"bolsheviks in black"

Of course it is not valid. The only argument for that statement would be that we see the need for anarchists to organize, and bolsheviks saw that need as well.
We want a federalist organization whose purpose is to radicalize and unify the working class. Such an organization isn't meant to rule the working class or control the revolution. So it's a completely different thing.

Nah, we don't propose Bolshevik tactics.

I am debating it here now;

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=2273

For me, the main difference that Platformism has with Bolshevism is it's relation to revolutionary soviets. Keep in mind that I hold both the Platform itself, and the actions of the Makhnovist movement that it sprang from, up as components to Platformist theory.





The Makhnovists certainly acted as a vanguard, in the sense that their organization served as an organizational focal point for revolutionary elements and worked to liberate areas with the intention to immediately install revolutionary soviets to power. This is important: they did not wish to install themselves into power. They created a ground-level democratic system in whatever areas they occupied, and served to facilitate federalism between said areas. They also served as the executive branch of these soviets, carrying out what was requested of them. They never, and this is important, took part in the democratic process as a group.

The Bolsheviks also, early on, incorporated real soviet power. Their attitude towards them, however, was not one of a protector/servant, but rather of an outside power seeking to subvert them. We can see how quickly the soviets simply became Bolshevik party shills.

I'll give a much better reply soon, I promise. I've also touched on this in past posts, which I'll link to soon.

I haven't checked this group since I made it, I had no idea there was any discussion going on.

I m sorry man, but if you read the platform, the new type party (yeah, the leninist CP) comes to mind.
And why the fuck do its writers say that 'it is not centralist'!?

There is a general line - a basic thesis which is voted and ALL members must adhere to and support
There is centralism - the general anarchist union is responsible of the actions of every member, and every member is responsible and represents the general line that the GAU stands for.
Every 'cell' of the GAU (every organization that is a part of it) is ideologically guided and led by GAU.

So in my (poor,o be honest) opinion, the criticism has a basis.

A Leninist party centralism does not make, it is but one element.

lol According to Dr. Zhivago all Bolsheviks dress in black anyways.

I'm in NEFAC, sorta the great Platformist boogeyman of the internet, so I'll give my two cents.

Well most groups that are called "Platformist" or "neo-Platformist" are really only influenced by Organizational Platform. And in practice the only thing taken from the document are those three bullet points at the end:

Theoretical and Tactical unity

Accountability

Federalism

However, a lot of us take a broad brush when interpreting what those three things mean. For example, I would claim that a minority of the members of NEFAC would call themselves platformists. I for one don't. A lot of us see structure as secondary to content and praxis. Whichever structure allows the greatest fluidity of action and organization, then we'll go with it. We just feel those three bullet points were a good start to work from.

There are also Especifist groups. Especifism came out of the experiences of South American comrades and is a newer theory. These groups are also allied nationally and internationally with platform influenced groups.

Centralism, or democratic centralism as I understand it means that the organization gets its line handed down from a central committee. The Platform talked about the politics of the organization being decided by the whole membership, and each autnomous group within the federation has a say in the development of whichever theory it decides. And these theories are not rigid and unchangeable, and can also be as broad or narrow as the times call for to allow the greatest freedom of action by the autonomous groups.

I would say another practical difference is that the various Class Struggle Anarchist organizations don't see each other as rivals, but as allies. In many instances, the groups throughout the world are on comradely, even sisterly relations with one another. If not that close then certainly on friendly terms. A lot of us take the same attitude toward insurrectional inspired groups, working with them locally on various projects when we can. We're all about a pluralistic movement.