đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș organise-ireland-platformism-in-action.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:08:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Ireland: Platformism in action Author: Organise! Date: June 1993 Language: en Topics: platformism, Ireland, Workers Solidarity Movement, syndicalism Source: Retrieved on 14th October 2021 from https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ireland-platformism-in-action/ Notes: This is the text of a talk given in the course of a debate with the anarcho-syndicalist group Organise!. It gives a general introduction to Platformism and the WSM. The parts in [âŠ.] are later updates that have been added.
The Workers Solidarity Movement was formed in 1984. Prior to this the
late 1970s and early 1980s had seen the first episodes of public
anarchist activity with the emergence of local anarchist groups, many of
them short-lived, in Belfast, Dublin, Dundalk and Limerick. These groups
tended to have no common policies or activities, no organised education
or discussions about anarchism, no strategy for changing society. The
only requirement for membership was usually that one described oneself
as an âanarchistâ.
There was a widespread tendency to opt out of real struggles in favour
of self-imposed isolation. A good example of this was the behaviour of
many anarchists in Dublin at the time of the anti-nuclear movement in
the late 1970s. Hundreds of people, mainly young and not members of any
political grouping, were in local anti-nuclear groups. Rather than
joining these groups, making concrete suggestions for taking the
campaign forward, working to increase the level of self-activity and
explaining anarchism to an audience which contained many who were open
to radical politics, what did they do? They cut themselves off from
these people and set up their own anti-nuclear group for anarchists
only.
A few of us who had been through all this messing initiated discussions
with other anarchists about the need for clear policies, agreed tactics
and a new organisation. Our starting point was that the working class
has the power to overthrow capitalism and create an anarchist society.
Our role is to convince our class that this is possible; to win the
battle of ideas against the authoritarian solutions of social democracy,
nationalism and Leninism; and to popularise anarchist ideas and methods.
We saw, in broad terms, four major streams within modern anarchism:
reformism, synthesis groups, syndicalism and âPlatformismâ. We were
attracted to, for want of a better word, âPlatformismâ.
Before going on to say a little about this I should give our views on
what is, by far, the largest current within the international anarchist
movement, and one that has been a major influence on Organise! â
syndicalism.
It can trace its roots back to the last century. As the repression which
followed the Paris Commune of 1871 began to relax and the idea of
âpropaganda by deedâ was seen to be taking our movement into a
cul-de-sac some anarchists looked away from such acts of revenge and
desperation, and towards the newly emerging labour movement. A set of
ideas, anarcho-syndicalism, developed which said that organising workers
into One Big Union based on libertarian beliefs and using methods of
direct action would lead to the General Strike where the bosses were
locked out and the classless, stateless society ushered in. Unlike other
unions, their belief is that the union can be used not only to win
reforms from the bosses but also to overthrow the capitalist system.
They hold that most workers are not revolutionaries because the
structure of their unions is such that it takes the initiative away from
the rank & file. They see the biggest problem in the structure of the
existing unions rather than in the ideas that tie workers to
authoritarian, capitalist views of the world.
This movement grew until the 1920s and 1930s when the rise of fascism
saw it suffer horrific repression, from which it has never fully
recovered. With the exception of Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands none
of todayâs syndicalist unions has a membership of more than 1,000 [Italy
and France should now be added to this list]. This is a good figure for
a political organisation but not so good for a union. Most are more
accurately described as propaganda groups trying to build unions rather
than being unions as we understand that word. But this should not blind
us to their importance. In many countries they have a real tradition,
they have organisation, they attract excellent militants. They are the
biggest tendency in present-day anarchism.
Syndicalists do not wish to create a revolutionary political
organisation. Their aim is an industrial union. It is a-political,
arguing all that is necessary to make the revolution is for the workers
to seize the factories and the land. After that they believe that the
state and all the other institutions of the ruling class will come
toppling down. They do not accept that the working class must take
political power. For them all power has to be immediately abolished on
day one of the revolution. Because syndicalist organisation is the
union, it organises all workers regardless of their politics.
Historically many workers have joined, not because they were anarchists,
but because the syndicalist union was the most militant and got the best
results. Because of this tendencies always appeared that were reformist.
And who, even in the syndicalist movement, would deny that this is the
case with the bigger syndicalist unions today such as the Swedish
Central Organisation of Workers (SAC), the Spanish General Confederation
of Workers (CGT) or the Dutch OVB?
Syndicalists are quite correct to emphasise the centrality of organising
workers in the workplace. Critics who reject syndicalism on the grounds
that allegedly it cannot organise those outside the workplace are wrong.
Taking the example of anarcho-syndicalism in Spain it is clear that they
could and did organise throughout the entire working class as was
evidenced by the Iberian Federation of Libertarian Youth, the âMujeres
Libresâ (Free Women), and the neighbourhood organisations. More recently
we saw the British DAM [now the Solidarity Federation] putting time,
energy and resources into both the anti-poll tax campaign and the
Anti-Fascist Action organisation.
Its weakness is rooted in its view of why workers are tied to
capitalism, and in its view of what is necessary to make the revolution.
Spain in 1936/7 represented the highest point in anarcho-syndicalist
organisation and achievement; achievements we draw a lot of inspiration
from. But because of their a-politicism they were unable to develop a
programme for workersâ power, to wage a political battle against other
currents in the workersâ movement (such as reformism and Stalinism), and
to give a lead to the entire class by fighting for complete workersâ
power.
Instead they got sucked into support for the Popular Front government,
which in turn led to their silence and complicity when the Republican
state moved against the collectives and militias. The minority in the
CNT, organised around the Friends of Durruti, was expelled when they
issued a proclamation calling for the workers to take absolute power
(i.e. that they should refuse to share power with the bosses or the
authoritarian parties).
The CNT believed that when the workers took over the means of production
and distribution this would lead to the liquidation of the bourgeois
state which would die of asphyxiation. History teaches us different. In
a situation of dual power it is very necessary to smash the state.
In contrast to this the Friends of Durruti were clear that to beat
Franco we need to crush the bourgeoisie and its Stalinist and Socialist
allies. The capitalist state must be destroyed totally and there must be
installed workersâ power depending on rank & file committees.
A-political anarchism has failed. The political confusion of the CNT
leadership was such that they attacked the idea of the workers seizing
power as evil and leading to an anarchist dictatorship. More on their
ideas can be found in their pamphlet Towards a Fresh Revolution
The syndicalist movement, organised in the International Workers
Association and outside it, refuses to admit the CNT was wrong to
postpone the revolution and enter the government. They attempt to
explain away this whole episode as being due to exceptional
circumstances that will not occur again. Because they refuse to admit
that a mistake of historic proportions was made, they are doomed to
repeat it (should they get a chance).
We recognise that the syndicalist unions, where they still exist, are
far more progressive than any other union. But anarchist-communists like
ourselves will seek to organise within their ranks and everywhere else
workers are organised. We will not liquidate our specific politics and
organisation into the a-politicism of syndicalism. The battle of ideas
is vital. It is not enough that people are won to accepting that the
present system should be overthrown, it is not enough that they are won
to accepting that anarchism is a nice idea. We have to win the argument
that it is superior to any other alternative being put forward. That
means combating other ideas in the left and unions, not ignoring them.
We must also understand what is involved in changing society.
Revolutionary situations throw up situations of dual power where neither
the working class nor the ruling class (or would-be rulers) is
immediately able to exert its total control. The power of bosses and
their state must be smashed or we leave them the means to get back on
top. Spain in 1936/37 demonstrated this in a most forceful fashion.
Which brings us to âPlatformismâ.. Anarchists, who numbered up to 10,000
without including the Makhnovist army, had been involved in the 1917
Russian Revolution. They had been in the unions, in the factory
committees, in the soviets of workers, peasants and soldiers. They had
their own papers, federations and clubs. Yet their influence was
extremely limited and we all know how that revolution turned out in the
end. Nestor Makhno, Peter Arshinov (author of The History of the
Makhnovist Movement) and others forced into exile set up the bi-monthly
magazine Delo Truda in Paris in 1925. The following year, along with Ida
Mett (the author of The Kronstadt Commune), Valesvsky and Linsky (about
whom I know nothing), wrote the The Organisational Platform of the
Libertarian Communists.
It saw the problem of the Russian anarchists, and the movement
generally, as its failure to provide a theoretically coherent and
organisationally effective alternative to Leninism within the working
class. Or to put it plainly, nice ideas were not enough.
They dealt with the class struggle, the stateâs relationship to the
class division of society and used classical anarchist arguments against
the Bolshevik advocacy of the party dictatorship in the so-called
âtransitional periodâ between the overthrow of capitalist power and the
maturing of the classless society. They also pointed to the political
weakness of syndicalism and argued for a struggle in all the unions âfor
the domination of libertarian ideasâ. As it states âIt is necessary to
never forget that if trade unionism does not find in anarchist theory a
support in opportune times it will turn, whether we like it or not, to
the ideology of a political statist partyâ. This has been seen to happen
in the French CGT, in Argentina where the FORA lost support to Peronism
and in Spain where the bulk of the CNTâs mass membership did not break
from the âleading militantsâ who entered the Popular Front government.
They went to talk about the sort of organisation that the Delo Truda
group thought necessary. This was covered under four headings.
Theory is what guides us along a defined path towards a determined goal.
They said that such theory should be common to all members of an
organisation. That is, that they share the same goal and they agree on a
common path towards it. Though this is common sense, we can still find
anarchists who disagree saying that it straitjackets us into a forced
conformity.
In our case it means concrete things like membership of the WSM is not
open to those who reject work inside the unions nor to those who would
see the state as some power that stands apart from the bosses, because
to include such views in our organisation would mean that we could no
longer work together as an organisation. We would be little more than a
group of individuals who came together to tell each other of the
different and sometimes contradictory things we were doing. Not a lot of
point in that.
Instead we discuss, debate and then agree what tactic in a given
struggle is best for that struggle and for anarchism. Having reached a
decision we implement it, we use our strength and numbers as an
organisation with a unified outlook to give added effect to our
activity.
The Platform says âThe Practice of acting on oneâs personal
responsibility should be decisively condemned and rejected in the ranks
of the anarchist movementâ. No, this doesnât mean we have to be
continually running off to some committee for permission to show a bit
of initiative. It does mean that there should be no room for the
self-indulgent egoists who treat politics as more of a hobby than a
commitment. Our goal, our tradition and our means are profoundly
collective (as opposed to the authoritarian individualist ethos fostered
by capitalism).
Each member should be responsible to the organisation for their
political activity and, in turn, the organisation must be responsible to
each member. There must be no division between leaders and led.
Here the authors draw a distinction between real federalism, the free
agreement to work together in a spirit of free debate for agreed goals;
and what they describe as âthe right, above all, to manifest oneâs
âegoâ, without obligation to account for duties as regards the
organisationâ. As they point out there is no point making decisions if
members will not carry them out.
However, when they went on to talk about a General Union of Anarchists
they found themselves under attack from anarchists such as Voline,
Fabbri, Malatesta and Camilo Berneri who accused them of trying to
âBolshevise anarchismâ. I believe that this criticism was wrong. On one
hand Voline and his fellow thinkers were opposed because they saw no
problem with organisations which were a pick ânâ mix of
anarcho-syndicalism, anarchist-communism and individualism with all the
incoherence and ineffectiveness that implies. On the other hand many
anarchists saw the proposed General Union of Anarchists as some sort of
monopoly organisation that would incorporate all anarchists. It is a
fault of the authors that they did not say explicitly that the General
Union would, as all anarchists should, work with others when it is in
the interests of the class struggle.
Neither did they spell out that all the decisions, the policies and the
direction of the organisation would be taken by the members after full
and free debate. It should not have to be spelled out when addressing
other anarchists but seemingly it did, and the Platform was
misunderstood by many as a result of this omission. Further signs of
authoritarianism were seen in the proposal for an executive committee.
Maybe if they had called it a working collective or something similar
the same threat would not have been seen. The tasks of this executive
committee were listed as âthe execution of decisions taken by the Union
with which it is entrusted, the theoretical an organisational
orientation of isolated organisations consistent with the theoretical
positions and general tactical line of the Union, the monitoring of the
general state of the movement, the maintenance of working and
organisational links between all the organisations in the union, and
with other organisations. The rights, responsibilities and practical
tasks of the executive committee are fixed by the congress of the
Unionâ.
The last sentence of the document talks about the aim of the Union to
become the âorganised vanguard of the emancipating processâ. It appears
that what is being talked about is winning the best militants, the most
class conscious and revolutionary workers to the Union. But it is not
clearly spelled out. A doubt could exist. Did they mean a more Leninist
type of vanguard? When taken with the entire pamphlet I donât think so
but even if this is not the case it still does not invalidate the rest
of the work. It would be very stupid to throw away the whole document
because of one less than clear sentence.
Just before leaving this topic I want to look at two arguments that get
used again and again against the Platform. Firstly we are told that it
is Arshinovâs âPlatformâ as if the other four authors were just dupes,
quite an insult to the memory of revolutionaries like Makhno. It is done
because in 1934 Arshinov returned to Russia, where three years later he
was murdered in Stalinâs purges. What Arshinov did eight years after
helping to write the âPlatformâ surely does no more to invalidate what
was written then any more than Kropotkinâs support for Allied
imperialism in the First World War invalidated all his previous
anarchist writings.
The other is the experience in Britain where the Anarchist Workers
Association in the 1970s and the Anarchist Workers Group of a few years
ago both claimed the âPlatformâ as an inspiration. Both groups â after
very promising starts â declined, degenerated, died and then saw their
remnants disappear into the Leninist milieu. This question can be taken
up in the discussion. I would also recommend the WSM document about the
decline of the AWG which was presented to our Wexford meeting last year.
The âPlatformâ is no Bible full of absolute truths. Anarchists have no
need of such things. It is a signpost pointing us in what we believe is
the direction of making anarchism the alternative to both the present
set-up and the authoritarian alternatives served up by most of the left.
It ideas have been developed and modified in the light of experience
over the years.
So now onto the more specific history of the WSM. We are a very small
group. Therefore the first task facing us is to get anarchism better
known in Ireland and to develop our politics through our involvement in
real struggles. I havenât got time to go through everything we have done
over the last eight and a half years but Iâll mention a few things to
give an idea of how the WSM works.
Internal â membership is open to those who agree with our policies (or
at least most of them), contribute financially to the organisation, do
work for the WSM such as selling Workers Solidarity, or being involved
as anarchists in their unions and in campaigning groups. Decisions are
made by everyone after a period of discussion and debate. Where a
minority does not agree with a position we may adopt they have the right
to use part of Workers Solidarity to put their case, as well as the
Internal Bulletin and meetings. This has not arisen so far but we have
made a point of providing for such an occasion because democracy is not
something we can treat lightly.
Industrial â Through our involvement in our unions and in strike support
work we have shown at least a small layer of trade union activists that
anarchists are far from the media stereotype and are actually deserving
of respect. Though small in numbers two of us have been elected onto our
branch committees as known anarchists and one as a delegate to the
Dublin Council of Trade Unions. We have always seen this as our most
important single area of activity and this has translated into work, in
particular, around the Dunnes Stores, Waterford Glass, Pat Grace and
Japan Boutiques strikes â to name but a few.
International â We have always been ready to give whatever aid and
solidarity we can to workers and anarchists in foreign lands. Our first
actions in this sphere were probably leafleting and picketing the Laura
Ashley shop in Dublin in response to an appeal from workers in one of
their Scottish suppliers were on strike, and were receiving assistance
from the DAM. Another was the circulation of an information sheet and
model resolution among trade unionists in Dublinâs only tyre factory at
the time anarcho-syndicalists of what was known as the Renavado CNT were
on trial in Vitoria. More recently we have registered a protest with the
Nepalese Dept of Labour against union busting, in response to an appeal
from the Nepal Battery Workers Unions which arrived via the US section
of the IWA. We have also picketed the Nigerian embassy on the
international day of solidarity with the anarchists who had been jailed
by the military regime and sent money to help their families, and we
have sent money towards the court costs of comrades facing trial in
Peru.
Pamphlets/paper â We have, so far, produced 39 [49 by Dec 1996] issues
of Workers Solidarity, though have had to stop producing a monthly and
move to a bigger quarterly as we donât have the numbers to produce a
monthly, sell it and do all the other things we want to. As we grow, in
both numbers and geographical spread, we hope to move towards a monthly
which can popularise anarchism and address current issues with
information, advice and debate. At present, however, we have to aim our
[paper] at those who have already rejected the system to some degree but
as our base grows so will our ability to take anarchist politics to
greater numbers of people.
We have also produced pamphlets on anarchism, on the national question,
on divorce, on Spain and reprinted the Organisational Platform. Two of
the pamphlets have had to reprinted as they sold out. In addition to
this we get anarchist ideas and history into a few more hands by running
a mail order book service. [To this list can now be added regular
production of Anarchist News a two sided sheet of A4 dealing with
current issues and Red & Black Revolution, a theoretical magazine once a
year].
Abortion/divorce â Recently considerable gains have been made in terms
of social progress in the 26 counties. Last year [1991] we were
instrumental in forming the Abortion Information Campaign and organising
the 10,000 strong march which finally led to the overturning of the
constitutional ban on abortion. We have also been involved in the
pro-Divorce campaign, canvassing in 1986, getting two members elected to
the National Executive of the Divorce Action Group and producing a
pamphlet on the politics of the family and divorce during the last
referendum. [Dec 1996: Were involved in a city wide campaign against
Water charges which 15,000 households have now paid to join, this
campaign is now on the edge of defeating the government Divorce was won
in a referendum in November 1995].
Meetings â We hold public meetings, which often allows us meet people we
may otherwise never have contact with.
For a small organisation with a few supporters who sell our magazine and
work with us politically â this isnât too bad. It shows what could be
achieved if we had more anarchists and bigger organisations.
We believe that, while we still have things to learn, we are going in
the right direction and will contribute towards building a mass
anarchist movement in our country. The small number of anarchists in
Ireland at present, the absence of a native tradition and the lack of
any sizeable base within the working class are drawbacks. But they do
not depress us. All movements start somewhere. Anarchists time and time
again, in many countries and in the most difficult of circumstances,
have grappled with the problem of building and maintaining a mass
influence within the working class. It is not easy but it can be done.
We hope that comrades will want to find out more about the WSM, will
work with us on matters of mutual concern, and where they find
themselves in agreement with us will join the WSM.