Platformist Anarchism

[Susurrus]

This is the school of Anarchism that subscribes to Makhno's Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (or of the Libertarian Communists, title depends on translation). I'm currently reading the Platform and am looking for thoughts on it. Mainly Anarchists, but also interested if any others have an opinion on it.


Link to the Platform and related texts: http://www.struggle.ws/pdfs/leaflets/platform/platformA4.pdf

[Rowan Duffy]

Platformism was sort of defined by this document as a reaction to the failure of the anarchist movement. The document however did not result in a wide-spread reorganisation of the anarchist movement at all. In fact, it had fairly little influence contemporaneously.

The modern platformist movement, often identified as members of the anarkismo group, is a bit different in particulars and quite varied but generally identifies with the spirit of the document. It has a tendency to see the need for a specific political organisation which does not dissolve itself entirely into the trade-unions as with syndicalism, or retain a sort of pure propaganda aspect as with some of the anarchist groups which defined this poll in the late 1800s, especially in England.

Platformism shares similarities with Especifismo, an anarchist tradition which identifies with the experience of the FAU in Uruguay. The FAU were a mixture of Marxists and anarchists who were largely supportive of the Cuban revolution and were attempting to create some sort of fusional appraoch.

I have a short description of some of the ideas here:

http://red-anti-state.blogspot.com/2009/10/engaging-with-class.html

Platformism gained some popularity in the late 90s through the late '00s but I think is now seeing another decline. Some of the core aspects of the strategy have been identified by the anarchist milieu as too authoritarian, too similar to Trotskyism, or less effective or more likely to fail than anarcho-syndicalism. I think in most cases platformist groups tend to be synthesist in practice (like the AF) though there have certainly been periods where various groups (Workers Solidarity Movement, Alternative Libertaire) were more coherent in their activities than that.

Libcom has become a major poll for class-struggle anarchists and has largely won the debate regards the desirability of platformism (in the negative).

The FAU largely dissolved itself into the PVP, which was a formation which was broader and also not strictly anti-electoralist in its practice, while attempting to focus on the mass movement as a key component of activity. The PVP is interesting as it demonstrates an evolution of anarchist ideas mixed with Marxism towards an approach somewhat like the SPD, but with a better understanding perhaps of the limits of electoralism. Last I checked they were a component in a broader left front with sinking influence.

[syndicat]

The FAU largely dissolved itself into the PVP, which was a formation which was broader and also not strictly anti-electoralist in its practice, while attempting to focus on the mass movement as a key component of activity. The PVP is interesting as it demonstrates an evolution of anarchist ideas mixed with Marxism towards an approach somewhat like the SPD, but with a better understanding perhaps of the limits of electoralism. Last I checked they were a component in a broader left front with sinking influence.

the FAU majority, after suffering huge losses during the dictatorship, did join the Broad Front, a social democratic coalition that has been dominant electorally. a miniority of FAU didn't agree with that direction and refounded FAU, so it still exists, and is influential particularly in Brazil.

also, it's inaccurate to call FAU a "mix of anarchists and Marxists". it would be more accurate to describe it as an anarchist organization that also agreed with a number of Marxist ideas...such as a complete rejection of the individualist side of anarchism. so you could describe its perspective as "anarcho-Marxist." but your description makes it sound like a coalition.


Libcom has become a major poll for class-struggle anarchists and has largely won the debate regards the desirability of platformism (in the negative).



LibCom is dominated by Left-communists and ultra-left influenced anarchists and single-organization anarcho-syndicalists (such as SolFed). altho i'm not a platformist, I personally refuse to participate on Libcom due to their inability to maintain a civil level of discourse, i.e. too much of an anything goes environment of personal attacks and such.


Platformism gained some popularity in the late 90s through the late '00s but I think is now seeing another decline. Some of the core aspects of the strategy have been identified by the anarchist milieu as too authoritarian, too similar to Trotskyism, or less effective or more likely to fail than anarcho-syndicalism.

since you offer no argument this is merely sectarian slander on your part. platformism is also not inconsistent with anarcho-syndicalism (despite what the Irish WSM say).

platformism was basically invented by a younger generation of anarchists in the late '90s who were unhappy with scenesterism, hyper-individualism, and other defects of the anarchist milieu. it is a form of dual organizational social anarchism. dual organizational in that it sees a role for both mass organizations and a political organization. but dual organizational social anarchism wasn't invented by platformists.

[Rowan Duffy]

also, it's inaccurate to call FAU a "mix of anarchists and Marxists". it would be more accurate to describe it as an anarchist organization that also agreed with a number of Marxist ideas...such as a complete rejection of the individualist side of anarchism. so you could describe its perspective as "anarcho-Marxist." but your description makes it sound like a coalition.

I didn't mean for it to sound like a coallition. It was more of a continuum/synthesis from more Marxist influenced to more traditionally anarchist. The work of Abraham Guillén, who theorised a sort of libertarian Lenin (I'm not joking) was likely quite influential on the FAU. He was definitely influential on their military practice (OPR-33).



LibCom is dominated by Left-communists and ultra-left influenced anarchists and single-organization anarcho-syndicalists (such as SolFed). altho i'm not a platformist, I personally refuse to participate on Libcom due to their inability to maintain a civil level of discourse, i.e. too much of an anything goes environment of personal attacks and such.

No argument there.



since you offer no argument this is merely sectarian slander on your part. platformism is also not inconsistent with anarcho-syndicalism (despite what the Irish WSM say).

It's not sectarian slander in the least. I think the libcom position is idiotic. It is however a much more popular position and much more influential than the platformist one. To see evidence that this is the case one only has to compare the sum total of platformist website popularity as compares libcom. You will see it is a tiny fragment. In addition it has fallen as a share of anarchist web information quite substantially.

It's not correct to say that the WSM sees platformism as contrary to anarcho-syndicalism. I don't think anyone in the WSM would contend they are contradictory. My position is closer to Alan MacSimoin's, with whom you have had theoretical disputes, than the position that you adhere to. But that position is really about the likely avenues to revolutionary syndicalism, rather than the utility or desirability and it especially doesn't believe them to be exclusive strategies. Platformism without syndicalism as a component strategy would be pretty weak.

However, the WSM as a whole is much closer to your opinion. They have also significantly modified their paper positions to come into greater alignment with yours.

I think you might be getting annoyed because the libcommies have stolen the word anarcho-syndicalist to mean something along the SolFed position. They seem to have won the word in the anarchist community for better, or more likely for worse.



platformism was basically invented by a younger generation of anarchists in the late '90s who were unhappy with scenesterism, hyper-individualism, and other defects of the anarchist milieu. it is a form of dual organizational social anarchism. dual organizational in that it sees a role for both mass organizations and a political organization. but dual organizational social anarchism wasn't invented by platformists.

No dispute here. Properly it goes back to Bakunin, but I point out some of its pedigree in the link I posted.

[syndicat]

The work of Abraham Guillén, who theorised a sort of libertarian Lenin

I've never seen any sympathetic references to Lenin in what I've read of Guillen. I've seen critiques of vanguardism, tho. So i'd need to see this backed up by references.


It's not correct to say that the WSM sees platformism as contrary to anarcho-syndicalism. I don't think anyone in the WSM would contend they are contradictory. My position is closer to Alan MacSimoin's, with whom you have had theoretical disputes, than the position that you adhere to. But that position is really about the likely avenues to revolutionary syndicalism, rather than the utility or desirability and it especially doesn't believe them to be exclusive strategies. Platformism without syndicalism as a component strategy would be pretty weak.

However, the WSM as a whole is much closer to your opinion. They have also significantly modified their paper positions to come into greater alignment with yours.


okay. i've heard they've had such discussions but I'm not too up on their latest views.


I think you might be getting annoyed because the libcommies have stolen the word anarcho-syndicalist to mean something along the SolFed position. They seem to have won the word in the anarchist community for better, or more likely for worse.



absolutely not. my opinions on single-organization anarcho-syndicalism and SolFed did not originate via any disputes on libcom but goes way back before that. My political organization, WSA, developed a dual organizational anarcho-syndicalist politics from our experiences back in the '70s and '80s. We ran into disagreements with single-organization anarcho-syndicalists both in the US IWW and when we were affiliated to the IWA, which eventually expelled us.

[Rowan Duffy]

I've never seen any sympathetic references to Lenin in what I've read of Guillen. I've seen critiques of vanguardism, tho. So i'd need to see this backed up by references.

Pretty much the entirety of Between Marxism and Bolshevism is an attempt at an anarcho-rehabilitation of Lenin. I'll try to put it online when I get time.

Between Marxism and Bolshevism by Abraham Guillén
Chpt 4. Trotsky or the Revolution Betrayed



Lenin is clearly orientated toward a socialism based on direct democracy and self-management. In order to overcome the counterrevolutionary threat posed by a bureacuracy during the transtion period, Lenin proposed that the proletariat replace the old state apparatus with a corps of workers and employees on the basis of the following conditions: "(1) not only elections, but also recall at any time; (2) pay not exceeding that of ordinary workers; (3) immediate introduction of control and supervision by all, so that all may become functionaries without anybody becoming a bureaucrat."

In these respects a scientific anarchist, Lenin anticiptated the bureaucratic danger and formulated the measures for overcoming it. Applying these measures, the mechanisms of the state would be transformed from agencies over the people into servants of society. To combat bureaucracy Lenin relied on the socialism of self-management, without which there can be no assurance that a proletarian revolution will not degenerate into a bureacratic regime, extracting surplus value from state enterprises instead of stock companies and private business.

[Tim Cornelis]

This may be an interesting read: http://libcom.org/library/constructive-anarchism-debate-platform-g-p-maksimov