Platformism

[K.Bullstreet]

Hi folks. A Northern Neo-Trot asked me to start a thread on here about Platformism, and as he is a mod I thought I better do as he said, before he begins the final push to rid these Isle of anarchists, and shoots my family.;)

Platformism is a strain of anarchist-communism, and has its roots in 'the Platform' ('The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists' - by the Dielo Trouda group.)

It is based around 4 core principles - theoretical unity, tactical unity, collective responsibility and federalism.

A brief introduction can be read on Platforism can be found here: http://libcom.org/thought/platformism-an-introduction

And 'The Platform' can be read here: http://libcom.org/library/organisational-platform-libertarian-communists-dielo-trouda

I havn't read it, and I'm not a Platformist, so anybody with greater knowledge, feel free to explain it better than I have.

So yeah...what do you think of Platformism?
DISCUSS!

[Forward Union]

Oh fucking hell

http://skugg.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/can-of-worms.jpg

[Forward Union]

I think all I am going to say is that you should just read the Platform, and it's suppliments.

And also the long debate we in this thread; Platformism-unity of tactics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/platformism-unity-tactics-t83569/index.html) and tell Holden Caulfield (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=15127) that I want to debate him on platformism and not other anarchists :p

[The Feral Underclass]

The Platform is an awesome document with many sound and reasonable ideas.

[Forward Union]

Im glad you've finally come to that conclusion cormade.

And actully in reply to K.Bullstreet again, I reccomend you check out the theory sticky in this forum for a very good list of Platformist texts, Im not personally interested in a discussion on it here as we already had one a few pages back.

[The Douche]

I can say, as a non-platformist, perhaps anti-platformist, that I would be very interested in seeing a discussion on the platform involving only platformists and trotskyists.

[Forward Union]

I can say, as a non-platformist, perhaps anti-platformist, that I would be very interested in seeing a discussion on the platform involving only platformists and trotskyists.

I'd be happy to duel debate a trotskyist on it.

[Holden Caulfield]

I'd be happy to duel debate a trotskyist on it.

hey:) (can i post in here?)

[The Feral Underclass]

hey:) (can i post in here?)

I've moved the debate into theory...As you can see.

[K.Bullstreet]

I will give it a read very soon.:)

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

It establishes sound tenets for organising but overstates the need for centralisation and does not afford enough importance to localism and individual autonomy (and the function of dissent). The last part of the document (especially those concerning the executive committee) are undeveloped and could lead to some massively different modes of organisation.

This should not of course be confused with the leftist "platformism" of groups like the WSM which is a substitutionalist philosophy and shares little with the original makhnovist movement.

[Holden Caulfield]

i find platformist very interesting, especially the way it implements democratic centralism...

[The Douche]

i find platformist very interesting, especially the way it implements democratic centralism...

Oh no he didn't!

This is my critique of the platform. I thought perhaps I just didn't understand DC. I hope this discussion really runs with this issue.

[Junius]

i find platformist very interesting, especially the way it implements democratic centralism...

In what sense? For example, the WSM officially has a specific stance on national liberation, whilst certain members continue to put forth views which contradict that view.

Is that democratic centralism? Theoretical unity? Tactical unity? Collective responsibility?

[BobKKKindle$]

i find platformist very interesting, especially the way it implements democratic centralism..I don't know if you were trying to hint at this, but for me platformism is interesting because it is basically a series of concessions to Lenin's theory of party organization. Lenin consistently argued that the most class conscious elements of the working class should group together and form their own organization with the objective of engaging with the rest of the workers by intervening in their economic struggles so as to raise the general level of political consciousness in preparation for the revolutionary seizure of power. By recognizing the need for a coherent organization, anarchists are acknowledging the existence of a vanguard within the working class, because the level of consciousness is uneven. A further element of Lenin's theory is his emphasis on party discipline, which means that every party member should be able to give their opinion and vote on issues of policy, but once a vote has been taken every party member should accept the rule of the majority and abide by the party line even if they do not personally agree with the decision - a system otherwise known as democratic centralism. This is also acknowledged in platformism by calling for theoretical and tactical unity, as well as the principle of collective responsibility.

Although it is good to see that anarchists are able to overcome the limitations of an idealistic obsession with freedom at the expense of all other considerations, which has often led to a complete lack of organization within the anarchist movement, it cannot be denied that this document still represents a series of concessions to Lenin because many of the ideas it incorporates were always promoted by Lenin as essential to any effective revolutionary organization.

[BobKKKindle$]

In what sense? For example, the WSM officially has a specific stance on national liberation, whilst certain members continue to put forth views which contradict that view.

If members argue against the party line in a public sphere (when they are not in the company of other comrades of the same party) then they are violating the principles of democratic centralism and disciplinary action should be taken against them for undermining the work and cohesion of the party. If the WSM allows its members to do this and there are no disciplinary measures, then the WSM is obviously not a Leninist party organization.

[Devrim]

I don't think that these ideas were Lenin's specifically. They were put forward by many in the workers' movement.

Devrim

[Devrim]

If the WSM allows its members to do this and there are no disciplinary measures, then the WSM is obviously not a Leninist party organization.

Well no it isn't. It is anarchist.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

Well no it isn't. It is anarchist.

Of course not, their website claims that Russia was not ready for a socialist revolution in 1917 and they are explicitly opposed to Lenin. This is one of the reasons why they and most other non-Leninist groups will rarely be able to gain any solid base of support within the working class and will never succeed in overthrowing capitalism.

[Devrim]

their website claims that Russia was not ready for a socialist revolution in 1917 and they are explicitly opposed to Lenin. This is one of the reasons why they and most other non-Leninist groups will rarely be able to gain any solid base of support within the working class and will never succeed in overthrowing capitalism.


I haven't seen this. Can you quote, please.

However, many 'non-Leninist' groups do think that a socialist revolution was not possible in 1917, so that argument doesn't apply to them.

Apart from that, I don't think that your conclusion is in anyway supported by your premise.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

I know a few people in NEFAC, which, from my limited experiences is a pretty good organization.

Then again, the two men who best defined the two modern approaches to anarchism, Malatesta and Rocker, were both vocally opposed to Platformism, despite having their own differences when it came to organization. So doubts about it are certainly not without merit.

[Junius]

I haven't seen this. Can you quote, please.

However, many 'non-Leninist' groups do think that a socialist revolution was not possible in 1917, so that argument doesn't apply to them.

Indeed, Bordiga for example:

'Your way of expressing yourself does not seem right to me. One cannot say that the Russian revolution was a bourgeois revolution. The 1917 revolution was a proletarian revolution even if it was an error to generalise its ‘tactical’ lessons. Now the problem is posed as to what happens to the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, if the revolution does not carry on in other countries. There can be a counter-revolution; there can be a process of degeneration whose symptoms and reflections within the communist party have to be discovered and defined. One cannot simply say that Russia is a country where capitalism is expanding.'

I think most (all) of the Communist Left, today at least, argue that Russia was quite ready for a proletarian revolution.

Bobkindles:


and they are explicitly opposed to Lenin. This is one of the reasons why they and most other non-Leninist groups will rarely be able to gain any solid base of support within the working class and will never succeed in overthrowing capitalism.

It is fundamentally idealist to propose that lack of adherence to a (former) leader by a party is going to prevent the working class from overthrowing capitalism.

History is not a struggle of competing ideals; it is a struggle between classes brought on by material conditions.

Next you will have us that gravity will no longer exist if we stop believing in it, or that class struggle will cease if we do not agree with a specific form of a party.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is fundamentally idealist to propose that lack of adherence to a (former) leader by a party is going to prevent the working class from overthrowing capitalism.

The Leninist theory of party organization is not based on any adherence to a leader within the party - the Bolshevik party was organized according to Leninist principles and there was no formal leader, all proposals had to gain the support of the majority before they were accepted as party policy and put into practice, and there were many occasions were Lenin's position was not accepted by the party membership or was only accepted later when the course events showed that his position was the right one to adopt. The key feature of Lenin's theory is the recognition that a revolutionary party is necessary and that the most effective form of organization for such a party is democratic centralism, which combines features both of democracy and centralism to ensure that the party is able to remain cohesive and yet also allows for different viewpoints to be expressed.


Next you will have us that gravity will no longer exist if we stop believing in it, or that class struggle will cease if we do not agree with a specific form of a party.

The class struggle will always exist regardless of whether there is a vanguard party. However, the direction and eventual conclusion of the class struggle is not determined by objective conditions alone, subjective conditions (concerning the role of political ideas and the consciousness of the workers) are also important and the correct subjective conditions can only be created by a party which is aware of its role and consciously intervenes in workers struggles to raise the level of consciousness, by spreading political material and showing how the problems that workers are faced with in the course of their everyday lives are ultimately the result of the capitalist system and so can only be dealt with by abolishing capitalism. In the absence of such a party workers will turn to their traditional organizations when they are faced with a deterioration in their conditions, and these organizations will invariably use their position to try and restrain the workers and maintain the capitaist system, as shown by the actions of the SPD in 1923.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

The class struggle will always exist regardless of whether there is a vanguard party. However, the direction and eventual conclusion of the class struggle is not determined by objective conditions alone, subjective conditions (concerning the role of political ideas and the consciousness of the workers) are also important and the correct subjective conditions can only be created by a party which is aware of its role and consciously intervenes in workers struggles to raise the level of consciousness, by spreading political material and showing how the problems that workers are faced with in the course of their everyday lives are ultimately the result of the capitalist system and so can only be dealt with by abolishing capitalism. In the absence of such a party workers will turn to their traditional organizations when they are faced with a deterioration in their conditions, and these organizations will invariably use their position to try and restrain the workers and maintain the capitaist system, as shown by the actions of the SPD in 1923.

You haven't demonstrated why this role of consciousness raising has to be performed by a democratic centralist, statist party. If anything the most defining characteristic of Lenin's theory in comaprison to platformism is its advocation of the state. Nor have you demonstrated that political coherence is impossible without a vertical organisational structure.

Most anarchists would agree with the premise you are putting forward here. In fact the anarchist federation explicitly accepts it. There is, however, a clear difference between constituting the most class conscious element within the class and spreading revolutionary ideas and attempting to represent working class interests by building support for a political platform.

How is an explicitly statist organisation that raises itself above the class (a formulation explicitly spelt out in Lenin's vangaurdism) qualitatively any different from turning to the "traditional organisations" of the working class that already exist?

[Devrim]

The key feature of Lenin's theory is the recognition that a revolutionary party is necessary

Again there is nothing particular to Lenin about this idea.


]However, the direction and eventual conclusion of the class struggle is not determined by objective conditions alone, subjective conditions (concerning the role of political ideas and the consciousness of the workers) are also important

I would say that class consciousness is an objective condition (though I think that material is actually the right word).


In the absence of such a party workers will turn to their traditional organizations when they are faced with a deterioration in their conditions,

This is actually mere assertion, not fact, but painted as fact here.

Basically, there are a lot of big words here, which basically serve to obscure a completely idealist world view.

It also gives the impression that BOb sees the party as something apart from the class, not something created by the class in its struggle.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

I would say that class consciousness is an objective condition (though I think that material is actually the right word)

The origins of class consciousness are located in material conditions, but because workers do not inhabit the same conditions and have different experiences, there will always be variations in the level of consciousness, hence the need for agitation conducted by the vanguard to raise the consciousness of workers who have a reactionary or apolitical view of the world. Lenin used the term "subjective conditions" to emphasize the role of ideas in shaping consciousness, in addition to the state of the economy and other variables which do not depend on the activity of political organisations.


You haven't demonstrated why this role of consciousness raising has to be performed by a democratic centralist, statist partyIn what sense is a party built on Lenin's model statist? As the most militant section of the working class the party will have a major role in overthrowing the bourgeois state and developing a proletarian state in its place - hence the Bolshevik decision to abolish the constituent assembly once they had achieved a majority in the urban soviets despite the opposition of reformists such as the Mensheviks, who thought that the abolition of the assembly was the same as destroying democracy, failing to recognize that a bourgeois political system is not an effective method of mobilizing the working masses and allowing for democratic control of production once capitalism has been overthrown, owing to the fact that bourgeois democracy is organized according to geographical constituency instead of being based in individual workplaces, and the absence of a recall system to hold delegates to account.

As for the issue of democratic centralism, this is the best way to achieve party discipline, which is important not only during the agitation process, but also during periods of revolutionary confrontation when decisions needs to be made quickly and carried out in the right way at every level of the party. Other forms of organisation which do not include punitive measures such as expulsion when someone refuses to agree with the party majority rely on the goodwill of individual members, and this is an idealist notion because it allows renegade individuals to act in opposition to the rest of the organisation with no consequences for them as an individual, possibly damaging the work of the entire movement when coordinated action is needed.


How is an explicitly statist organisation that raises itself above the class (a formulation explicitly spelt out in Lenin's vangaurdism)Lenin's model of the party does not raise itself above the class - it is based on the advanced section of the working class, and draws its strength from a network of shopfloor militants who know how to put forward socialist arguments and win the rest of the workers over to revolution. If the Bolshevik party did not have these organic links then they would not have been able to secure majorities in the urban soviets, and they would not have taken a leading role in the overthrow of the bourgeois state. Also, consider the following:

"The party is where a majority of the class-conscious worker Marxists who take an active part in political life are to be found” - Lenin, Collected Works, vol.19, p.444

"Young Russian [B]workers ... now constitute nine-tenths of the organised Marxists in Russia" - Lenin, Collected Works, vol.20, p.329

"The bulk of the “educated” and “intellectuals” of so-called society ... nine-tenths or perhaps 99 out of 100 practice ... renegacy with such furious success as to become millionaires, but nine-tenths, or perhaps 99 out of 100, practice the very same renegacy, beginning as radical students and ending up holders of “cushy jobs” in some office or other, in some swindle or other" - Lenin, Collected Works, vol.18, p.274

All taken from Lenin, Chapter 20: The Bolshevik Party Becomes a Mass Party, by Tony Cliff. The last quote is especially interesting because it shows that Lenin actively rejected the notion that the party should be based on intellectuals removed from the working class, and he shows that most intellectuals will side with the bourgeoisie when questions of class come to the foreground. These quotes and historical reality should be enough to invaidate the assertion that the Bolsheviks were elitist in their approach to the working class.


qualitatively any different from turning to the "traditional organisations" of the working class that already exist?The traditional organisations (for example, trade unions, parties such as the Labour Party in the UK which have traditionally claimed the vote of the working class) are composed of every section of the working class as well as a large layer of bureaucrats who are often of a bourgeois social background and entirely divorced from the ordinary members of the party, and consequently these organisations promote reactionary policies as a reflection of their class content, and are not capable of functioning as vehicles of revolutionary change in their current form.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If members argue against the party line in a public sphere (when they are not in the company of other comrades of the same party) then they are violating the principles of democratic centralism

No, they aren't.


and disciplinary action should be taken against them

Please read my other thread on democratic centralism. Lenin refuted you on this.

[BobKKKindle$]

I've read Lenin's comments, and although they do offer a more flexible party model than his other works may suggest, he makes it clear that open criticism of the party line after a decision has been taken by democratic majority is only acceptable if it does not lead to the "unity of a definite action" being disturbed. This condition is open to interpretation and arguably there are some cases where even speaking out against the party in public could undermine the party's ability to conduct a successful struggle on a specific issue. For example, the SWP had a major role in organizing the protests against the Iraq War in 2003 and continues to make important contributions to the anti-war movement even though we failed to stop the invasion of Iraq from taking place. During the campaign against the war (once it had become clear that the government was planning to go ahead with the invasion despite public objections) the SWP held a public platform on countless occasions - if someone like Lindsey German had opposed the party by announcing that she was actually in favour of the war when she got up to give a speech after a successful demonstration, that would have a negative impact not only for the cohesion and confidence of the anti-war movement, but also the SWP as a party. This is but one example of a case where party discipline is a necessity because the consequences of a lack of political cohesion are so serious.

The basic principle behind Lenin's model remains the same - discipline is vital, and discipline cannot be maintained in an organization which refuses to adopt democratic centralism (and the associated punitive measures against party renegades) as its organizational model