"neo-platformism"

[Devrim]

I was interested in this discussion in the anarchist section, and wanted to ask a few questions.


What troubles me more about the "neo-platformist" groups, particularly those around the Anarkismo statement is the acceptance of a soft line on national liberation struggles and trade unions. There is a substitution, particularly in groups such as the WSM for "platformism" with anarcho-leftism. Whether this is a problem inherent in the platform I am not sure.

Do you have any ideas what caused this? I have a few of my own, but I would like to hear your opinion.

Devrim

[bcbm]

I'm not a platformist and don't care much about it, honestly, so I can't speak to any relevance to the platform or not. However, I would say that perhaps the trend in some anarchist circles towards that sort of thing has to do with the relative weakness of the anarchist movement? In that environment, people may feel more inclined to latch onto other struggles that appear to be having some success (or just have guns) without considering what it means in relation to their politics.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

I would say that perhaps the trend in some anarchist circles towards that sort of thing has to do with the relative weakness of the anarchist movement? In that environment, people may feel more inclined to latch onto other struggles that appear to be having some success (or just have guns) without considering what it means in relation to their politics.

hmmm ... I am not entirely sure that is true. Lots of anarkismo groups exist in places of intense class struggle - VOCAL - or are generally pretty strong (comparatively) organisations - WSM.

I think there is an element of history at play here. The WSM's in particular call for nationalisation, support for liberation struggles and general leftism I believe is more a result of the history of the left in that country than platformism per se.


I would say that certain interpretations of the platform can lead to a "representative" tendency in anarchism.

There seems to be a tension in the work between the conception of what the union of anarchists should stand for. On the one hand Makhno et al. seem to be arguing for a coherent, unified group of organisers (tied in common theory) who forward anarchists modes of practice. This seems to be supported by the key assertion that anarchism, "does not derive from the abstract reflections of an intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers against capitalism, from the needs and necessities of the workers, from their aspirations to liberty and equality". At the same time however, they also wish to make the historical point (based on their experiences of the Russian revolution) that anarchism needs to somehow represent a political platform. That it needs to forward a political programme in competition with other left authoritarian and bourgeois factions.

I would say that the former (bar a greater emphasis needed on localism and individual autonomy) is very positive and essentially represents a healthy anarchist organisation in practice. Whatever the situation you are engaging organising does tend to encompass experienced activist sharing and spreading their modes of practice. And this is fine as long as it does not degenerate into some sort of cadre or "professional" revolutionary. If they are part of an open, libertarian and self-educating organisation this should never be a problem.

As to the latter, I do not think that puppeting the organisational practices of other political factions is particularly beneficial to the class (in terms of forwarding the cause of working class emancipation) or particularly libertarian. It can also lead to authoritarian and counter-revolutionary positions that we have historically seen in other platformist groups, e.g. George Fontenis and his dicking around, the AWG supporting the Iraqi regime, the WSM calling for participation in bourgeois democracy (popular referenda). I am sure that this flabby broad populism was definitely not what Makhno envisioned for the anarchist-communist movement. If you ask me, a healthy reading of the platform emphatically rejects this interpretation. As to the historical issue, the Russian revolution, there are many differing interpretations as to why the anarchist failed. I agree with Avrich that a key issue was the lack of unity in the movement. However, I am not sure that all that was needed was an anarchistic Lenin to steer the revolution back on track. I am personally reassured by the fourth Kronstadt demand -
4. The organisation, at the latest on 10th March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
If this third revolution had succeeded, it would have been of a truly working class character. The existence of an anarchist party wouldn't have really made a difference.

[IronColumn]

I think if anyone wants to see the antecedents of the current anarcho-leftism, they should look at the history of Anarchism. Flores Magon's Mexican Liberal Party, Italian Anarchists and the anti-fascist resistance in Italy, the FAI during the Spanish Civil War. . . these all give indications as to the current sad state of affairs.

[Devrim]

I think there is an element of history at play here. The WSM's in particular call for nationalisation, support for liberation struggles and general leftism I believe is more a result of the history of the left in that country than platformism per se.

Yet NEFAC has similar positions. I think there is a constancy to their politics, and if you are saying it comes from the WSM, it is something that they have influenced others on internationally.


It can also lead to authoritarian and counter-revolutionary positions that we have historically seen in other platformist groups, e.g. George Fontenis and his dicking around, the AWG supporting the Iraqi regime, the WSM calling for participation in bourgeois democracy (popular referenda). I am sure that this flabby broad populism was definitely not what Makhno envisioned for the anarchist-communist movement.

I don't think it was. For me though the platform is mostly an organisational document. It doesn't imply the politics that today's platformists have. I think that a platformist organisation with positions more akin to the AF's is theoretically possible.

Devrim

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

I don't think it was. For me though the platform is mostly an organisational document. It doesn't imply the politics that today's platformists have. I think that a platformist organisation with positions more akin to the AF's is theoretically possible.

Devrim

I think that is right. I don't believe that a promotion of leftism is in the platform at all. You could however argue though that there is a potential point of departure for it that is contained within the document. I would agree though that the spirit of the piece certainly doesn't imply the politics that today's platformists have.

[Devrim]

You could however argue though that there is a potential point of departure for it that is contained within the document.

And what would you say that is?

I have a vague suspicion that it might be something to do with the 'social insertion' thing of 'Espeficismo'.

The problem is they want to get involved in things, but they don't have the clarity of analysis to realise what is a class struggle, and what isn't.

Devrim

[Red October]

NEFAC specifically rejects support for national liberation in it's aims & principles:


We do not support the ideology of national liberation movements, which claims that there are common interests held between the working class and the native ruling class in the face of foreign domination. Although we support working class struggles against political and economic imperialism, racism, genocide and colonization, we are opposed to the creation of a new ruling class. We believe that the defeat of imperialism will only come about through a social revolution waged against both the imperialists and the local ruling class. This social revolution will have to spread across national borders. We further 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 will be eliminated. We must encourage and develop international solidarity which will one day lay the basis for a global social revolution.

http://nefac.net/node/104

[Devrim]

NEFAC specifically rejects support for national liberation in it's aims & principles:

Yes, like this:


And anarchists should support the right of nations to self-determination, which is NOT the same as supporting nationalism. National self-determination is the ability of the people of a nation to decide for themselves whether they want to be independent of another nation…But if national self-determination means the right to make a choice, then nationalism as such is a particular choice, the choice of a national state. It is possible to support the right of a people to make a choice without agreeing with the immediate choice they make

Devrim

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Oh come on Devrim. Wayne Price doesn't speak for NEFAC. Its actually pretty annoying becuase he raises this national lib thing all the bloody time. I can think of only 1 other person who agrees with him, and that's his other ex RSL comrade.

[Devrim]

Well you tolerate it. To us, the fact that NEFAC publishes articles like this, and I am sure you are aware that it is not the only one, in its press, shows that it is not an internationalist group.

I also think that his ideas have more resonance through out platformism than you give them credit for.

Please don't come back with anything along the lines of 'personal capacity' as it makes your talk of 'theoretical and tactical unity' look more than faintly ridiculous when you don't have to agree with the aims and principles to be a member even.

Actually, from what I have been told by Americans it is a bit of a farce anyway.

Devrim

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

The problem is they want to get involved in things, but they don't have the clarity of analysis to realise what is a class struggle, and what isn't.

Devrim


Absolutely true. There is a hell of a lot of over-emphasis on tactical unity and not much internal education and effort to build theoretical unity. I think this is also why you get a lot of platformist groups degenerating into trotskyist/social democratic factions. If your only emphasis is on tactical coherency then there isn't really a massive lead to Leninism and a "anyway we can get there" attitude to building "revolution" (which is of course entirely counter-productive).

[black magick hustla]

I think if anyone wants to see the antecedents of the current anarcho-leftism, they should look at the history of Anarchism. Flores Magon's Mexican Liberal Party, Italian Anarchists and the anti-fascist resistance in Italy, the FAI during the Spanish Civil War. . . these all give indications as to the current sad state of affairs.

The Mexican Liberal Party was a revolutionary organization when it existed. Flores Magon called for all anarchists to oppose WWI and welcomed the Russian Revolution, while Kroptotkin was to busy praising the allied states. Furthermore, Magon called for communist revolution - he even wrote an article called once "The possibility of communism in mexico". Besides, most of the lifespan of the Liberal Party was before WWI, so the whole dichonomy between communism and the left wasn't formed yet.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Well you tolerate it. To us, the fact that NEFAC publishes articles like this, and I am sure you are aware that it is not the only one, in its press, shows that it is not an internationalist group.

I also think that his ideas have more resonance through out platformism than you give them credit for.

Please don't come back with anything along the lines of 'personal capacity' as it makes your talk of 'theoretical and tactical unity' look more than faintly ridiculous when you don't have to agree with the aims and principles to be a member even.

Actually, from what I have been told by Americans it is a bit of a farce anyway.

Devrim

You know, for an "internationalist" you spend an awful lot of time taking little snipes that really aren't neccesary. Let's keep this civil.

Anyway Wayne Price is speaking in a personal capacity. Nefac allows a certain degree of difference of opinion and allows an open debate about it. Unity doesn't mean we all speak from the same script. Moreover, Price's "nationalism" is about supporting "nations" ie communities of people, rather than states. I disagree with it, but to my knowledge he only publishes it online in a personal capacity. If you have such a problem with it, send a nice detailed message to NYC NEFAC and ask them about it.

[Devrim]

You know, for an "internationalist" you spend an awful lot of time taking little snipes that really aren't neccesary. Let's keep this civil.

I don't think that they are 'snipes'. I think it is a valid political argument. We consider platformism to be an anti-working class current.

On a personal level I am civil.


Anyway Wayne Price is speaking in a personal capacity. Nefac allows a certain degree of difference of opinion and allows an open debate about it.

To me it seems that you are allowed to hold whatever position you want, of course 'in a personal capacity'. Even when it is completely against the aims and principles of the organisation. It makes a mockery of the whole platformist idea of 'theoretical unity'.


Moreover, Price's "nationalism" is about supporting "nations" ie communities of people, rather than states.

Come on, he supported national defence in the last Lebanese war. This is disingenuous.


I disagree with it, but to my knowledge he only publishes it online in a personal capacity.

And in NEFAC publications (I think), and reproduced by Platformists in other sections internationally (I first read one of his articles in the Turkish (Kara Kizil Notları')


If you have such a problem with it, send a nice detailed message to NYC NEFAC and ask them about it.

I have no interest in doing so, just in the same way that I wouldn't write to the RCP to ask about Chairman Bob. I have seen, and heard quite enough of NEFAC's support for national liberation already, thanks.

Devrim

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I don't think that they are 'snipes'. I think it is a valid political argument. We consider platformism to be an anti-working class current.

On a personal level I am civil. I’ve noticed that you seem to consider almost every group anti-working class. What groups are pro working class? And what’s with this constant use of the “we.” Is this the royal “we”, or are you mind melding?

You’re kind of civil. You’re passive aggressive, which is pretty evident in your post.


I have no interest in doing so, just in the same way that I wouldn't write to the RCP to ask about Chairman Bob. I have seen, and heard quite enough of NEFAC's support for national liberation already, thanks. See what I mean? Comparing NEFAC to the RCP is insulting. Actually, it’s really insulting, to any anarchist.

If the platformists are so bad, why do you spend so much time attacking anarchist organizations? Why are you reading the revleft anarchist forum, cherry picking topics to bring up here? Why do the EKS and ICC spend so much damn time on libcom? You clearly have a thing for anarchists devrim, you don’t start threads about how much you dislike RCP, but you do about platformists.


To me it seems that you are allowed to hold whatever position you want, of course 'in a personal capacity'. Even when it is completely against the aims and principles of the organisation. It makes a mockery of the whole platformist idea of 'theoretical unity' His position on national liberation is pretty nuanced. It’s within the realm of acceptable discussion. Theoretical unity doesn’t factor much on the question of national liberation because nefac hasn’t written a position paper on it. The majority of nefacers are against national lib, especially in Quebec, where it actually matters. There are no national liberation struggles going on in Canada or the US, unless you want to count non-violent Parti Québécois, so there isn’t a rush to impose a hard line on members. Besides, as Flint says,“NEFAC is especiafiscta” now anyway


Come on, he supported national defence in the last Lebanese war. This is disingenuous. This is what Price said in reference to that conflict.


Instead, I propose a different anarchist approach: Revolutionary anarchists should, at the same time, (1) be in solidarity with the people of the oppressed nation against the oppressor (in this case Lebanon against the U.S.-Israel), while (2) politically opposing all bourgeois-statist (nationalist, Islamist, etc.) programs and leaderships (here Hezballah, other nationalists, etc.) in favor of revolutionary, internationalist socialist-anarchism. By “solidarity” I mean being “on the side of” the people of the oppressed nation, supporting them against attacks from their oppressors. (Which does not prevent us from sympathy for Israeli--and U.S.--soldiers, but this is a sympathy due to their humanity and their working class background, not a solidarity with their being soldiers.)

This doesn’t sound much like supporting national liberation. This sounds a lot like protesting the US occupation in Iraq ie “aggressor nation, stop murdering people.”


And in NEFAC publications (I think), and reproduced by Platformists in other sections internationally (I first read one of his articles in the Turkish (Kara Kizil Notları') I don’t speak Turkish so I wouldn’t know. But I am pretty sure that Price’s published material doesn’t deal with national liberation. I reviewed all the issues of Northeastern Anarchist and I haven’t found a thing.

[black magick hustla]

I’ve noticed that you seem to consider almost group every anti-working class. What groups are pro working class? And what’s with this constant use of the “we.” Is this the royal “we”, or are you mind melding?

Actually, if Devrim lets me reply for him, there is an anarchist current we consider in the proletarian millieu. The main question of whether a group is really leftist or communist is internationalism. Unfortunately, the groups that gather around the platform today are more leftist than communist.

[IronColumn]

Marmot,

I am aware that the ICC would probably designate the Mexican Liberal Party as a revolutionary group since most of its actions are before 1914. I don't, in the same way I don't think Mussolini was a proletarian revolutionary in 1910, even if he was on the left wing of the PSI. I find the pre/post 1914 division to be one of the weakest features of the ICC's analysis. And also I forgot to mention the Anarchists in the Chinese Revolution, perhaps you'll agree with me here since their primary actions are in the 1920's.

[Devrim]

This is what Price said in reference to that conflict.
Instead, I propose a different anarchist approach: Revolutionary anarchists should, at the same time, (1) be in solidarity with the people of the oppressed nation against the oppressor (in this case Lebanon against the U.S.-Israel), while (2) politically opposing all bourgeois-statist (nationalist, Islamist, etc.) programs and leaderships (here Hezballah, other nationalists, etc.) in favor of revolutionary, internationalist socialist-anarchism. By “solidarity” I mean being “on the side of” the people of the oppressed nation, supporting them against attacks from their oppressors. (Which does not prevent us from sympathy for Israeli--and U.S.--soldiers, but this is a sympathy due to their humanity and their working class background, not a solidarity with their being soldiers.)This doesn’t sound much like supporting national liberation. This sounds a lot like protesting the US occupation in Iraq ie “aggressor nation, stop murdering people.”

That is what he said. He also said things like this:


I am writing from New York City and there is not much I could have done to support the military struggle in Lebanon. This is why I preferred to say we should be *in solidarity with" the southern Lebanese rather than that we should have "supported" them (or "given them military support," in the Trotskyist phrase). But to answer your question (as I already wrote), yes, I would have "picked up the gun" in Lebanon. Since Hizballah was the only force effectively fighting Israeli-U.S. aggression, I would have been in de facto alliance with them (for now). However I would not have given them any political support.

And just to stress that he is not alone within Platformism on these issues


Anarchists...may fight alongside nationalists for limited reforms and victories against imperialism, but we fight against the statism and capitalism of the nationalists....This requires active participation in national liberation struggles but political independence from the nationalists. National liberation must be differentiated from nationalism, which is the class program of the bourgeoisie: we are against imperialism, but also, against nationalism.”


His position on national liberation is pretty nuanced.

It is a nuanced argument for national defence.


Theoretical unity doesn’t factor much on the question of national liberation because nefac hasn’t written a position paper on it. The majority of nefacers are against national lib, especially in Quebec, where it actually matters. There are no national liberation struggles going on in Canada or the US, unless you want to count non-violent Parti Québécois, so there isn’t a rush to impose a hard line on members.

Internationalism is at the centre of working class politics. It is not something that you 'have a position paper on'. It is a class line. The platformists in Turkey didn't have a position paper on the Kurdish/national issue. They had one on gays though.


If the platformists are so bad, why do you spend so much time attacking anarchist organizations? Why are you reading the revleft anarchist forum, cherry picking topics to bring up here? Why do the EKS and ICC spend so much damn time on libcom? You clearly have a thing for anarchists devrim, you don’t start threads about how much you dislike RCP, but you do about platformists.
...
I’ve noticed that you seem to consider almost every group anti-working class. What groups are pro working class?

We think that there is a revolutionary current within anarchism. It is worth engaging with. We think the AF in the UK is an internationalist organisation for example.


And what’s with this constant use of the “we.” Is this the royal “we”, or are you mind melding?

I am a member of a political organisation, and ı speak for that organisation, not in some sort of nebulous 'personal capacity'.


You’re kind of civil. You’re passive aggressive, which is pretty evident in your post.

See what I mean? Comparing NEFAC to the RCP is insulting. Actually, it’s really insulting, to any anarchist.

I don't think that I am in anyway rude. What you are objecting to is what I am saying, not how I am saying it. Yes, I think that the platformists are like the other leftist groups.


But I am pretty sure that Price’s published material doesn’t deal with national liberation. I reviewed all the issues of Northeastern Anarchist and I haven’t found a thing.

Here are some links to Anarkimso:

http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1016
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=3614

Devrim

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Here are some links to Anarkimso: Anarkismo is an open publishing site, a lot of the posts are in personal capacity.


It is a nuanced argument for national defence. Both Wayne’s statement and the ZACF quotes demonstrate what Wayne has already stated. When a random nation invades your town, starts raping people and shooting civilians, you might want to pick up a gun and start shooting them. Ideally there should be a movement storng enough to overthrow imperialism and the Hezbollah types, but if you don’t enough guns, train your sights on the ones doing the most harm.


Internationalism is at the centre of working class politics. It is not something that you 'have a position paper on'. It is a class line. The platformists in Turkey didn't have a position paper on the Kurdish/national issue. They had one on gays though. I don’t know anything about the Turkish platformists. They probably do have something and you haven’t noticed it. I fail to see how those statements were against internationalism. Wayne’s points were about keeping out Israeli occupiers, which makes sense since Israeli occupation usually means that your house gets knocked down, your land is stolen and half your family is dead. The average income of the Palestinians vs. Isrealis


We think that there is a revolutionary current within anarchism. It is worth engaging with. We think the AF in the UK is an internationalist organisation for example. Ah yes the AF, any others? WSA? Any of the IWA?


I am a member of a political organisation, and ı speak for that organisation, not in some sort of nebulous 'personal capacity'. Take a number, we’re all members of political organizations, we also use the word “I.” This is what I mean about speaking from the same script. No matter the cohesion of EKS I’m sure your politics don’t conform to them 100 percent. This is a forum of individuals, act like one.


I don't think that I am in anyway rude. What you are objecting to is what I am saying, not how I am saying it. Yes, I think that the platformists are like the other leftist groups. Yes and to claim that NEFAC and the RCP are even in the same ballpark is insulting. Just like its insulting when the stalin kiddies call anarchists “dirty petit blah blah blah” Except I know to ignore because Stalinists are stalinists, but left communists have a head on their shoulders. I respect you, but then you compare comrades to the RCP and its hard to respect you.

[Devrim]

Anarkismo is an open publishing site, a lot of the posts are in personal capacity.

This is complete liberalism. It is saying "Our members can write political articles that disagree with our position if they do it in a personal capacity, and we will publish them". ...And all this from the people who talk about theoretical unity. I think (but I am not certain) that at least one of those articles was published by NEFAC. They were certainly reprinted in other languages.

You seem to be making two arguments here though. One is that it is all in a 'personal capacity', and not the position of NEFAC. The second is that what he is arguing isn't an anti-working class argument in favour of national defence. I will address that, which is the main political point in another post.

I would just like to deal with some of the other points raised here though.


I don’t know anything about the Turkish platformists. They probably do have something and you haven’t noticed it.

AKI doesn't exist any more. At the time I was referring to they didn't have something that I didn't notice as the reason that I know that didn't have a position was they told me. They did later come up with a position.



We think that there is a revolutionary current within anarchism. It is worth engaging with. We think the AF in the UK is an internationalist organisation for example. Ah yes the AF, any others? WSA? Any of the IWA?

It was only an example. I don't follow every single anarchist group, but yes certainly others including parts of the IWA.


Take a number, we’re all members of political organizations, we also use the word “I.” This is what I mean about speaking from the same script. No matter the cohesion of EKS I’m sure your politics don’t conform to them 100 percent. This is a forum of individuals, act like one.

It is funny that those who talk about 'theoretical unity' seem to get upset when they run up against some cohesion. These are very basic issues. Of course we are in complete agreement on them.


Yes and to claim that NEFAC and the RCP are even in the same ballpark is insulting. Just like its insulting when the stalin kiddies call anarchists “dirty petit blah blah blah” Except I know to ignore because Stalinists are stalinists, but left communists have a head on their shoulders. I respect you, but then you compare comrades to the RCP and its hard to respect you.

I really don't see the difference. What you seem to be saying is that Platformists can support national liberation, take sides with different factions of the bourgeoisie in referendums over how to manage capital, support candidates in elections for union General secretary, call for privatisation, and then we can't say they are the same as the other leftist groups who do these things.

The main difference I see is on the parliamentary question. That is something that it is difficult for anarchists to change on because of historical reasons, but it is also something that the more radical leftists agree with too.

There are no insults. I just don't see any major differences between the tendencies. Actually, I think that platformism is probably closer to Trotskyism that to the RCP though. I wanted to use a US example though, and I don't know the Trotskyist groups.

Devrim

[Raúl Duke]

We think that there is a revolutionary current within anarchism.


What about in the U.S.?

I keep getting the dissapointing insinuation that "anarchism is fucked" in the U.S.

:(

[Devrim]

What about in the U.S.?

I keep getting the dissapointing insinuation that "anarchism is fucked" in the U.S.

:(

I think in general that the working class is weak(er) in the US. This is reflected politically.

As far as I understand it the only real anarchist organisation is NEFAC.

Devrim