Platformism

[Forward Union]

What do people think of Platformism?

For those of you who are unawear. Platformism is a tendancy within Anarchism based on "The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists" - a document writen by various Anarchists (including Makhno) who escaped Bolshevik repression in the early 1920s.

It argued that Anarchism failed in Russia, because it is infected with disorganisation and a misunderstood notion of individuality. And that a strong Anarchist General Union is required in order to tackle the opponants of workers power, and act as a vanguard in times of revolution.


Originally posted by The Organisational Platform
The miserable state in which the anarchist movement vegetates, has its explanation in a number of causes, of which the most important, the principal, is the absence of organisational principles and practices in the anarchist movement.

Taken as a whole, such a state of revolutionary anarchism can only be described as 'chronic general disorganisation'.

Like yellow fever, this disease of disorganisation introduced itself into the organism of the anarchist movement and has shaken it for dozens of years.


It also argued that Anarchists must form a collective understanding of capitalism, the state and revolution (Theoretical unity). And a collective battle plan, and route to achieveing such goals (tactical unity). Platformism has been the subjuct of great debate within the Anarchist movement, particularly as it argues for the formation of an "Executive comittee" and also uses the term "vanguard" in reference to the role anarchist organisations should take during revolution.


"We foresee that several representatives of self-styled individualism and chaotic anarchism will attack us, foaming at the mouth, and accuse us of breaking anarchist principles. However, we know that the individualist and chaotic elements understand by the title 'anarchist principles' political indifference, negligence and absence of all responsibility, which have caused in our movement almost incurable splits, and against which we are struggling with all our energy and passion. This is why we can calmly ignore the attacks from this camp"

Discuss!

The Organisational Platform (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/platform/org_plat.htm)

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 02, 2007 11:16 am
What do people think of Platformism?

I think that you have to differentiate between 'Platformism' as it exists today as a current within anarchism with specific politics, and the historic 'Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists', which is a document which concentrates on organisational questions.

I think that the historic document represents a positive current within anarchism.

I think that the modern 'Platformist' tendency represents a negative one.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:54 am
I think that you have to differentiate between 'Platformism' as it exists today as a current within anarchism with specific politics, and the historic 'Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists', which is a document which concentrates on organisational questions.

I think that the historic document represents a positive current within anarchism.

I think that the modern 'Platformist' tendency represents a negative one.

Devrim
Platformism is an organisational philosophy, the politics that platformist groups have adopted are inconsiquential. I would say that the WSM, NEFAC etc, have a brilliant organisational structure but their positions of certain issues are debatable.

[BobKKKindle$]

I consider Platformism positive, as it represents a theoretical concession to Lenin's theory of party organisation; a recongition that decentralised forms of organisation that allow individual components of a broad movement to make decisions with no regard for the interests of the whole are not suited to a revolutionary situation in which unity and accountability (best maintained through a system of democratic centralism) are very important.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 02, 2007 12:10 pm
Platformism is an organisational philosophy, the politics that platformist groups have adopted are inconsiquential. I would say that the WSM, NEFAC etc, have a brilliant organisational structure but their positions of certain issues are debatable.
I am not so sure. Although I think that there could theoretically be 'Platformist' groups with different politics, the fact is that there aren't.

From what I have heard about NEFAC's level of 'theoretical unity', and organisational structure if you think that it is brilliant, then your own organisation must be woeful.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:17 pm
From what I have heard about NEFAC's level of 'theoretical unity', and organisational structure if you think that it is brilliant, then your own organisation must be woeful.

You have no idea. :lol:

But I disagree with your insinuation that Platformist organisation leads to certain positions on trade unions and nationalism. Praxis for example has no such positions, and many members are also in the AF.

http://praxisglasgow.wordpress.com/aims-and-principles/

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 02, 2007 12:22 pm
But I disagree with your insinuation that Platformist organisation leads to certain positions on trade unions and nationalism. Praxis for example has no such positions, and many members are also in the AF.

http://praxisglasgow.wordpress.com/aims-and-principles/
That link gives me this:

Bu siteye erişim mahkeme kararıyla engellenmiştir.

T.C. Fatih 2.Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi 2007/195 Nolu Kararı gereği bu siteye erişim engellenmiştir.

Access to this site has been suspended in accordance with decision no: 2007/195 of T.C. Fatih 2.Civil Court of First Instance.

From what I have heard about this group they were in a very similar vein though.

I don't say that 'Platformism' inevitably 'leads to certain positions on trade unions and nationalism'. I say that 'Platformism' today holds those positions. I think it is also to do with the personal background of many of those involved in anarchist politics.

Can you past the positions of the Praxis group here, please?

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:17 pm
I consider Platformism positive, as it represents a theoretical concession to Lenin's theory of party organisation; a recongition that decentralised forms of organisation that allow individual components of a broad movement to make decisions with no regard for the interests of the whole are not suited to a revolutionary situation in which unity and accountability (best maintained through a system of democratic centralism) are very important.
Bob, last time that we discussed anarchism, it turned out that you had no idea what you were talking about.

Have you read the Platform?

Are you familiar with the organisations we are talking about?

Or are you just making a meaningless comment based on what you have heard?

If it is the latter, I would advised at least obtaining some basic knowledge of the subject before pontificating.

Devrim

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:54 pm
I think that the modern 'Platformist' tendency represents a negative one.

Devrim
I'm not familiar with any modern platformist groups; so can you please elaborate a bit?

What do you see as their negatives?

What are these positions on nationalism and trade unions that you disagree with?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+December 02, 2007 12:58 pm--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ December 02, 2007 12:58 pm) I'm not familiar with any modern platformist groups; so can you please elaborate a bit?
[/b]
I would say that the Platformist groups are the ones around 'Anarkismo':
http://www.anarkismo.net/index.php
In the English speaking world WSM (Ireland), NEFAC (USA), Zabalaza (South Africa).


bleeding gums malatesta
What do you see as their negatives?

What are these positions on nationalism and trade unions that you disagree with?


I don't have time now. I will come back on this later.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:36 pm
Can you past the positions of the Praxis group here, please?

Of course.

Aims and Princiapls

The world’s wealth is produced by us, the working class. We ought to enjoy the benefits.

We want to abolish the system of capitalism which places wealth and power in the hands of a few, and replace it with workers control and socialism.

We stand for a new society where there will be no bosses, politicians or bureaucrats. A society which will be run in a really democratic way by working people, through councils in the workplaces and community. We want to abolish authoritarian relationships and replace them with control from the bottom up - not the top down.

All the industries, all the means of production and distribution will be commonly owned, and placed under the management of those working in them. Production will be organised and planned by the federation of workers councils, not for profit but to meet peoples’ needs.

We are opposed to all coercive authority, we believe that the only permissible limit on the freedom of the individual is that they do not encroach on the freedom of others.

We do not ask to be made rulers nor do we intend to seize power “on behalf of the working class”. Instead we hold that socialism can only be created by the mass of ordinary people.

Anything less is bound to lead to no more than replacing one set of bosses with another.

We are opposed to the state because it is not neutral, it can not be made to serve the interests of workers. The structures of the state are only necessary when a minority seeks to rule over the majority. We can create our own structures, which will be open and democratic, to ensure the efficient running of everyday life.

We are proud to be part of the tradition of libertarian socialism which has taken root in the working class of many counties because it serves their interests - not the interests of the power seekers and professional politicians.

In short we fight for the immediate needs and interests of the working class under the existing set up, in order to encourage the necessary political understanding and activity to overthrow capitalism and its state, and lead to the birth of a better society.

Mission Statement

We will coordinate our involvement in existing class struggles with the dual aim of improving people's lives and building truly democratic social movements and institutions of and for the working class. We hope that these can become the basis of a new, classless, society. We want a serious approach to combining theory and practise where we set targets and assess ourselves against those targets, and build new theory based on what we learn. No bullshit - let's just see what we can actually do to help, and work towards more working class power. Our strategy and tactics will be based on what works. The community and workplace are both sites of struggle against the ruling class, and struggles in both must be fought. In some workplaces a "red" union such as the IWW may be the best option, in others a democratic network of trade union members may be the better option. These are tatical decisions, not unbending principles. We will settle strategic and tactical disagreements by vote, and act in unity once the issue is settled. We are very interested in involving anyone who agrees with these principles and is serious about the struggle.

It is quite new and hasn't developed a coherant position on Unions. At the moment all they have on Workplace organisation is this:

"Workplace/Economy
In workplaces where there is trade union representation, members and supporters are encouraged to join that union and become active members and shop stewards in that union. Union-activist members and supporters should co-ordinate activity and share ideas amongst each other, functioning as a radical shop stewards network.

Members and supporters are encouraged to join and support rank and file networks wherever they exist, and to help develop such networks."

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 02, 2007 01:58 pm
What are these positions on nationalism and trade unions that you disagree with?
Althought the ICC (of which Dev is apart of) are crazy in many respects and heavily criticise the AF (especially on it's involvement with the IWW) there opposition to nationalism and trade unionism is essentially the same as the AF's. - Of which William Everard is a subs-paying member.

4. We are opposed to the ideology of national liberation movements which claims that there is some common interest between native bosses and the working class in face of foreign domination. We do support working class struggles against racism, genocide, ethnocide and political and economic colonialism. We oppose the creation of any new ruling class. We reject all forms of nationalism, as this only serves to redefine divisions in the international working class. The working class has no country and national boundaries must be eliminated. We seek to build an anarchist international to work with other libertarian revolutionaries throughout the world.

7. Unions by their very nature cannot become vehicles for the revolutionary transformation of society. They have to be accepted by capitalism in order to function and so cannot play a part in its overthrow. Trades unions divide the working class (between employed and unemployed, trade and craft, skilled and unskilled, etc). Even syndicalist unions are constrained by the fundamental nature of unionism. The union has to be able to control its membership in order to make deals with management. Their aim, through negotiation, is to achieve a fairer form of exploitation of the workforce. The interests of leaders and representatives will always be different from ours. The boss class is our enemy, and while we must fight for better conditions from it, we have to realise that reforms we may achieve today may be taken away tomorrow. Our ultimate aim must be the complete abolition of wage slavery. Working within the unions can never achieve this. However, we do not argue for people to leave unions until they are made irrelevant by the revolutionary event. The union is a common point of departure for many workers. Rank and file initiatives may strengthen us in the battle for anarchist communism. What's important is that we organise ourselves collectively, arguing for workers to control struggles themselves.

Aims and Principles of the Anarchist Federation (http://afed.org.uk/aims.html)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:17 pm
I consider Platformism positive, as it represents a theoretical concession to Lenin's theory of party organisation; a recongition that decentralised forms of organisation that allow individual components of a broad movement to make decisions with no regard for the interests of the whole are not suited to a revolutionary situation in which unity and accountability (best maintained through a system of democratic centralism) are very important.
Anarchism has never advocated such a thing.

In the Anarchist Federation (an organisation which is connected with a massive anti-platformist tradition - and which William Everard is a member) has unity and accountability.

The platform was an historical reaction to the [direct] failures of the anarchist movement in Russia during the civil war, 80 years ago. It is an attempt at compromising with anarchists or activists who looked at bolshevism as an alternative and success and so used adopted anarchist praxis in order to accommodated that sentiment.

William Everard criticises the modern anarchist movement because he argues that it is lacking organisation and unity, but the reality is he only considers platformism to be actual organisation and unity in the first place. The issue here isn't that the class struggle anarchism movement is disorganised or lacking unity, but because it is lacking organisation and unity based on a platformist agenda.

There has to be a distinction made between class struggle anarchism and post-left anarchy, which has been thoroughly disproven. Class struggle anarchism needs to become more active in community based struggles and specific practical problems within the Anarchist Federation for example, have to be dealt with - but this is a measure of praxis/re-organisation, rather than the need for a fundamental theoretical shift, which William Everard would like to argue is necessary.

We need to tighten our existing organisation and praxis - Not implement quasi-Leninist theory to address what amounts to a misunderstanding of the anarchist movement or anarchism in general.

[Comrade MWC]

Why would anarchists organize under such leninist tendencies? A central anarchist organization showing platformism and anarchism do not need each other would be A-Fed, which just so happens to be one of the largest concentrations of active anarchists in the current world. I would elaborate upon the theory, but I don't need to due to The Anarchist Tension covering all the points I would have.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 03, 2007 12:28 am
Althought the ICC (of which Dev is apart of)
No, I am not.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Devrim+December 03, 2007 06:56 am--> (Devrim @ December 03, 2007 06:56 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 03, 2007 12:28 am
Althought the ICC (of which Dev is apart of)
No, I am not.

Devrim [/b]
I thought you were.

[Guest1]

Though even they have their problems, the platformists are pretty much the only part of the anarchist movement that is worthwhile.

I've worked with NEFAC a bit, and they were committed class struggle activists with clear ideas. I might not agree with all of them, but they didn't hide behind smoke and mirrors when speaking.


William Everard criticises the modern anarchist movement because he argues that it is lacking organisation and unity, but the reality is he only considers platformism to be actual organisation and unity in the first place. The issue here isn't that the class struggle anarchism movement is disorganised or lacking unity, but because it is lacking organisation and unity based on a platformist agenda.
Case in point.

William Everard thinks the anarchist movement is disorganized, so they should adopt platformism.
TAT dodges the point by saying the anarchist movement is only disorganized if you take the opinion that platformism is a way for them to get organized.

Wow... wow... I admire your academic aerobics. You take his solution, and turn it into the problem, and voila! You can now give William the recommendation that he should just change his state of mind, and he'll see more clearly that the anarchist movement actually is organized!

Why debate when you can just mess around with the definition of organized?

I'll post something more in depth about platformism later on today, I gotta go sleep. I just got off the bus from a big congress for the general strike, in another city, with a shitload of platformists... Uh oh...

[Devrim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+December 03, 2007 11:07 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ December 03, 2007 11:07 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:56 am

The Anarchist [email protected] 03, 2007 12:28 am
Althought the ICC (of which Dev is apart of)
No, I am not.

Devrim
I thought you were. [/b]
No, I am a member of an organisation called Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol (Internationalist Communist Left).

I have never been a member of the ICC, nor do they have a section in Turkey.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 03, 2007 02:55 pm
I've worked with NEFAC a bit, and they were committed class struggle activists with clear ideas. I might not agree with all of them, but they didn't hide behind smoke and mirrors when speaking.
This implies that class struggle anarchist organisations that are not Platformist do not have clear ideas and hide behind smoke and mirrors?


TAT dodges the point by saying the anarchist movement is only disorganized if you take the opinion that platformism is a way for them to get organized.

Hmm? I'm not quite sure how I've dodged any point. I mean, if William Everard is asserting we must adopt platformist methods to become organised then he is making the claim that the anarchist movement is not organised. Which isn't the case.

The issus is William Everard believes that the platform is the only way to get and be organised in any meaningful way; why else would he be a proponent of it within an explicitly anti-platformist tradition?


You take his solution, and turn it into the problem, and voila! You can now give William the recommendation that he should just change his state of mind, and he'll see more clearly that the anarchist movement actually is organized!

I don't see how this is an example of "smoke and mirrors"?

Look, this has nothing to do with William Everard changing his "state of mind" but observing the fact that the solution he presents is totally unnecessary and furthermore antithetical to anarchist ideas - As outlined in Malatesta's responses to the platform.


Why debate when you can just mess around with the definition of organized?

There are clearly lots of different definitions of "organisation", so it's not really possible for me to "mess around" with it. I mean, the whole basis of this argument is about what organisation means, surely?

Sure, I'm defending one form of organisation over another and that's the fundamental point here. William Everard believes that one form of organisation is in fact the only way that organisation can be effective.

My point is that there isn't a systematic issue with the way the organisation is organised. It's an historical issue. Implementing such contrary organisational methods to the anarchist movement will not address the historical situation the anarchist movement finds itself in, which is part of the problem effecting the issues William Everard wants to solve.

Creating executive committee's and forcing people to attach themselves to a set of ideas is not going to suddenly make the anarchist movement bigger or more relevant. It's simply going to create yet another stagnant, authoritarian political organisation that hasn't really addressed any of the issues facing the anarchist movement.


I just got off the bus from a big congress for the general strike, in another city, with a shitload of platformists... Uh oh...

Thanks for sharing that with us all.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 03, 2007 12:36 am
In the Anarchist Federation (an organisation which is connected with a massive anti-platformist tradition - and which William Everard is a member) has unity and accountability.

Is that anti-platformist tradition, you? by any chance? Because even the founding members of the ACF speak highly of the Platform.

Infact, ccording to Nick and Bonnie, two founding members of the AF, forming a platformist-style organisation without the Dogma, was what lead to the founding of the AF!


AF: The Anarchist Federation, or rather its precursor the Anarchist Communist Federation, formed in 1985, shortly after the last great miners' strike. It coalesced around the Libertarian Communist Discussion Group, which distributed stocks of the "The Organisational Platform of Libertarian Communists", left over from the days of the Anarchist Workers Association (AWA) and Libertarian Communist Group (LCG). The emphasis was on building a platformist style organisation in Britain, and in building an organisation built on class struggle and anarchist communism.

adding;


the AF is not an explicitly "platformist" organisation. It is informed by its politics fairly significantly, and it acknowledges the main points of the Platform (tactical and theoretical unity, federalism, and collective responsibility). But, a lot has happened since 1926

Source (http://www.ainfos.ca/03/jul/ainfos00362.html) (my emphasis)


William Everard criticises the modern anarchist movement because he argues that it is lacking organisation and unity, but the reality is he only considers platformism to be actual organisation and unity in the first place. The issue here isn't that the class struggle anarchism movement is disorganised or lacking unity, but because it is lacking organisation and unity based on a platformist agenda.

I've been of the opinion that Anarchism is stagnant ideology with no practically-progressive qualities for years. I have been of a platformist persuasion for, probably several months. And to be honest, I am fully in agreement with Dek (also a long standing member of the AF) that although the Platform is an incredibly important document that we should learn from, but that we should also move past it, I agree with nick and bonnie that "a lot has happened since 1926"


Class struggle anarchism needs to become more active in community based struggles and specific practical problems within the Anarchist Federation for example, have to be dealt with - but this is a measure of praxis/re-organisation, rather than the need for a fundamental theoretical shift, which William Everard would like to argue is necessary.

Theory shift from what to what? I agree with you entirely that internal Afed problems need to be collectively solved and that we should engage more in community based struggles. And I suspect if we sat down and discussed the problems together we'd find ourselves in broad agreement.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 03, 2007 01:20 am
Why would anarchists organize under such leninist tendencies?
What Leninist tendancies????


A central anarchist organization

I assume you mean "centralised"? In which case you've misunderstood platformism entirely. There would be no central decision making body, no democratic centrism or hierachy within the organisation.

It's simply a recognition that the decentralised movement needs coherant theory and strategy in order to be of any value.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by William Everard+December 03, 2007 06:31 pm--> (William Everard @ December 03, 2007 06:31 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 03, 2007 12:36 am
In the Anarchist Federation (an organisation which is connected with a massive anti-platformist tradition - and which William Everard is a member) has unity and accountability.

Is that anti-platformist tradition, you? by any chance? Because even the founding members of the ACF speak highly of the Platform. [/b]
No, it's not me, it's the AF and the International it's apart of. Expressed through its constitution both of the AF and the IAF.


Infact, ccording to Nick and Bonnie, two founding members of the AF, forming a platformist-style organisation without the Dogma, was what lead to the founding of the AF!

That's odd, it's certainly not the opinion Bonnie has given to me but in any case, whether that's what they wanted it certainly is not what we have, especially considering the constitution of the AF is explicitly against platformist methods.


the AF is not an explicitly "platformist" organisation. It is informed by its politics fairly significantly, and it acknowledges the main points of the Platform (tactical and theoretical unity, federalism, and collective responsibility). But, a lot has happened since 1926

It's not explicit in the sense that it is contrary to the platform. We reject things like "theoretical unity" and "collective responsibility" in the platformist sense expressed, as I've said, through our constitution.

The point you're making seems pretty irrelevant considering what is said in those documents and the reality of it in practice are two very different things.


Theory shift from what to what?

Platformism.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 03, 2007 05:52 pm
It's not explicit in the sense that it is contrary to the platform. We reject things like "theoretical unity" and "collective responsibility" in the platformist sense expressed, as I've said, through our constitution.

Actually, I don't think that the Platformists, or at least NEFAC have that much theoretical unity either.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

I have just re-read both the AF and the IAFs constitutions, and fail to see how either contradict or exclude platformist organisational principals from beign prevalant. But I am high on throat-infection drugs.

Though I would certainly say that neither are themselves platformist.

I suspect your conclusion comes from a misunderstanding of Platformism.


especially considering the constitution of the AF is explicitly against platformist methods.

Please explain how this is the case.


Theory shift from what to what?

I don't want the AF to be platformist. I've made this clear to you before.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 03, 2007 07:06 pm
I suspect your conclusion comes from a misunderstanding of Platformism.


especially considering the constitution of the AF is explicitly against platformist methods.

Please explain how this is the case
I don't have a copy of it to hand but as soon as I have the chance to read it (perhaps it's on the web?) I will be more than happy to allay your suspicions.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 03, 2007 10:11 pm
I don't have a copy of it to hand but as soon as I have the chance to read it (perhaps it's on the web?) I will be more than happy to allay your suspicions.
Here ya go. I assume you're pointing to the 8th paragraph.



The Anarchist Federation is an organisation of revolutionary class struggle anarchists. We aim for the abolition of all hierarchy, and work for the creation of a world-wide classless society: anarchist communism.

Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class by the ruling class. But inequality and exploitation are also expressed in terms of race, gender, sexuality, health, ability and age, and in these ways one section of the working class oppresses another. This divides us, causing a lack of class unity in struggle that benefits the ruling class. Oppressed groups are strengthened by autonomous action which challenges social and economic power relationships. To achieve our goal we must relinquish power over each other on a personal as well as a political level.

We believe that fighting racism and sexism is as important as other aspects of the class struggle. Anarchist-Communism cannot be achieved while sexism and racism still exist. In order to be effective in their struggle against their oppression both within society and within the working class, women, lesbians and gays, and black people may at times need to organise independently. However, this should be as working class people as cross-class movements hide real class differences and achieve little for them. Full emancipation cannot be achieved without the abolition of capitalism.

We are opposed to the ideology of national liberation movements which claims that there is some common interest between native bosses and the working class in face of foreign domination. We do support working class struggles against racism, genocide, ethnocide and political and economic colonialism. We oppose the creation of any new ruling class. We reject all forms of nationalism, as this only serves to redefine divisions in the international working class. The working class has no country and national boundaries must be eliminated. We seek to build an anarchist international to work with other libertarian revolutionaries throughout the world.

As well as exploiting and oppressing the majority of people, Capitalism threatens the world through war and the destruction of the environment.

It is not possible to abolish Capitalism without a revolution, which will arise out of class conflict. The ruling class must be completely overthrown to achieve anarchist communism. Because the ruling class will not relinquish power without their use of armed force, this revolution will be a time of violence as well as liberation.

Unions by their very nature cannot become vehicles for the revolutionary transformation of society. They have to be accepted by capitalism in order to function and so cannot play a part in its overthrow. Trades unions divide the working class (between employed and unemployed, trade and craft, skilled and unskilled, etc). Even syndicalist unions are constrained by the fundamental nature of unionism. The union has to be able to control its membership in order to make deals with management. Their aim, through negotiation, is to achieve a fairer form of exploitation of the workforce. The interests of leaders and representatives will always be different from ours. The boss class is our enemy, and while we must fight for better conditions from it, we have to realise that reforms we may achieve today may be taken away tomorrow. Our ultimate aim must be the complete abolition of wage slavery. Working within the unions can never achieve this. However, we do not argue for people to leave unions until they are made irrelevant by the revolutionary event. The union is a common point of departure for many workers. Rank and file initiatives may strengthen us in the battle for anarchist communism. What's important is that we organise ourselves collectively, arguing for workers to control struggles themselves.

Genuine liberation can only come about through the revolutionary self activity of the working class on a mass scale. An anarchist communist society means not only co-operation between equals, but active involvement in the shaping and creating of that society during and after the revolution. In times of upheaval and struggle, people will need to create their own revolutionary organisations controlled by everyone in them. These autonomous organisations will be outside the control of political parties, and within them we will learn many important lessons of self-activity.

As anarchists we organise in all areas of life to try to advance the revolutionary process. We believe a strong anarchist organisation is necessary to help us to this end. Unlike other so-called socialists or communists we do not want power or control for our organisation. We recognise that the revolution can only be carried out directly by the working class. However, the revolution must be preceded by organisations able to convince people of the anarchist communist alternative and method. We participate in struggle as anarchist communists, and organise on a federative basis. We reject sectarianism and work for a united revolutionary anarchist movement.

We oppose organised religion and religious belief(s).

[Comrade MWC]

What Leninist tendancies????

Platformism seems like some sort of quasi-vanguardism, something anarchists have never advocated and never should.


I assume you mean "centralised"? In which case you've misunderstood platformism entirely. There would be no central decision making body, no democratic centrism or hierachy within the organisation.

Actually, I believe in this case "central" and "important" or "main" would be interchangeable. I did type central thinking that it may be interpreted that way, however, if you look at the rest of the sentence, it looks as if I dismiss that the organization being discussed is platformist directly afterwards, therefore, I suppose thinking I said centralised is generally illogic.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 03, 2007 10:26 pm
Platformism seems like some sort of quasi-vanguardism, something anarchists have never advocated and never should.

So you've never read the platform or platformist publications? Can you name any platformist groups or famous individuals? Anything in it that makes it "leninist" ? Or are you just repeating TAT posts?

I would strongly argue that the platform is in no way "leninist" and serves to better defeat Leninism in the long term. Accusing anarchist ideas of "bolshevism" is substitutionalist for actual constructive criticism. It requires no mental strength and helps us in no way.


Actually, I believe in this case "central" and "important" or "main" would be interchangeable. I did type central thinking that it may be interpreted that way, however, if you look at the rest of the sentence, it looks as if I dismiss that the organization being discussed is platformist directly afterwards, therefore, I suppose thinking I said centralised is generally illogic.

So what do you mean by a "central" organisation. A decenderalised organisation could still be "central" in terms of say, historical context or political relevance. Like the CNT or the Makhnovists in their time, anarchist groups who had decentralised democratic structures, but were "central" to an understanding of the period in which they operated, and the politics of the time.

So do you oppose anarchist groups being "central" in this sence?, would you prefer they stayed on the fringes with no social relevance?

[Comrade MWC]

So you've never read the platform or platformist publications?

Well, I skimmed through the document you provided and base my views here on the basics of the theory you provided.


Can you name any platformist groups or famous individuals?

Uhh...Makhno?


Anything in it that makes it "leninist" ? Or are you just repeating TAT posts?

You've said yourself that the platformist organization acts as a sort of "vanguard", thusly, it is a quasi (meaning somewhat)-leninist tendency, and because vanguardism is not limited to leninism I have corrected myself and called it quasi-vanguardist.


I would strongly argue that the platform is in no way "leninist" and serves to better defeat Leninism in the long term. Accusing anarchist ideas of "bolshevism" is substitutionalist for actual constructive criticism. It requires no mental strength and helps us in no way.

As I've pointed out, I'm not exactly educated on the subject so I provided the insight I currently had. How about this: I'll read up and provide more productive replies tommorow or later on tonight, depending on how much time on the internet I can get.


So what do you mean by a "central" organisation.

Central to the anarchist movement. Important, main, essential. Something along those lines.


So do you oppose anarchist groups being "central" in this sence?, would you prefer they stayed on the fringes with no social relevance?

Of course not, I never implied that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by William Everard+December 03, 2007 11:25 pm--> (William Everard @ December 03, 2007 11:25 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 03, 2007 10:11 pm
I don't have a copy of it to hand but as soon as I have the chance to read it (perhaps it's on the web?) I will be more than happy to allay your suspicions.
Here ya go. I assume you're pointing to the 8th paragraph. [/b]
I'm talking about the constitution, not the aims and principles.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 03, 2007 10:57 pm
I'm talking about the constitution, not the aims and principles.
Well, I don't have to agree with the constitution to be in the AF, just the aims and principals.

In any case, I have never heard of it before, and have been in the AF for maybe, 3 years. I've never read it in any publications, and cannot find it on the site, I was never informed of it's existance either.

But I would love to see it, I hope you can find it.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 03, 2007 10:40 pm
Well, I skimmed through the document
I would recommend you read the whole thing, it's very interesting, and not too long. And if you have time, Malatestas Objection (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/mal_rep1.htm) and more importantly, Makhnos Reply (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/abouplat.htm) to Malatesta.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 04, 2007 09:07 am
Well, I don't have to agree with the constitution to be in the AF, just the aims and principals.

In any case, I have never heard of it before, and have been in the AF for maybe, 3 years. I've never read it in any publications, and cannot find it on the site, I was never informed of it's existance either.

But I would love to see it, I hope you can find it.
This is a bit sad.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:31 am
This is a bit sad.

Tell me about it.

In my search for It I did uncover several documents in the AF "short texts" section, about revolutionry structures which I consider to be brilliant. For example an analysis of "Tyranny of Structurelessness” and various pro-platform sentiments.

"In the “Tyranny of Structurelessness”, Jo Freeman argues that de-structuring restricts the range of activities mutual and affinity groups can perform to simple “consciousness-raising”. Since liberation movements are intent on radical change they need different forms. She argues that the basis of such groups (friendship, affinity, mutual experience) are insufficient to prevent elitism and build mass organisations. The end of consciousness-raising leaves people with no place to go and the lack of structure leaves them with no way of getting there. This statement has a familiar ring. Unless a movement for change can overcome this problem it will not develop but become inward-looking, trapped in sterile rituals, dominated by elites. To break the authority of structurelessness she attempts to show that, in fact, all groups have structure, no less real for being informal. These structures based on knowledge, association and experience create in-groups that confer power and out-groups who are disempowered. To protect status and authority, in-groups create criteria by which people are judged: they are ‘allowed’ to join, they participate but only in prescribed roles or channels. "

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by William Everard+December 04, 2007 10:07 am--> (William Everard @ December 04, 2007 10:07 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 03, 2007 10:57 pm
I'm talking about the constitution, not the aims and principles.
Well, I don't have to agree with the constitution to be in the AF, just the aims and principals. [/b]
Erm, actually you do.


In any case, I have never heard of it before

It's been referred to many times on the list, I have even quoted it in a debate about platformism.

Anyway, it will be in the membership pack.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by William Everard+December 04, 2007 10:17 am--> (William Everard @ December 04, 2007 10:17 am)
Comrade [email protected] 03, 2007 10:40 pm
Well, I skimmed through the document
I would recommend you read the whole thing, it's very interesting, and not too long. And if you have time, Malatestas Objection (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/mal_rep1.htm) and more importantly, Makhnos Reply (http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/abouplat.htm) to Malatesta. [/b]
And then there's Malatesta's second reply (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6170/malatesta_reply.html).

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Devrim+December 04, 2007 10:31 am--> (Devrim @ December 04, 2007 10:31 am)
William [email protected] 04, 2007 09:07 am
Well, I don't have to agree with the constitution to be in the AF, just the aims and principals.

In any case, I have never heard of it before, and have been in the AF for maybe, 3 years. I've never read it in any publications, and cannot find it on the site, I was never informed of it's existance either.

But I would love to see it, I hope you can find it.
This is a bit sad.

Devrim [/b]
The constitution is sent out to new members when they join, so she should have seen it.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 04, 2007 10:23 am
The constitution is sent out to new members when they join, so she should have seen it.
I wasn't sent anything of the sort. I had to ask, several times after I joined, to get a (10 year) outdated copy of the handbook sent to me in an email.

I had two formal introductions to the AF, in which no constitution was mentioned.

This is insane.

[The Feral Underclass]

It was/is in the handbook.

It's not that insane. The organisation of the AF when you joined was not as good as it is now.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 04, 2007 10:45 am
It was/is in the handbook.

It's not that insane. The organisation of the AF when you joined was not as good as it is now.
Ok I have sent you the constitution in a PM, can you please point out the sections you feel exclude platformists? Or platformist tenacies, like position papers for example.

[The Feral Underclass]

Please bare in mind that this constitution exists within the context of the Aims and Principles.

1. Basic Principle

1.1 The AF is a federation of individuals, organising in groups on a
voluntary basis, joined together on the basis of free association

1.2 The AF consciously organises on a collective basis, striving to
achieve the highest level of unity but we also relinquish over each other,
personally and politically.

1.3 Where people can work together they should do so, where they
cannot, they should not.

1.4 We reject the ‘right’ to control behaviour claiming instead the
right to disassociate from those we cannot work with within the Aims &
Principles of our organisation.

2. Reasons for disassociation

2.1 These basic principles mean there is no power or authority in the
AF to punish, discipline or otherwise constrain individuals and groups.

[Knight of Cydonia]

hm...i can see clearly now why that this Platform were so controversial 'til this day. and so this make me more interested in studying this Organizational Platform.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 02:58 am
hm...i can see clearly now why that this Platform were so controversial 'til this day. and so this make me more interested in studying this Organizational Platform.
For people interested more in the current platformist current of anarchism/ libertarian communism, here is a good link with lots of stuff.

Platformism (http://nefac.net/node/544)

[MarxSchmarx]

hm...i can see clearly now why that this Platform were so controversial 'til this day.

Care to be a little more specific? :huh:

[rebelworker]

Platformism, was at the time a very contrvaversial position within the anarchist movement, it spawned alot of debate between leading anarchist thinkers, some of whoch is listed in the link i provided above.

Some of the criticism was that people feared this was just a Bolshevisation of anarchism. Some of the problems may have stemmed from the translation of the day (Imagine trying to have a multi lingual debate before the internet, and during a period of great repression and violence.)

Today the new "neo-platformism" is also a contraversial current within and outside of anarchism. From its inseption NEFAC has been attacked from the left and the right. Anti organisationalist anarchist have alot of the same old feelings about "bolhevisation" of anarchism. We've also been extreemly sucessful for such a new current so other groups on the trotskyist left have also leveled their guns at us. I think because we succesfull criticise both the historical failings of anarchism, that is disorganisation and in some cases inability to reach a broad layer of the working class, aswell as our solid critique of Bolshevism, while maintianing a solid revolutionary organisation.

Again I encourgae you to check out the link above, or google platformism, Im sure youll find article written by other currents.