Anarchist interpretations of Makhno's "Organizational Platform"

[Os Cangaceiros]

Never likec blackflame, but I guess lots of ppl will say that. But I didnt, way to narrow focus on only syndicalism/platformism, a suspecious fetish for that platformism edging into vanguardism/centralism and looking back I understand why the book was obviously and shockingly white centric....

I don't know, Schmidt's writing partner Lucien van der Walt contributed to a pretty exhaustive tome on the history of anarchism/syndicalism in the colonial world:

https://libcom.org/files/Anarchism1870_1940.pdf

I actually don't remember it being especially "white centric". I do remember enjoying it, though (I pretty much just ignored all the shilling for platformism). I did have some historical disagreements with the authors as well, like their attempts to sweep Proudhon under the rug because of his onerous personal beliefs (the irony!), when in reality he had a large impact on how anarchism would eventually develop and that needs to be acknowledged appropriately, horrible beliefs or not.

Also, they stretched when they claimed that the Makhnovist platform was merely following in the tradition of Bakunin. I don't know of any indication that Bakunin would have supported the Makhno/Arshinov platform, in fact I suspect that he wouldn't.

But generally speaking, like I said, I thought it was a great book. It was a good exposition of the brief moment in history when anarchism and syndicalism were formidable forces in certain places, like how Italy's main anarcho-syndicalist union at one point had nearly a million members. A million members! Little facts like that are easily forgotten about but I love history and I love learning about left-wing history.

What was this "neo Bakuninists" goal in doing this?

[The Feral Underclass]

Also, they stretched when they claimed that the Makhnovist platform was merely following in the tradition of Bakunin. I don't know of any indication that Bakunin would have supported the Makhno/Arshinov platform, in fact I suspect that he wouldn't.

Just a quick question: what is it specifically about the platform and Bakunin's beliefs that you think don't marry?

[Os Cangaceiros]

It was the way they framed the legacy transitioning from Bakunin's "Alliance" to the Makhno/Arshinov Platform. I simply wasn't convinced by it. They never proved that Bakunin's activities were even close to a "proto-platform".

[noble brown]

I'm curious if some one could give me a brief treatment of what the difference between vanguardism and platformism. Is it the difference between pulling and "guidance"

[The Feral Underclass]

It was the way they framed the legacy transitioning from Bakunin's "Alliance" to the Makhno/Arshinov Platform. I simply wasn't convinced by it. They never proved that Bakunin's activities were even close to a "proto-platform".

I've not read the text you're referring to, but the platformist principles of tactical and theoretical unity, federalism and collective responsibility are Bakuninist ideas. They're embedded in his writing.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well in the book they portray it as a situation in which Bakunin is basically trying to form his own little party nuclei. At one point they actually quote a revolutionary socialist of some sort (who was affiliated with Bakunin and his "fraternal brotherhood" or whatever) who said that was exactly what they weren't doing, but they pretty much dismiss this.

[Os Cangaceiros]

And I don't even know about theoretical unity, federalism and collective responsibility...presumably Rudolf Rocker also believed in those things yet he used his position in the IWA to rail against the platform.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well in the book they portray it as a situation in which Bakunin is basically trying to form his own little party nuclei. At one point they actually quote a revolutionary socialist of some sort (who was affiliated with Bakunin and his "fraternal brotherhood" or whatever) who said that was exactly what they weren't doing, but they pretty much dismiss this.

This probably comes from a misreading of his ideas around minority political organisation.


And I don't even know about theoretical unity, federalism and collective responsibility...presumably Rudolf Rocker also believed in those things yet he used his position in the IWA to rail against the platform.

Well they are the foundations of platformism. I think a lot of the opposition to the platform comes from presentation issues and, to be frank, misinterpretations. I think most anarchists also generally have some kind of weird antipathy towards any codified ideas.

[noble brown]

This probably comes from a misreading of his ideas around minority political organisation.



Well they are the foundations of platformism. I think a lot of the opposition to the platform comes from presentation issues and, to be frank, misinterpretations. I think most anarchists also generally have some kind of weird antipathy towards any codified ideas.
A good example of this realization would be how Malatestas' perspective evolved on the platform.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Malatesta never supported the platform, though...he wrote two years before his death that the platform would "paralyze the popular movement and kill the revolution". Neither did Volin, Goldman, Rocker, Berkman, Berneri, or any number of other anarchists you care to mention who lived in that general time period (although platformist politics would get a bit of attention during the Spanish Civil War, and internationally in a few groups). If all of those individuals who probably saw themselves as heirs to Bakunin's legacy as far as anarchist principles were concerned were so opposed to the platform based on simple misinterpretation than I'd say that says something pretty disturbing about anarchism as an ideology.

Maybe it's one of the reasons why I'm no longer an anarchist.

Bakunin himself was sometimes a contradictory figure when it came to "revolutionary discipline" anyway...read what he wrote about Gracchus Babeuf if you don't believe me.

(This is getting way off topic and I'll probably either have to stop posting or split this)

[noble brown]

This is a letter from Malatesta to Makhno. Apparently they had a lengthy correspondence in which Makhno explained the language
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/mal_rep3.htm. And Malatesta conceded some agreement

[The Feral Underclass]

If all of those individuals who probably saw themselves as heirs to Bakunin's legacy as far as anarchist principles were concerned were so opposed to the platform based on simple misinterpretation than I'd say that says something pretty disturbing about anarchism as an ideology.

Malatesta's reading of the Platform was incorrect, which is not surprising, considering the way it was presented -- as Bolshevised anarchism. Terms like "executive" are going to instantly get the backs of anarchists up. I don't think the Dielo Truda group did themselves any favours by presenting the platform in the way they did. But Malatesta's foreboding was a little unfair and came from a place of apprehension that was probably not really founded in reality as far as Makhno was concerned. Seeing collective responsibility as backdoor centralism for example.

But I think it necessary to look at it in context and understand what the Dielo Truda group objective was. They had just come out of a three year struggle culminating in their bitter defeat at the hands of the Bolsheviks. For them, approaching the issue of 'what is to be done,' was coming from having fought an armed conflict against a well organised and well resourced state force. Their overriding point was that anarchists were not as organised and that there required a more focused, coherent and disciplined application of anarchist practice. Their objective being the creation of a debate and obviously its implementation.


(This is getting way off topic and I'll probably either have to stop posting or split this)

I would say split it off. It's an interesting topic.

[BIXX]

Malatesta never supported the platform, though...he wrote two years before his death that the platform would "paralyze the popular movement and kill the revolution". Neither did Volin, Goldman, Rocker, Berkman, Berneri, or any number of other anarchists you care to mention who lived in that general time period (although platformist politics would get a bit of attention during the Spanish Civil War, and internationally in a few groups). If all of those individuals who probably saw themselves as heirs to Bakunin's legacy as far as anarchist principles were concerned were so opposed to the platform based on simple misinterpretation than I'd say that says something pretty disturbing about anarchism as an ideology.

Maybe it's one of the reasons why I'm no longer an anarchist.

Bakunin himself was sometimes a contradictory figure when it came to "revolutionary discipline" anyway...read what he wrote about Gracchus Babeuf if you don't believe me.

(This is getting way off topic and I'll probably either have to stop posting or split this)

Split, I think this is far more interesting.

[Guardia Rossa]

Their overriding point was that anarchists were not as organised and that there required a more focused, coherent and disciplined application of anarchist practice. Their objective being the creation of a debate and obviously its implementation.

I'll definitely read Makhno

EDIT: Just to explain, this post is so I remember this thread later.

EDIT2: Bough a Platformist book and joined a Specifist forum. This is going to be highly worthwhile, I believe.