory trough practice. I think that basic principles are more important than theory general.

[Pogue]

That's not particularly unique though? I mean the AF have united principles like this. We have a united perspective on unions and national liberation and all sorts of things. How does your particular brand of theoretical unity differ to the AF's?


Well theoretical unity is a precursor to tactical unity. Am I right in saying that the members of AF do not have to subscribe to the 'group decision' on an action? And for example you can be an inusrrectionary anarchist and be in AFed. Either way I didn't join L&S because I looked at AFed and thought there isn't enough tactical unity, I joined L&S because I liked the look of it as a group. What I've heard about AFeds priorities and ideas as a group since have made me think I made the right decision. I guess the main difference is that you rarely employ the vote sysem, preferring consensus, something I object too.


Really? I mean if you look traditionally at these two traditions I think it's perfectly plain to see that they share tactical differences.

I don't think they form two distinct traditions. As I said I am an anarch-syndicalist and an anarcho-communist.

[Pogue]

Well, if you outvote the minority what is the problem?

Theoretical unity is the problem because if you work in anarchist syndicate, you can't expect to have one. Because, people in the syndicate are not all anarchists. They learn theory trough practice. I think that basic principles are more important than theory general.

I am not talking about a syndicate I am talking about an anarchist group. But I think unions should have a majority voting system too, as the IWW does.

[Искра]

I am not talking about a syndicate I am talking about an anarchist group. But I think unions should have a majority voting system too, as the IWW does.

But why not have a voting system in the group? Consensus in not always a good solution.

[Pogue]

But why not have a voting system in the group? Consensus in not always a good solution.

I really am getting confused with what your saying, you seem to be swapping your views around, its quite confusing.

I believe groups should work on a majority voting system. After an issue or policy ahs been debated it is put to a vote and the majority decision is what the group does. I think this should be done in union branches as well as in an anarchist political organisation such as Liberty and Solidarity.

[The Feral Underclass]

Am I right in saying that the members of AF do not have to subscribe to the 'group decision' on an action?

I don't know what that means?


And for example you can be an inusrrectionary anarchist and be in AFed.

No. We're an expressly anarchist communist organisation and if you join you have to subscribe to that set of ideas. We have had people who've emerged as insurrectionary anarchists and they have found it very difficult to remain members and subsequently left.


Either way I didn't join L&S because I looked at AFed and thought there isn't enough tactical unity, I joined L&S because I liked the look of it as a group.

You don't have to justify it, just do what you do :)


What I've heard about AFeds priorities and ideas as a group since have made me think I made the right decision.

The AF has moved away from the national campaign model as it simply doesn't fit into the needs of working class people through out the country. Groups have the potential to lose focus of their location and region if they are having to push a national campaign that may not even be relevant in their area.

We develop united theory and tactics, such as our aims and principles, manifesto and our industrial strategy, but how those things are implemented are for groups to decide. Peoples circumstances and situations are different depending on the area, community and work place and so the strategy and tactic may need to be implemented differently. Working a low-waged, casual job at a cinema in Sheffield is going to require different methods to working as a nurse in Dagenham, for example. It's the same with communities, needs and sentiments are different.

Our role as anarchist communists is to involve ourselves in struggle and offer those ideas on theory and tactic and fight for their acceptance within those struggles.


I guess the main difference is that you rarely employ the vote sysem, preferring consensus, something I object too.

Yes, I'm aware of L&S's rejection of consensus decision making, but from what I can gather, those objections are based on misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what consensus decision making is and how it works.


I don't think they form two distinct traditions. As I said I am an anarch-syndicalist and an anarcho-communist.

I think history shows that's not the case. Syndicalism has developed with a clear view on the needs for unions. anarcho-communism the opposite. I would say that's the main, fundamental difference.

[Искра]

I'm sorry if I'm confusing you, I'm not good in discussing in English, I need time to adjust.
And I was never strictly for a consensus. I agree with your last post.

[Forward Union]

If that's what you think, fine, I'm not going to spend my time trying to prove how not naive I am. Nevertheless, the definition of federation defined by the dictionary extends to the AF, so what's the issue? I can't see one.

The issue is that loose definition of Federation does not account for the exceptions that render something a confederation. I have stated this at least 3 times now.


I accept that you have a particular understanding of the terms and that in your prescriptive interpretation you consider the AF to be a confederation. However, and I'll repeat, it's irrelevant as the AF firmly fits within the general definition of the term federation, so I don't really care about your prescriptive perspective. It's totally inconsequential.

Yes it is inconsequential. Even a federation could be badly organised. You know my criticisms of the AF well enough and I'm not going to go through them again. I am basically arguing from principal because your rejection of basic terminology annoys the fuck out of me.


It depends what the decision is. Some are binding, others aren't.


Examples of binding decisions?


I don't accept that.

That's not important, because that's how it is.

[The Feral Underclass]

The issue is that loose definition of Federation does not account for the exceptions that render something a confederation.

The dictionary is either right or wrong and earlier you said: "Well, as this is an issue over definitions; the dictionary can sort this out without issue"


I have stated this at least 3 times now.You have contradicted yourself 3 times too.


Yes it is inconsequential. Even a federation could be badly organised.In your view.


You know my criticisms of the AF well enough and I'm not going to go through them again.As a matter of fact I have no idea what your criticisms of the AF are, other than misrepresentation and your misunderstanding of consensus decision making. Nor do I care.


I am basically arguing from principal because your rejection of basic terminology annoys the fuck out of me.I am going by the definition of the dictionary, which is what you said we should do. You have now changed that position because it doesn't fit into your prescriptive view of what a federation ought to be. That's not my fault.


Examples of binding decisions?All decisions made at conference and the national delegates meetings are binding. These include all decisions made about our constitution, strategies and theory articulated in its various forms, plus decisions about our day-to-day operations


That's not important, because that's how it is.You have not adequately proven to me how or why it is absolute that a confederation operates based on consensus and all other variations are not and cannot be. Let's take the CNT for example...

[Pogue]

I don't know what that means?

You can be in AFed but not have 'practical unity', i.e. not take part in a group action because you disagree with it and be the faction of the organisation opposed to it.


No. We're an expressly anarchist communist organisation and if you join you have to subscribe to that set of ideas. We have had people who've emerged as insurrectionary anarchists and they have found it very difficult to remain members and subsequently left.

Why do you think they joined in the first place?


You don't have to justify it, just do what you do http://www.revleft.com/vb/platformism-t114970/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

Thanks.


The AF has moved away from the national campaign model as it simply doesn't fit into the needs of working class people through out the country. Groups have the potential to lose focus of their location and region if they are having to push a national campaign that may not even be relevant in their area.

We develop united theory and tactics, such as our aims and principles, manifesto and our industrial strategy, but how those things are implemented are for groups to decide. Peoples circumstances and situations are different depending on the area, community and work place and so the strategy and tactic may need to be implemented differently. Working a low-waged, casual job at a cinema in Sheffield is going to require different methods to working as a nurse in Dagenham, for example. It's the same with communities, needs and sentiments are different.

Our role as anarchist communists is to involve ourselves in struggle and offer those ideas on theory and tactic and fight for their acceptance within those struggles.

I agree with you here.


Yes, I'm aware of L&S's rejection of consensus decision making, but from what I can gather, those objections are based on misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what consensus decision making is and how it works.

I disagree.


I think history shows that's not the case. Syndicalism has developed with a clear view on the needs for unions. anarcho-communism the opposite. I would say that's the main, fundamental difference.

I don't think the difference is large at all. What I see as an anarcho-syndicalist organisation is just a mass roganisation of the working class. It does not need to see itself as anarcho-syndicalist but it will be, by virtue of its aims and how it is structured. I see the anarcho-syndicalist union as simply the formalisation of the working class's resistance in a period of intensified struggle/revolutionary period.

[The Feral Underclass]

You can be in AFed but not have 'practical unity', i.e. not take part in a group action because you disagree with it and be the faction of the organisation opposed to it.

What do you mean by group? Do you mean local groups or the whole of the AF? If you mean the whole organisation, we do have AF days of action, especially in the north. Some groups may participate in them, some may not be able to. Some may not find the issue particularly relevant to their locale, but the action is still regarded as an AF one.


Why do you think they joined in the first place?

Most people claim to agree with the A&P's and sometimes that turns out to be a lie, or their politics develops in divergence.


I agree with you here.

Are you allowed to do that :p


I disagree.

Certainly from the diatribes Forward Union has made against consensus I can safely say he has no idea how it works. If his view is shared amongst the whole organisation then it would extend to all of you I'm afraid.

The main contention is that it has the possibility of being "tryrannical", which is just an absurd claim to make. A process is never really held up by one person (in all my years I've never seen that happen) and there is a process of overcoming that in any case. Consensus decision making is quite a sophisticated form of democracy, it's not just some hashed-out hippy hand waving bollocks as some people like to paint it as.

[Pogue]

What do you mean by group? Do you mean local groups or the whole of the AF? If you mean the whole organisation, we do have AF days of action, especially in the north. Some groups may participate in them, some may not be able to. Some may not find the issue particularly relevant to their locale, but the action is still regarded as an AF one.


I mean memebrs of the group wherever they are, on a national basis.


Most people claim to agree with the A&P's and sometimes that turns out to be a lie, or their politics develops in divergence.

But why do you think an insurrectionist would ever feel comfortable being in that organisation, if its happened a few times there must be a reason.


Are you allowed to do that http://www.revleft.com/vb/platformism-t114970/revleft/smilies/001_tongue.gif
Its fine, I bribed the Cheka.


Certainly from the diatribes Forward Union has made against consensus I can safely say he has no idea how it works. If his view is shared amongst the whole organisation then it would extend to all of you I'm afraid.

The main contention is that it has the possibility of being "tryrannical", which is just an absurd claim to make. A process is never really held up by one person (in all my years I've never seen that happen) and there is a process of overcoming that in any case. Consensus decision making is quite a sophisticated form of democracy, it's not just some hashed-out hippy hand waving bollocks as some people like to paint it as.

Well how does it work then? How is it any different from our methods, which is us discussing an issue, before deciding how we want to vote on it, suggesting ammendments, etc?

Also what do you think about what I said about anarch-syndicalism/anarcho-communism?

[The Feral Underclass]

I mean memebrs of the group wherever they are, on a national basis.

I'm sorry, I'm just not following what you mean?


But why do you think an insurrectionist would ever feel comfortable being in that organisation

They don't, that's why I said: "We have had people who've emerged as insurrectionary anarchists and they have found it very difficult to remain members and subsequently left."


if its happened a few times there must be a reason.

People lie about their politics, don't understand what there politics is and/or just say they agree with the A&P's. We have begun having a far more rigorous membership process, it's now not just enough to say you agree with the A&P's, you have to understand the politics behind it too.


Well how does it work then? How is it any different from our methods, which is us discussing an issue, before deciding how we want to vote on it, suggesting ammendments, etc?

The aim of consensus is for there to be a commonly agreed principle rather than a principle which only a majority agree with. This means that amendments, and discussions have to happen until an agreement is reached. Once you have an agreement it is an agreement that everyone agrees with. It's as simple as that


Also what do you think about what I said about anarch-syndicalism/anarcho-communism?

I don't think you're wrong, necessarily.

[Anarchia]

Anarcho-Syndicalism is the method of Anarcho-Communism. Anarcho-Syndicalists are all Anarcho-Communists, I haven't met a one who's not... (and I wont) Also, Anarcho-Syndiclists openly claim that their alternative to capitalism is libertarian communism, which means that we are clearly anarcho-communists.

For what it's worth, there's at least one anarcho-syndicalist in the Workers Solidarity Alliance (US anarcho-syndicalist group, ex-IWA-AIT member) who is not a communist, but rather a Pareconite. For sure most anarcho-syndicalists are communists, but the reverse is not true.