Difference between Platform & non-Platform groups

[Raúl Duke]

What are the differences between a Platform group (example, NEFAC) and a non-Platform anarchist group (maybe different organizational styles fall into this category)?

What are the benefits of the Platform and what are the disadvantages?
What are the benefits of non-Platform organization and what are the disadvantages?
IS there many different organizational styles that are non-platform? Which are they (if they have names). Also tell me which organizational style are you using as reference to answer the 2nd question.
What's the difference in "environement" in a Platform group and a non-Platform group?
Which do you prefer (or had a better experience in)?

[Janus]

What are the benefits of the Platform and what are the disadvantages?

Platformism (http://libcom.org/thought/platformism-an-introduction)

Also, check out this prior discussion on it:
Platformism-what do you think? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55454&hl=Platformist)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:01 am
What are the differences between a Platform group (example, NEFAC) and a non-Platform anarchist group (maybe different organizational styles fall into this category)?
Platformism came about after Makhno and some other Russian anarchists wrote a document entitled: "Organisational Platform of a General Union of Anarchists". It was a reaction to the perceived failure of the anarchist movement and the organisational structure and discipline of the Bolsheviks.

The British Anarchist Federation is not a platformist organisation and some members of IAF are rabidly anti-platformist, especially, I'd imagine, the Italian Anarchist Federation.

To be honest I don't think there is much of a difference organisationally between NEFAC and the AF but rather they regard themselves loyal to separate traditions. The Platform calling for ideological unity, tactical unity, collective action and discipline and the non-platform tradition rationalised by Malatesta in this letter: Malatesta's Reply to Nestor Makhno (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6170/malatesta_reply.html)

The issue Malatesta had was that the platform restricts autonomy, free initiative and dissent, all of which are specific anarchist principles and necessary for the creation of an anarchist society. Although I can sympathise with the sentiments of the platform, the notion of things like "collective responsibility" can lead to authoritarian action which can only logically be justified by a centralisation of political authority.

The platform is at times the regurgitation of Bolshevik organisation and I think it is important for anarchists to realise there are alternatives. Alternatives that are more effective and create the most desired result.

[Raúl Duke]

Thanks both of you; although I woulda liked more replies.

I'm going to examine Malatesta's Reply to Mahkno; its best to look at both sides and see for one's self if in theory (only way to know in practice is if I join a platform group for some time, than a non platfrom group, and later examine my experiences. However, where I live there isn't much organization...) which would be better

[Devrim]

Originally posted by JohnnyDarko
although I woulda liked more replies

Ok, for what it is worth.

Although we don't think that it is inherent in the Platform itself, we feel that the current that identifies itself as Platformism today is the most 'leftist' expression of anarchism.

Its political positions, support of national liberation struggles, and trade unionism are basically the same as the Trotskyist groups. The only difference between them in our opinion is on parlimentrianism, and the large buckets of libertarian rhetoric that the Platformist throw over everything.

Devrim

[rebelworker]

I dont have time right now, but mabey later tonight Ill weigh in as the "platformist" opinion.

It is true that Platformist organisations do hold some similar positions to SOME TACTICAL ASPECTS of bolshevism, but the political vision of revolutionary change is very different and well within the anarchist tradition.

Platformists are also I would say, in the same current as the modern Especifismo (http://nefac.net/node/2081) current of anarchism spreading in latin America.

Also although never officially linked I personaly feel, and this is shared by many people, that the friends of Durruti group in Spain shared many of the similar criticisms of the anarchist movement as the Workers cause group that wrote the Platform.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by rebelworker
It is true that Platformist organisations do hold some similar positions to SOME TACTICAL ASPECTS of bolshevism,

Actually, I said Trotskyism, and I wouldn't say 'some', I would say all of them except Parlimentarianism. Wayne Price's support of nationalism, and Joe Black's support of voting in elections for Trade union general secretaries are just two of the more blatant examples.


but the political vision of revolutionary change is very different and well within the anarchist tradition.

I don't see how it differs from the Trotskyist except for a bit of liberal (and I mean liberal, not libertarian) rhetoric.

Devrim

[rebelworker]

Well the minor difference I would see being WE DONT WANT TO TAKE OVER ORGANISATIONS as being just a tiny difference.

Serriously, we beleive that we should be engaged in most levels of political struggle being waged by our class. If that means trying to make space in a union or other social organisation by supporting a more democratic or progressive union candidate, then why not. We dont have a position in favor of trying to get our members elected to burocratic positions. Thats a huge difference between us and trots.

We dont see oursleves as the future leaders of the revolutionary govt, but we do think we need to be well organised to fight for our positins among our class at times of political importance (all the time).

As an organisation we dont support nationalism, and this is the position of all of our members although some of us have more nuanced positions on movements partially inspired by the idea of national liberation.

Your straw man arguments (by using two members on limited debates) against Platformism as a whole is pretty sad.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by rebelworker
Your straw man arguments (by using two members on limited debates) against Platformism as a whole is pretty sad.

I think that this is a little dishonest if not intentionally so. While people on revleft may not know, you and I know that the people I mentioned are very influential members of the Platformist current. Also, I think that they are probably the two most important issues, one concerns how we relate to workers struggle, and the other concerns how we relate to war, hardly limited debates, actually the central questions for a communist organisation


As an organisation we dont support nationalism, and this is the position of all of our members although some of us have more nuanced positions on movements partially inspired by the idea of national liberation.

I refer to the support of national liberation movements. If you want to suggest that you support national liberation movements without supporting nationalism, fine. Calling it a 'more nuanced' position is laughable. It is dragging the working class towards war.


If that means trying to make space in a union or other social organisation by supporting a more democratic or progressive union candidate, then why not. We dont have a position in favor of trying to get our members elected to burocratic positions.

There are deeper issues here, but this shows a real problem. What sort of opposition do you have to those in these 'bureaucratic positions'? It seems that you don't stand for them yourselves, but you support those who do. Would taking these positions have a corrupting moral influence on your members?


Serriously, we beleive that we should be engaged in most levels of political struggle being waged by our class.

I believe that we should be involved in all levels of political struggle on a working class terrain. I think that one of the mistakes of Platformism is that it is unable to see where this terrain lies. Just because workers are struggling for something doesn't make it a class struggle. National liberation is a good example here. Workers are struggling, and Platformism ideology of 'social insertion' states that they should be there with the workers. Looking at the class nature of the struggle is something that eludes them.


We dont have a position in favor of trying to get our members elected to burocratic positions. Thats a huge difference between us and trots.

What bureaucratic positions are you talking about? I think that you have exactly the same position on this as all of the more left wing Trotskyists.


Well the minor difference I would see being WE DONT WANT TO TAKE OVER ORGANISATIONS as being just a tiny difference.

I see this as rhetoric. I can't see any difference between the way you act.


We dont see oursleves as the future leaders of the revolutionary govt,

So the main difference we have between you is some abstract pledge about a post revolutionary situation. I will judge you on your positions, and activity today thanks very much.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:09 pm
Its political positions, support of national liberation struggles, and trade unionism are basically the same as the Trotskyist groups. The only difference between them in our opinion is on parlimentrianism, and the large buckets of libertarian rhetoric that the Platformist throw over everything.
Very good point.

The AF for example does not 'support' national liberation or Trade Unionism.

[rebelworker]

WOW, you guys really have read us wrong...

I dont have time for a full response right now but Im stunned at your ignorance about the polital work and positions of nefac. I think you guys are living a little too much in internet/intelectual land...

I write a reply when I get home tonight.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:50 am
WOW, you guys really have read us wrong...

I dont have time for a full response right now but Im stunned at your ignorance about the polital work and positions of nefac. I think you guys are living a little too much in internet/intelectual land...

I write a reply when I get home tonight.
So, we don't agree with you so therefore we are living in 'internet/intelectual land'.

Actually, I think that I know exactly what you stand for, and think that your accusations are a liitle 'sad' as you said our critisisms were before.

Devrim

[Raúl Duke]

I'll keep this stuff in mind (the criticisms of the Platform) when my time comes to become active and join an organization...

However....no one has critiqued non-platform groups.

[rebelworker]

Ok sorry this tok so long but Ive been buisy.

First off there are two different debates happening here.

One is about platformism, the other about the political positions held by a couple current Platformist groups.

To the first question:

Platformism is an attempt to deal with the obvious historical failings of Anarchists.

For me and many others it is blatantly obvious that anarchism has suffered from major organisational, cultural and political mistakes.

To rectify this throughout history some anarchists have tried to ask the hard questions that many others ignored.

The organisational Platform was an attempt to deal with the qustions that arose during the Russian revolution. How was a small group of dedicated vanguardist able to build such an anti democratic model during a period of such strong workers and peasants democracy, and why did the anarchists let them. Their conclusion, disorgsnisation and lack of focus.

During the Spanish revolution the Friends of Durrutti tried to point out why the numerically superior anarchist movement was not able to enact its own position when given the chance. Their answer,although the anarchist had done well to bui;ld a mass movement capable of making anarchist politics relevant to the working class, anarchist didnt know what they really wanted beyond that, and the ones that did were not organised specifically geared towards revolutionary change to make it happen.

Similar questions were asked in France during 68,

Anarchists trying to survive brutal dictatorships in Latin America came up with the theory of especifismo, the dual role of fighting mass movements and specific diciplined revolutionary organisations. They managed to survive for 60 years and have been central in rebuilding anarchism in the southern cone.

More recently groups in Italy, Turkey, Ireland, Quebec, USA, Hungary, France and South Africa all independantly came to similar conclusions and have begun working togeather.

This is what Platformism means today, it is an attempt to come to terms with the failings of past and current anarchist projects and become relevant to working people by engaging in mass movements and building disciplined and explicitly revolutionary anarchist communist organisations.

Our criticisms of "non platormist" groups has been both historical and coming from the actual experience of most of what passes for anarchism these days.
I have been part of, or seen, too many groups with no focus, no reflection and no future, burn out people with good intentions.

Synthesist politics is the best end of this spectrum, with often numerically larger groups working of a serries of unrelated and often contradictory projects, with the continued problem of lack of long term vision and a level of serriousness about strategy. Such groups will often include a mix of primitivists, syndicalists, individualists and ect, and the work of one section of the group often goes a long way to anger or discredit the work of another.
In my persoanl experience these groups have a life of 1-3 years, they either fizzel out from lack of focus or blow up due to obvios contradictory wants and need of the participants.
These groups also usually reform in an almost identical form a year r two later, with no effort to examine the failures of the past and ultimately repeating the same mistakes.
Ouside of the North American milliuex there are many synthesist anarchist federations with considerably longer lives, and often better politics, although avoiding some of the short term problems seen in examples I mentioned above, i ultimately think they will not be able to break out of the historical "anarchist ghetto" that plagues much of the movement due to the differeing views of large parts of their membership, the one major exemption that i have seen is the AF from Britan, who is too ultra left for my taste (more on this later).

Another "non Platformist" tendency of anrchism is Insurectionism. These people, in my humble opinion, are very unrealistic bout what is required to actually make real change and thus think super short term. We gotta fuck shit up so the people will rebel! I have actually seen a group influenced by insurectionism disband after a sucessfull campaign (they finally did some serrious outreach to regular folks and won something making alot of good contacts in the process) so as to "avoid conservatising". They have ceased to do any serrious activiy since then.


My criticism of syndicalism would be as easy as to look at the Spanish civil war, the CNT did a good job of mobilizing the working class, but a very bad job at making revolutionary change. i also personally think that in the modern context, revolutionary unionism is a dead end.


Now to the second debate, the positions held by current anarchist groups.

NATIONALISM. We do not support it. Our collectivly decided upon aims and principles clearly states we do not support the idea of nationl liberation.
Now we have onw utspoken member of nefac who writes articles that could be construed as tassid support of national liberation struggles.
Most people in the group consider this healthy internal debate, but more and more it becomes clear that alot of people are confused by our position so we might have to deal with the way people debate in public.

In Pratice we have been pretty anti nationalist (thats why its funny that people in other countries acuse us of stuff that we get attacked for from the other side of the coin where we actually do our work. In the countires where national liberation is stillan issue here we have a presence we are attacked by nationaloists as dividing the movement or acting in the intertests of imperialist powers because of our vocal criticism of nationalist movements. Where I live, in Quebec, we have often been involved in physical confrontations in emonstrations with nationalist and zenophobic elements of the movement. Anyway, we dont really care so mch what people who dont work with us think, people we live and struggle with know what we really stand for.

UNIONS, NEFAC is critical of but participates in the mainstream labour movement.
Are unions currently revolutionary? clearly not. Are they capable of being revolutionary? Probably not (hell even "revolutionary unions arent capable of that").
Are the movements that will make revolution possible likely to have a strong base in the section of the working class organisind in and fighting within the structure of unions? In my pinion most probably. We want to be where people are fighting and as opressed workers we opreciate the benefits we get from unions. period.

I think some people "the ultra left" have a very unrealistic and self defeatist position on unions and the state of the working class, if you disagree, thats unfortunate, have fun remaining an irrelevant marginal groupiscule....

I hope this helps you a bit jonny.

[bcbm]

I think some people "the ultra left" have a very unrealistic and self defeatist position on unions and the state of the working class, if you disagree, thats unfortunate, have fun remaining an irrelevant marginal groupiscule....

Aren't you a smarmy little ****. Have fun sitting through boring meetings and putting out shitty newspapers.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 11:29 pm
the AF from Britan, who is too ultra left for my taste (more on this later)
Can you justify this position please?


I think some people "the ultra left" have a very unrealistic and self defeatist position on unions and the state of the working class, if you disagree, thats unfortunate, have fun remaining an irrelevant marginal groupiscule....

This is conjecture, nothing more.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 27, 2007 03:23 am

I think some people "the ultra left" have a very unrealistic and self defeatist position on unions and the state of the working class, if you disagree, thats unfortunate, have fun remaining an irrelevant marginal groupiscule....

This is conjecture, nothing more.
No man, his way is the one true way that will lead the workers in to Revolution™ and freedom...


...and they're not like Trots at all. :rolleyes:

[syndicat]

For me this is rather complicated in part because I'm not entirely clear what "Platformism" is supposed to mean, or how it differs from, for example, the politics of my own organization, Workers Solidarity Alliance. It's hard to pinpoint any difference between us and NEFAC, for example. To begin with, WSA is not a "synthesist" organization. A "synthesist" organization is sort of anything goes, or anarchism-without-adjectives, and leads to groups getting bogged down in not agreeing with each other. This can tend to make the organization ineffective. The idea of coming together is to be able to learn from each but also to get things done. To me I have no problem with the existence of multiple groups of activists pursuing their own conceptions. We'll see thru the test of time which works out.

Altho I'm not a member of a so-called "Platformist" organization, I agree that a political or "specific" organization needs to have a unified perspective that members agree to and are working together on that basis. Of course there are going to be differences of opinion -- and there's no reason for people concocting the ridiculous pretense that there are no such differences internal to an organization -- but the point is that there is some area of consensus that people are working on the basis of.

Syndicalists also differ in a variety of ways, and remarks by NEFACers sometimes fail to take this into account. Some syndicalists think there is no need for a "specific" organization -- the organization of those with a specific revolutionary politics that is the basis of membership. For them, the mass organizations are everything. Tho WSA is syndicalist, we don't agree with that viewpoint. Like NEFAC we adhere to the "dual organization" idea -- this means we need both the mass organizations and the specific organization. By mass organizations I mean workplace based organizations like unions and community based organizations of all kinds, tenant groups, women's groups, whatever.

If the working class is to liberate itself, it needs its own mass organizations that it controls. The self-management of these mass organization by the members prefigures self-management of the new society. The working class can't liberate itself "spontaneously." That's because the existing system survives day to day because people internalize it in their heads, they acquiesce in authority, in going along with the prevailing scheme of things. The working class is not encouraged to have confidence in its capacities, and its ability to run things. And when people see see lack of solidarity and things like racism, they are not so likely to think in terms of collective power of the working class. People need to see this in practice, as in a period of rising struggle.

My point here is that there needs to be a process of change in working class consciousness, and practices of running your own struggles and making victories thru your own efforts contribute to the development of working class consciousness. The working class also needs to have its own mass organizations thru which it can batter down the existing system, and mobilize its movement in a situation that is approaching revolution. Now, if you have mass organizations of workers, arising out of the workplace struggle, in such a period it seems to me you have a form of revolutionary unionism. If the labor movement couldn't become revolutionary, how could the working class be revolutionary? The labor movement would have to be very different in such a period, but how could the working class play the creative role in social change in a revolutionary period without its own mass organizations?

Maybe rebelworker means that right now you're not going to have significant mass worker organizations put together on the basis of an explicit revolutionary ideology. And i'd say that is true, given the low level of class consciousness in the USA at present. But then it really becomes more a question about the dynamics of change in the labor movement or in the working class.

I favor, then, a specific organization, made up of activists, organizers, publicists, who work together and are active within the various mass organizations/movements in various areas of struggle, struggles of workers and oppressed groups. But as i see it, one of the things that such activists should be working towards is trying to encourage self-management of mass organizations by the members, and development of the skills, confidence and participation by ordinary folks so that they can run their own organizations, have the capacity for self-management, rather than a political organization aiming to capture control over mass organizations, becoming the "managers" of the movement. I would describe that approach as vanguardist.

[rebelworker]

This is a very good aticulation of alot of what I, and most if not all nefacers think and why I think the WSA and NEFAC get along so well.

I honestly think the two major differences between nefac and the WSA is:, one a bit of a generation gap( probably nost of the younger nefacers would have been involved in the founding of the WSA had we been active then.
and two, you folks are trying to maintain a continental organiation while we are trying to start with a smaller regional system.

I imagine if in the future as we continue to try and join up with other regional groupings into an eventual continental confederation we would want to work very closely on this project with folks from the WSA (and some WASers have expressed interest in this aswell).

My persoanal experience is that the conditions of the North American (and probably most of the rest of the world) working class,and class conflict in general are such that tryong to build an entierly indepenant working class movement outside of the tade unions is utterrly hopeless. I also think there are lots of important struggles being fought through the unions and importnant lessens being learned by our class compatriots.

It makes snece to me that we should be working politically with and in the unions. Personally I have no choice, i work in construction and the industry is 100% unionized, infact most of what I had growing up was because my father got benefits from having a union, I have almost been killed at work several times, always in non union envyroments and always because of lack of saftey norms that unions fight for.

My knees are going on me, my teeth are bad, I have a sholder injury and probably will need surgury on my jaw before i get too much older, without a union I would have no hope of most of theses things being dalt with. Unions arent just a political abstract for me, they are party of my survival as a prole. Millions of other working class epople feel the same way, I will work with these people.

When the movement gets bigger and people get more confidence from fighting and winning we can hoepfully make the unions more democratic and responsive. If we also build independant revolutionary organisations, one day mabey people will see the need to break from the constraints of the unions burocracy and somewhat inherant recanciliatory role of class mediation within capitalism of uniosn and make a social revolution. I hope by that time my organisation and others like it will have won "the battle of ideas" with enough people to influence any such revolutionary upheaval in a libertarian and "lasting" direction.

I dont know what else to say, i consider left communists and "ultra leftists" as my allies. The guy who runs prole.info is one of my best friends and the guy who introduced me to nefac. I read cou ncil communist, and left communist authors and generally find much of the critique very good. Im am also glad that nefac tries to maintain good relations with the AF and other such organisations, but I do think you guys are making some very crutial tactical mistakes and calling me a trotskyist is just dissapointing, and shows a lack of real understanding of our politics.

Ive organised independant labour networks, they just dont last without support from or working with unions, thats just the reality here, mabey its different where you are but Ive yet to see any concrete example to disprove this, just the oposite lots of tries (including several by nefac members) to build outside of the unions and it just dosnt work.

Id love to be proven wrong, we all want a strong confident independant workers movement, i just sont think its gonna happen spontaniously ouside of the unions.