💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › karl-blythe-notes-on-anarchist-organization.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:42:55. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Notes on Anarchist Organization
Author: Karl Blythe
Date: April 6, 2008
Language: en
Topics: anarchist organization, notes, platformism
Source: Retrieved on 14th October 2021 from http://www.anarkismo.net/article/8551

Karl Blythe

Notes on Anarchist Organization

In this essay I will examine some selections from the Organizational

Platform together with some of the writings of Nestor Makhno, as a

starting point in the question of anarchist organization. So as to avoid

lengthy explanations of historical context, I will assume the reader is

familiar with most of these materials. For those who are not, I refer as

a main source and starting point for research to the work of Alexandre

Skirda (Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from

Proudhon to May 1968, with a translation and discussion of the Platform)

and to The Struggle Against the State and Other Essays by Makhno. Note

that this is not meant as a comprehensive analysis of the Platform, so

much as a look at certain of its shortcomings or weaknesses which I

would like to repair. After going through these I will then conclude

with some general propositions as to how we might construct and/or

improve our organization, taking off from my discussion of the

Organizational Platform.

For the reasons stated above, I will avoid a longwinded description of

the Platform, and simply jump ahead into my analysis. Of particular

interest for the purposes of this essay is the “organizational part” at

the end of the Platform, given that the principles outlined in it have

more or less defined “Platformist” ideas since then. Strange to say,

this section is in my view where the Platform suffers most of its

shortcomings, which is unfortunate for a document of such value and

importance. The first two principles of ideological and tactical unity

(i.e. unity of theory and practice) are rather vaguely defined, with

minimal elaboration on what these principles would consist of in

practice. In particular, it is unclear as to whether ideology being

“common to all the persons and organizations affiliated to the General

Union” is a matter of internalized belief or formal accordance. Nor does

it present any clear method as to how ideological unity is to be

achieved beyond a mere formality along the lines of some “revolutionary

catechism.”

Tactical unity may in fact be lumped together with the third principle

of collective responsibility, since neither one means much without the

other and the two principles serve more or less the same purpose. Here I

believe that Makhno (one of the main authors of the Platform) explained

the idea rather better in two separate essays. In his essay “Anarchism

and Our Times,” he writes [1]:

Personally, I am inclined to accept as the most appropriate and most

necessary organizational format … a Union of anarchists constructed on

the basis of the principles of collective discipline and concerted

direction of all anarchist forces …. The activities of local organizers

can be adapted, as far as possible, to suit local conditions: however,

such activities must, unfailingly, be consonant with the pattern of the

Union of anarchists covering the whole country.

Here we find perhaps the best summary of what the Platform aims to

achieve (although it should be noted that elsewhere the authors specify

that the “General Union of Anarchists” would not encompass all

anarchists, but simply those in agreement with its basic

principles)—namely, to generalize and coordinate effective patterns and

methods of local resistance, otherwise confined to isolated groups and

individuals. That is in fact the very essence of revolutionary

organization—without it there is no coherent direction and victory is

impossible.

Makhno also writes in his essay “On Revolutionary Discipline”: “I take

revolutionary discipline to mean the self-discipline of the individual,

set in the context of a strictly prescribed collective activity equally

incumbent upon all.” This is an idea of fundamental importance for those

who wish to understand the difference between submission and free

self-direction as proposed by anarchists. Yet this idea is also

inconsistent with the definition of “collective responsibility” in the

Platform, when it states: “Revolutionary social activity … cannot be

based upon the personal responsibility of individual militants…,”

followed by the proposal that “the Union as a body will be answerable

for the revolutionary and political activity of its members” and

“likewise, each member will be answerable for the … activity of the

Union as a whole.”

The second part of this principle is not necessarily problematic—it is

simply rather vague, much like the definition of “ideological unity.”

However, to say that revolutionary activity cannot be based on personal

responsibility stands in flat contradiction with elementary anarchist

principles—principles which Makhno makes perfectly clear throughout his

essays (see for instance “The ABC of the Revolutionary Anarchist,” where

he states that “In anarchism, Right means the responsibility of the

individual…” etc.)—and specifically conflicts with his own definition of

revolutionary discipline as quoted above. Further in the essay he

writes:

That is why I am speaking about a libertarian organization that rests

upon the principle of fraternal discipline. Such an organization would

lead to the crucial understanding between all of the living forces of

revolutionary anarchism and would assist it in taking its rightful place

in the struggle of Labor against Capital.

While here it is uncertain what exactly is meant by “fraternal

discipline,” we might point to Bakuninist line of “ongoing fraternal

monitoring of each by all” (mentioned several times by Skirda) as a

precedent to this concept. Assuming the word “fraternal” to indicate a

spirit of mutual aid and camaraderie, it seems to me that this

“principle of fraternal discipline,” together with the above definition

of revolutionary discipline, provides a much better solution to the

problem of collective responsibility. In fact, it is in keeping with the

statement that “the Union as a body will be answerable for the

revolutionary and political activity of its members” and vice versa.

However, it clearly stands apart from (and in my view above) the idea

that “revolutionary activity cannot be based upon personal

responsibility,” since it effectively combines both personal and

collective responsibility.

This brings us to the fourth principle of federalism. The first thing to

be said here is that we must distinguish between the bourgeois notion of

federalism and a conception of anarchist or libertarian federalism which

has unfortunately been poorly defined for the most part. In the case of

the Platform, however, we are provided something of a general definition

of (presumably anarchist) federalism, as follows:

Federalism means free agreement of individuals and organizations upon

collective endeavor geared towards a common objective. Now, such

agreement and federative union based thereon become reality … only if

the essential condition is fulfilled that all parties to the agreement

and to the Union fully honor the obligations they assume and abide by

the decisions reached in common.

In introducing this concept, it is also stated (a little more

typically):

The system of centralization relies upon the stunting of the spirit of

criticism, initiative and independence of every individual and upon the

masses’ blind obedience to the “center.” … Contrary to centralism,

anarchism has always professed … the principle of federalism, which

reconciles the individual’s or organization’s independence … with

service to the common cause.

In regard to the above definition of federalism, there are two things to

be said. First is that the idea of free federation (i.e. free

association) as essentially put above, is itself fundamental to

anarchist principles. Furthermore, this concept is in full agreement

with the idea of revolutionary discipline as discussed earlier. On the

other hand, there is some confusion between the notion of free

federation as an organizing process, and “federalism” as an

organizational format. There is a difference between the two, as there

is also a difference between the “individual’s independence” and the

“organization’s independence” (although they are often lumped together).

I personally would criticize the orthodox anarchist emphasis on autonomy

of organizations within federations—which is merely a technical issue,

and no different from bourgeois federalist models—and the simplistic

lumping of “centralist” organizations into the authoritarian category

(as we can observe in the second quotation). This seems to me something

of an inconsistency of logic within the Platform, which in one place

speaks of “unitary” organization (when discussing tactical unity), and

in the next place denounces all forms of centralism as authoritarian and

calls instead for “federalism.” The choice of words is confusing, in

part because in all other circles and in any standard definition

“unitary” would be considered as substantially no different from

“centralist,” and federalism would be viewed as conflicting with either

“unitary” or “centralist” organization.

On a similar note, I would argue that not all forms of centralism stunt

“the spirit of criticism, initiative and independence.” Theoretically

speaking, the Leninist notion of “democratic centralism” achieves

exactly what the Platform ascribes to federalism: combines individual

initiative and freedom with organizational discipline and unity. The

problem with Bolshevism (an issue very relevant to the authors of the

Platform) when it comes to internal organization lay largely in the fact

that it did not really practice democratic so much as bureaucratic

centralism. In fact, it must be said that the ideas of “democratic

centralism” and “federalism” (as defined in the Platform —“free

agreement of individuals and organizations upon collective endeavor”),

and for that matter revolutionary discipline as described by Makhno,

when applied to individual groups, are practically identical except in

terminology.

As I see it, the key to an effective revolutionary organization is to

combine certain elements of libertarian federalism (free federation of

individuals and groups) with the theoretical sense of democratic

centralism (e.g. “freedom of speech, unity of action”). This means that

the emphasis must not be placed on the autonomy of component

organizations but on the coordination of the whole organization through

direct correspondence of groups with each other and with the central

organization (including the “Executive Committee” and the “Congress of

the General Union”). As far as central organization goes, I am inclined

to favor direct election of delegates and membership votes on general

policy as a more participatory and democratic method, insofar as we

should favor such formal institutions in the first place. While one

would think this was a given for a libertarian organization,

unfortunately many anarchist federations have resorted instead to

systems of indirect representation said to assure greater autonomy to

component organizations. In any case, whatever the intentions of such

“federalist” groupings, it seems to me that an organization which at all

levels and in its entirety is guided more directly by its base is always

superior to one that is controlled and guided by a minority (as is the

nature of indirect representation, given the filtering out process that

occurs when leadership is separated from the base).

Additionally, I would argue that regional sub-organizations (i.e.

component organizations above the local level) ought to be reduced as

far as possible (if not outright dismissed) to the intermediary role of

channeling local initiative into the central organization. (To put it

another way, organizational direction should be “polarized” between the

local and central levels, thus minimizing or eliminating the “middle

man” level.) In these ways (more direct participation and “polarization”

of leadership) the power of local groups will be increased while

providing an effective central organization to coordinate and generalize

local activities. This will be further aided by devising and elaborating

an ideological and practical program to guide the organization in its

various actions—all of this in order to reduce bureaucracy while

improving cohesion and discipline. All that is needed beyond this for an

effective organization is a thorough understanding and internalization

of our ideals and methods, and a personalized sense of purpose and

commitment by every militant (i.e. revolutionary consciousness).

This raises the question with which I conclude this essay—and which I

hope to discuss more thoroughly at some other time—of how we are to go

about developing such a program as well as instill a personal

understanding of our principles within each militant. This also relates

back to my earlier question on “ideological unity” as called for in the

Platform (see second paragraph). I now propose an answer to all of these

questions: through ongoing patient study of revolutionary history, to

explain and to compare with our present circumstances. More than that,

it will also help us to explain and elaborate our program in concrete

terms for those outside our movement. Not only is this the basis of our

program, but it is the key to instilling a revolutionary consciousness

that stands above mere individual self-interest. We might also ask how

this sort of practice can be systematized beyond the lone research of

individuals. To that my answer is, by preparing and putting together

study groups to read and discuss the historical movements in which we

are rooted, while putting them in a relatable context. Those partaking

in such study groups who come to our same conclusions and wish to put

them into practice, will find in them an excellent point of departure in

forming their own specifically anarchist groups. From there it is only a

matter of connecting with the rest of the movement and to the masses by

involving ourselves in the struggles of the day.

[1] I have underlined some parts of quotations to emphasize those

aspects which I am specifically addressing.