What's the diff between Especifismo & Platformism?

[Raúl Duke]

What's the difference between modern current day especifismo and modern current day platformism in theory and practice? (They seem to similar to me... :unsure: )

If they have any significant differences,
Do "platform"-inspired federations use any of "especifismo ideas" in their practice? What about the especifismo-inspired federations, do they use any platform-derived ideas?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:40 pm
What's the difference between modern current day especifismo and modern current day platformism in theory and practice?

If they have any significant differences,
Do "platform"-inspired federations use any of "especifismo ideas" in their practice? What about the especifismo-inspired federations, do they use any platform-derived ideas?
The two tendancies developed completely seperately, but are essentially exactly the same. They overlap so heavily that they're almost interchangable terms.

Especifismo can be summmarized as:

1) The need for a single anarchist federation, with a coherant theory and tactical unity.

2) The belief that new strategies but be developed from the experiences of that organisation

3) Priorotisation of engaging in mainstream and popular struggles, which it strangely calls 'social insertion'

All these things are inherant parts of Platformism. The difference is that Platformism is based on the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists, and Espacifismo is based on the lessons of 50 years of organising and failing in south america.

[Raúl Duke]

Thanks, I kind of thought it was something like that because it seemed to me as platformism "re-invented" (although when you go on platformist federation sites they sometimes might have little sections/articles discussing especifismo as if its something new, different, and to be learned from. Thus why I had to ask.)

A question, platformist/especifista-inspired federations only allow anarcho-communists, but are there also non-platformist groups that have that similar rule (of allowing only "class struggle anarchists") or is this only in the platform?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by JohnnyDarko+December 18, 2007 11:27 pm--> (JohnnyDarko @ December 18, 2007 11:27 pm) A question, platformist/especifista-inspired federations only allow anarcho-communists, but are there also non-platformist groups that have that similar rule (of allowing only "class struggle anarchists") or is this only in the platform? [/b]
It's a bit different to that. Platformist groups will, like most groups, let anyone in that agrees to their "constitution" and "aims and principals" the difference is what's implied in membership.

Platformist groups have "collective responsability"


libcom
collective Responsibility meant “the entire Federation will be responsible for the political and revolutionary activity of each member; in the same way, each member will be responsible for the political and revolutionary activity of the Federation.” This means that each member should take part in the collective decision-making process and respect the decisions of the collective.

Whereas other anarchist groups reject the ability of the Federation to dictate tactics to members.

Trotskyist and other Leninist groups have this system.

[Raúl Duke]

Trotskyist and other Leninist groups have this system.

So is it the same as "democratic" centralism in practice...? :unsure:

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:23 am
So is it the same as "democratic" centralism in practice...? :unsure:
Not quite, there would at no point be a central decision making body that had power over the working class. The reality is that every serious anarchist organisation functioned in this way. Even the Friends of Durruti

"We are introducing a slight variation in anarchism into our programme. The establishment of a revolutionary Junta.

As we see it, the revolution needs organisms to oversee it, and repress, in an organised sense, hostile sectors. As current events have shown such sectors do not accept oblivion unless they are crushed.

There may be anarchist comrades who feel certain ideological misgivings, but the lesson of experience is enough to induce us to stop pussy-footing.
" - Toward a fresh revolution.

[Raúl Duke]

Ok, here's a different question.

Whats the difference between a platformist federation and a non-platform anarchist group in practice based on your opinion?

Also, what's the platformist take on consensus decision making vs majoritarian decision making issue? (this is somewhat part of the 1st question, since I'm expecting differences in organizational practices.)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:10 pm
Whats the difference between a platformist federation and a non-platform anarchist group in practice based on your opinion?

Non-platformist federations tend to suffer heavily from a lack of coherancy, and forward thinking, they fail to engage in the class strugle in any meaningful way or for a prolonged period of time and often devolve into theory groups or stunt organisers that burn themselves out. In practice platformists have got more done, in fact, almost every one of anarchisms hallmarks has been part of the platformist tradition. And this is for many reasons.


Also, what's the platformist take on consensus decision making vs majoritarian decision making issue?

I don't think that was covered in the Platform. The thing is that it's a tradition within anarchism and not an ideology. I believe most Platformists groups prefer majority, and if delegates are used, each delegate has as many votes as people s/he represents.

[Raúl Duke]

Thanks for this information

I personally see consensus as a goal to be reach in "anarchist meetings"( in groups, when deciding things about "praxis" or whatever) but that when nothing cannot be reach through consensus than a majority vote should be the way to go instead of "doing nothing."

Let's say that the federation decides on a certain tactic,etc at a meeting...is it possible to re-discuss that tactic, etc at a later point (i.e. can it be re-debated if a sizable amount of comrades think it should and bring it up) or this becomes some sort of irreversible "party line"?

Also, to contrast, do members in a democratic centralist group have any say on the party line or is it all dictated by the leader of the party? Can party lines be rediscussed?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:44 pm
I personally see consensus as a goal to be reach in "anarchist meetings"( in groups, when deciding things about "praxis" or whatever) but that when nothing cannot be reach through consensus than a majority vote should be the way to go instead of "doing nothing."

Oh yea, of course. Consensus is preferable, but sometimes impossible.


Let's say that the federation decides on a certain tactic,etc at a meeting...is it possible to re-discuss that tactic, etc at a later point (i.e. can it be re-debated if a sizable amount of comrades think it should and bring it up) or this becomes some sort of irreversible "party line"?

It could be rediscussed and redefined as many times as people wish. In fact, dissent is incredibly important. No plan of action or idea is divine and eternal, they need to be criticised all the time. Constructively.

Members would even be allowed to organise and print alternative views to the mainstream, organise their own discussions and debates or whatever, so long as they conceed that their opinion is not that of the entire federations.


Also, to contrast, do members in a democratic centralist group have any say on the party line or is it all dictated by the leader of the party? Can party lines be rediscussed?

No.

"Election of all party organs from bottom to top and systematic renewal of their composition, if needed.

Responsibility of party structures to both lower and upper structures.

Strict and conscious discipline in the party—the minority must obey the majority until such time as the policy is changed.

Decisions of upper structures are mandatory for the lower structures.

Cooperation of all party organs in a collective manner at all times, and correspondingly, personal responsibility of party members for the assignments given to them and for the assignments they themselves create. "