Just joined to ask this Well, i just read the platform.In the beginning, the critique on the anarchist movement's situation is extremely relevant even today, (and to think it was written in 1927..!) However,in the organization parts of the general anarchist union, the structure and function resembles too much of a leninist new type party. I read the critique of Malatesta too,and he criticises that thoroughly. Is there not a non centralist mode of organization which would provide satisfactory results? note: i havent read the reply from Machno yet.
Do read the reply from Makhno though :P. The platform does describe a non-centralist mode of organization.
I just read this last night actually. I'm halfway through another book and don't normally read other things in between books, but this was really annoying me so I had to read it. I know there are a lot of valid criticisms of it, and it was only ever intended to be a starting point, but I really connected with the general view of it. I'll try get through the various responses when I can so I can get a better view of it.
Well the platform advocates for a federation of autonomous groups. The "Executive Committee" I think was just supposed to advocate the decisions made by the autonomous groups to hold the federation together between conferences or conventions or whenever they could meet to make decisions. This is different from a central comittee handing down a line to non-autonomous branches.
