A few Anarchist/Libertarian Communist Questions

[Etular]

Hello there, everyone!

I've been doing a fair bit of reading into left-wing (particularly anarchist and libertarian-left) politics, and have came across a few questions that I'm perhaps struggling to get my head around.

I'm perhaps not as knowledgeable in regards to left-wing terminology as most here (my Marxist terminological list pretty much starts and ends with the words proletariat and bourgeoisie. Alongside, ofcourse, things like infrastructure, superstructure, false class consciousness, and so on. Mostly just the basics, really), and I've not yet read any of the major books, so perhaps that may be part of the reason I'm struggling to grasp the concepts all that well. Otherwise, perhaps I'm not as bright as I like to think I am. :lol: Preferably, explanations in layman's terms would be nice; the main reason I'm asking, also, is because these mostly tend to be omitted from the Consolidated Learning FAQ.


Quite simply, what is a platformist? What sorts of things do they believe in, and what arguments do people provide for and against platformism?

Similarly, I know very little about the Situationists. What were their beliefs? How are they different from "regular Anarchism"? Are there arguments for and against them? Also, are they a restricted group, and if so, why?

This last one's more of a personal preference, really. Is there a certain ideological view that supports Anarchist-Communism (what I would call, if I were to simplify the concept into layman's terms, "Communism without the Socialist state"; seeking a moneyless, stateless society immediately), but which (instead of supporting an uprising led by the vaguely-defined "the people") believes in the concept of a group of, for lack of a better term, "enlightened people" (those that most support or are more knowledgeable about the shared ideology) that could make the systematic plans (i.e. propaganda and such) and focus the group along its path to revolution?

Sort of like how the Anarcho-syndicalists have the Trade Unions, but more so opened to all and based on (and I understand this may reek of bourgeoisie sentiment, or implications of a hierarchy, but that's not what I'm trying to convey) a specialised division of labour, led by the intelligentsia? Where there is an assurance that everyone is equal, but that there is the promotion of organisation - not particularly in the form of a hierarchy, but in the form of different members adopting different jobs and such, perhaps democratically?

Where some will be elected or assigned the task to organize the different subgroups, which would include the likes of Public Relations, Propaganda, Protest Group (with matching uniforms, similar to a Black Bloc, ofcourse ;)1 ), perhaps Periodicals, maybe if the group wanted running an Infoshop etc.? The concept in my head is a bit hard to explain - somewhere between an organized political movement, and a sort of horizontal political business model, if you know what I mean, where the model would abolish itself after having achieved the goals of eliminating state and business.

Is there any such political ideology that fits that vague (and, to many, probably undesirable) description? :rolleyes: Or, perhaps, has that always been a "standard way of doing things", and it's simply never been given a name, as it's more of a "means of getting there" rather than a belief? :lol:

Just to clarify, I'm curious more as to whether any such ideology fits that description - I'm not particularly enthusiastic about debating that belief, but people can always pick holes in it if they feel it's flawed. :D

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Quite simply, what is a platformist?

A platformist is someone who beleives in the use of a platform for organization, as done in Spain during the civil war. Anarcho-syndicalists are usualy platformists.






What sorts of things do they believe in, and what arguments do people provide for and against platformism?Some anarchists can argue that it is only substituting one form of state for another one.


Is there a certain ideological view that supports Anarchist-Communism (what I would call, if I were to simplify the concept into layman's terms, "Communism without the Socialist state"; seeking a moneyless, stateless society immediately), but which (instead of supporting an uprising led by the vaguely-defined "the people") believes in the concept of a group of, for lack of a better term, "enlightened people" (those that most support or are more knowledgeable about the shared ideology) that could make the systematic plans (i.e. propaganda and such) and focus the group along its path to revolution? That is statism, or platformism.


Sort of like how the Anarcho-syndicalists have the Trade Unions, but more so opened to all and based on (and I understand this may reek of bourgeoisie sentiment, or implications of a hierarchy, but that's not what I'm trying to convey) a specialised division of labour, led by the intelligentsia? Where there is an assurance that everyone is equal, but that there is the promotion of organisation - not particularly in the form of a hierarchy, but in the form of different members adopting different jobs and such, perhaps democratically?I don't see what you are going for.


Where some will be elected or assigned the task to organize the different subgroups, which would include the likes of Public Relations, Propaganda, Protest Group (with matching uniforms, similar to a Black Bloc, ofcourse ;)1 ), perhaps Periodicals, maybe if the group wanted running an Infoshop etc.? The concept in my head is a bit hard to explain - somewhere between an organized political movement, and a sort of horizontal political business model, if you know what I mean, where the model would abolish itself after having achieved the goals of eliminating state and business. Again, that is either statism or platformism.


Is there any such political ideology that fits that vague (and, to many, probably undesirable) description?Anarcho-syndicalism.


Just to clarify, I'm curious more as to whether any such ideology fits that description - I'm not particularly enthusiastic about debating that belief, but people can always pick holes in it if they feel it's flawed. :DI think you should read more on anarchism.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/The_Anarchist_FAQ_Editorial_Collective__An_Anarchi st_FAQ__02_17_.html

[Skyhilist]

^Not all Anarcho-syndicalists are platformists.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

^Not all Anarcho-syndicalists are platformists.

fixed.

[Skyhilist]

Platformism though is basically a current within anarcho-communism which says that everyone ought to agree within anarchist groups on specific organizations and goals and viewpoints. I'm not too knowledgeable about point number 2 so I'll let someone else answer that. As for point 3, the idea is that anarchists have "natural influence" without resorting to a state and pushing "official influence". An anarchist revolution wouldn't be carried out until at least a large minority were class conscious and supported such a revolution. Otherwise, the only way to go about ensuring a revolution would be through a state, which we anarchists believe would end up being corrupt. So the only way to go about having a productive revolution is to agitate and spread movements through natural influence until anarchists or at least revolutionaries are large enough in number to carry out a revolution without a state being needed to protect it or spread ideology. Non-horizontal forms of governance such as syndicalist unions and community assemblies and completely fine as a means for ensuring a functioning society though, post-revolution. Maybe that's what you're looking for in terms of such leadership.

[subcp]

The Situationists were not anarchists; they were Marxists and councilists. Though they fall in a broader category that includes a broadly defined class struggle anarchism and left communism.

Platformism is an odd animal because you have the Platform, and platformist organizations (or those that are influenced by the Platform).

Regarding 'the people'- class struggle anarchism (anarcho-syndicalism, anarchist-communism/libertarian communism) has a similar view to autonomist Marxism, left communism, etc. feel the same: the proletariat is the only class with revolutionary agency, not the 'oppressed masses'.

[Engels]

Similarly, I know very little about the Situationists. What were their beliefs? How are they different from "regular Anarchism"? Are there arguments for and against them? Also, are they a restricted group, and if so, why?


Perhaps I can help with this seeing as the Situationists have influenced me greatly.

The Situationists were not anarchists but were hugely influenced by Marx, had its origins in the avant-garde tradition and came to influence the anarchist milieu significantly. I suppose they could be described as anti-statist communists; they shared the anarchist opposition to the state.
The SI, like the ‘communistation’ currents, showed that there cannot be a revolution without the immediate transformation of social relationships and crucial to this is the destruction of the state.

They got their Council Communism from the ultra-left group Socialisme ou Barbarie of which Debord was a member before founding the SI. They rejected all ideology (they even rejected the term “situationism” as being ideological) and the establishment left – all the leftist organisations, trade unions, communist parties etc – which they saw as capitalism’s Loyal Opposition or having been recuperated into supporting the very thing they supposedly opposed. Another important situationist concept would be ‘detournement’ – see the Strasbourg Scandal of 1966 on how a pro-situationist group managed to turn the spectacle against itself.


Gilles Dauvé has an interesting critique of the Situationists where if I recall correctly, he criticises them for excessively focusing on distribution while ignoring production; for considering the spectacle more important to capitalism than capital itself; for their essentially techno-utopian views regarding automation and abundance and; for their council communism which contradicts their rejection of work and critique of everyday life.

If you’re interested you should read their two major works – Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle and Vaneigem’s The Revolution of Everyday Life. Or send me a PM if you want links (might take me a while to find them again).

[subcp]

The published 'Situationist International Anthology' is worth the money to get in print. It contains significant pieces, articles from the Internationale Situationniste journal, internal publications, copies of Situ inspired graffiti and slogans and the famous telegram's they sent to the Central Committee's of the CPSU and Chinese CP.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

The Situationists were not anarchists; they were Marxists and councilists. Though they fall in a broader category that includes a broadly defined class struggle anarchism and left communism.

Platformism is an odd animal because you have the Platform, and platformist organizations (or those that are influenced by the Platform).

Regarding 'the people'- class struggle anarchism (anarcho-syndicalism, anarchist-communism/libertarian communism) has a similar view to autonomist Marxism, left communism, etc. feel the same: the proletariat is the only class with revolutionary agency, not the 'oppressed masses'.

I'm not sure about your last point, that platformists believe that only the proletariat are revolutionary. Historically, the Makhnovists also had quite strong support (indeed, probably their strongest support) from the peasantry and the CNT-FAI (or more specifically, the Amigos de Durriti) also had similar support from the Spanish peasantry. To quote the platform itself,

"The principal forces of the social revolution are the urban working class, the
peasant masses and a section of the working intelligentia" From the General Section, Part 6

[subcp]

A lot of Marxist groups in those days included the poor/landless peasants in similar declarations- the terms 'semi-proletarian' and whatnot.

Contemporary class struggle anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist groups often have the same view as contemporary Marxists- it's a workers affair.


The Solidarity Federation is a revolutionary union initiative: a working class organisation which seeks the abolition of capitalism and the state. Capitalism because it exploits, oppresses and kills working people and wrecks the environment for profit worldwide. The state because it can only maintain hierarchy and privilege for the classes who control it and their servants; it cannot be used to fight the oppression and exploitation that are the consequences of hierarchy and the source of privilege. In their place we want a society based on workers' self-management, solidarity, mutual aid and libertarian communism.

That society can only be achieved by working class organisations based on the same principles - revolutionary unions. These are not Trades Unions only concerned with “bread and butter” issues like pay and conditions. Revolutionary unions are means for working people to organise and fight all the issues - both in the workplace and outside - which arise from our oppression.

-Solidarity Federation (anarcho-syndicalist)



The Anarchist Federation is an organisation of class struggle anarchists (based in Britain and Ireland, but with many contacts overseas) which aims to abolish Capitalism and all oppression to create a free and equal society. This is Anarchist Communism.
We see today's society as being divided into two main opposing classes: the ruling class which controls all the power and wealth, and the working class which the rulers exploit to maintain this. By racism, sexism and other forms of oppression, as well as war and environmental destruction the rulers weaken and divide us. Only the direct action of working class people can defeat these attacks and ultimately overthrow capitalism.
As the capitalist system rules the whole world it's destruction must be complete and world wide. We reject attempts to reform it such as working through parliament and national liberation movements (like the IRA) as they fail to challenge capitalism itself. Unions also work as a part of the capitalist system, so although workers struggle within them, they will be unable to bring about capitalism's destruction unless they go beyond these limits.


-Anarchist Federation-UK (anarchist-communist/libertarian communist)