💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › red-zarathustra-practical-platformism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:50:09. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Practical Platformism Author: Red Zarathustra Date: feb 21 ’12 Language: en Topics: platformism, platform, anarchist organization, organization, NEFAC Source: Black Wave Communist Collective. Retrieved on 2015-09-08 from https://web.archive.org/web/20150908093652/http://blackwavecollective.tumblr.com/post/17998293461/practical-platformism-revolutionary-cadre#_=_
Common Struggle – Libertarian Communist Federation (LCF), formerly known
as the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist-Communists (NEFAC), has
been in existence for nearly eleven years now. From its inception it has
billed itself as Platformist: that is to say, generally following the
guidelines of the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists
(or, General Union of Anarchists). Needless to say, any organisation
grows and evolves over time and this is often healthy – but I’d like to
take a moment to examine our relationship to Platformism and to
determine if we have strayed from that model, and if this desirable. I
wish to rehash elements of an old debate: the Bring the Ruckus (BTR) –
NEFAC debate, specifically in regard to revolutionary cadre organisation
and dual power. I wish to go back to the Platform, as well as the
memoirs of Nestor Makhno himself, where he lays out numerous lessons we
must heed.
---
Nestor Makhno, who was one of the main theoreticians of the Platformist
tendency, was proponent of cadre organisation, which is typically
associated with Marxism. Perhaps, then, it is no surprise that many in
the anarchist milieu have called the Platform “authoritarian” – though
this is completely unfounded. This is a case of anarchists fetishising
form over content, something unfortunately common within the anarchist
milieu. That is to say, to consider the way things function
organisationally or aesthetically as opposed to the libertarian content
in their work. We see this in the incessant demand for things like
infoshops, for instance, or other cultural projects that, while not bad
in themselves (counterinstitutions are necessary), cannot substitute for
organising and do not require the collective discipline that serious
organising requires (ie, revolutionary libertarian cadres). Another
example of this demand for form over content is those anarchists who
reject Marxism so outright that they will not even read Capital, though
their entire critique of capitalism was formulated mostly in the first
volume of that book. It is for lack of critical analysis that this
attitude is taken towards cadres.
To my dismay, during the BTR-NEFAC debate those arguing on behalf of
NEFAC chose to attack BTR on the grounds that it is a cadre organisation
(that is not the only thing their critique focused on, but it was a
major aspect of it). I don’t believe the points raised, specifically in
Nicolas Phebus’s article “Differences of Strategy and Organization”,
were particularly helpful in critiquing cadres, because they did not
address the type of organisation that BTR was hoping to create –
libertarian cadres. Why? What is typical is the dismissal of the
Leninist concept of cadre and vanguard that is hierarchical and
patronising. I believe that from a Platformist point of view, which
naturally gravitates towards cadre organisation, it is impossible to
dismiss such cadres. Unlike the Leninists, Libertarian cadres “[do] not
seek to control any organization or movement, nor does it pretend that
it is the most advanced section of a struggle” and “it assumes that the
masses are typically the most advanced section of a struggle.”[1] BTR
concludes by stating, “the organization would not actively support any
kind of activism but only those struggles that hold the potential of
building a dual power.”[2] What is questionable is BTR’s strategy
towards achieving dual power, which was rightfully critiqued by Wayne
Price in his article “What, if anything, is a dual power strategy?”, not
the idea of creating a dual power situation itself, and destroying the
state and capital simultaneously through social-revolutionary action.
Price argued that their race-reductionist politics are, in fact, not as
strategic for building a desired situation than the solid class-based
politics of (at the time) NEFAC.
Much of Phebus’s article was designed to point out supposed
“contradictions” in cadreorganisation, but it does not. Firstly, it
begins by defining what BTR and libertarian cadres are based upon old
definitions that are irrelevant to the reality of what is practiced –
the article insists that they are a bourgeois, authoritarian
leninist-appropriated method of organisation. It does not define BTR’s
project on their own terms. The article claims that by having
prefigurative politics that are then spread to the masses, it is
authoritarian and believes the masses “dumb”. No, BTR is simply
realistic about revolutionary organisation and building power. Because
it is true what Platform said of anarchism, that “the outstanding
anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others, did not invent the
idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it in the masses, simply
helped by the strength of their thought and knowledge to specify and
spread it.”[3] However, it is naive to believe that because anarchism
was discovered in the masses that, in bourgeois society which does
everything in its power to suppress it, the proletariat will magically
come to this idea. Some of them will, someone of them will not. We
revolutionary anarchists are an example of those who did. Those at
Occupy are an example of those who are close to it, but lack the clarity
to articulate their true desire – libertarian communism. At work we find
reactionary working class people: racists and sexists who reinforce the
worst aspects of the capitalist system.
From reading the initial “Bring The Ruckus” statement, I have gathered
that they fundamentally understood what a cadre is meant to uphold:
collective responsibility, theoretical and tactical unity, and direct
democracy. What differences are there, then, between the Federation and
Bring the Ruckus organisationally? This is a difficult question to
consider without insider knowledge of BTR, which I simply do not have.
They do, however, have a common strategy and specific criteria that
defines the work cadres are able to carry out under the banner of BTR.
This not something that Common Struggle has, but it is something
discussed at the 2011 Federal Conference and is being moved forward on
in a committee. Phebus’s closing statement on cadres is this utterly
confusing as he claims: “NEFAC has chosen a platformist federation
model, BTR has chosen a cadre; they are not the same thing, whether we
like it or not.”[4] It is interesting, then, that the founder of the
tendency of Platformism seemed to disagree with him. Makhno wrote in the
first volume of his memoirs, The Russian Revolution in Ukraine: “Either
we go to the masses and dissolve ourselves into them, creating from them
revolutionary cadres, and make the Revolution; or we renounce our slogan
about the necessity of social transformation, the necessity of carrying
through to the end the workers’ struggle with the powers of Capital and
the State.[5]
There are legitimate issues with revolutionary cadre organisation, but I
do not believe they are not critiqued in the BTR-NEFAC debate. Namely,
while they are tight-knit and committed to revolutionary struggle, they
tend to be insular and reject the building of revolutionary anarchist
organisation. While acknowledging that we do not seek to dominate, but
will lead when appropriate, we also believe in the validity of anarchist
communism as the only system which can eliminate exploitation and
domination. As such, it is not enough for us to have an “anarchistic
movement” – such as the current Occupy movement, with elements of
anarchism (albeit so-called “small a anarchist”) like consensus decision
making and general assemblies – but in fact to eventually have a
revolutionary anarchist communist movement that enacts a social
revolution to end exploitation and domination. Thus, the question of how
we relate to the rest of the proletariat crops up. I do not have an
exact scientific formula for solving this issue, but I do believe the
answer lies in self-reflection and political education. It’s important
to understand that “doesn’t automatically give us a method to bring up
the level of the left to the unity and strategy we seek”[6] but that
this is something we are always striving for and challenging ourselves
as revolutionaries to meet.
Cadres also tend to act as substitutionists, something which Phebus
points out in saying, “of course, we must agitate for our idea and lead
the battle of ideas, but as members of the class not as outside
agitators.”[7] I completely agree with this statement – I think Bring
the Ruckus does as well, and Phebus here is merely misconstruing words,
but the point is valid. If cadres think this way, that they are outside
the class, instead of dissolving themselves into the class, than they
are approaching revolutionary organisation in the wrong way. However,
were are libertarians and not Leninists – with proper political
education and leadership building in our organisations that should never
be a problem. Defining cadres as inherently substitutionist is
incorrect, especially in this libertarian sense of them! It is important
to reiterate Makhno’s words here – that revolutionary cadres are formed
from masses themselves. If this is properly understood than there will
be no confusion of so-called “substitutionism”.
So then, what do these so-called “revolutionary libertarian cadres” look
like? It is simple: they are local unions of anarchist-communists
committed to struggle, which “emphasizes not just the organizational
positions, but also the capabilities and activity of militants.”[8] They
strive for the central tenants of platformism, and keeping intact their
libertarian ideology at all times they seek to politically educate their
members to build leadership that is worthy of being the vanguard of the
class struggle. Not only are they an organisation of organisers, because
we cannot simple fetishise one strength that not everyone has, but an
organisation of propaghandists capable of taking anarchism to the masses
and building a revolutionary anarchist movement – backed by those
toilers who the organisers build power with. This is not where Common
Struggle is at, for now, but it is what we should be striving for if we
are really Platformists.
It is with great interest we critically analyse the situations that
occur in the struggle, to identify the most revolutionary aspects of the
struggle and innoculate against reformism. In other words, the cadre
seeks, at all times, to deepen and broaden the struggle to point of
social revolution. The cadre is a serious organisation that requires
discipline and commitment, because the task of creating an anarchist
communist world is one of immense proportions.
[1] Bring The Ruckus. Bring The Ruckus. Accessed 12/4/11.
http://bringtheruckus.org/?q=about
[2] Ibid.
[3] The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists. Delo
Truda. Accessed
12/4/11.http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/platform/general.htm
[4] Differences of Strategy and Organization. Nicolas Phebus. The North
Eastern Anarchist. Accessed 12/4/11. http://commonstruggle.org/node/126
[5] The Russian Revolution in Ukraine. Nestor Makhno. Black Cat Press.
2006.
[6] We Are Not Platformists, We Strive To Be. Scott Nappalos.
Recomposition Blog. Accessed 12/15/11.
http://recompositionblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/we-are-not-platformists-we-strive-to-be/
[7] Differences of Strategy and Organization. Nicolas Phebus. The North
Eastern Anarchist. Accessed 12/4/11. http://commonstruggle.org/node/126
[8] We Are Not Platformists, We Strive To Be. Scott Nappalos.
Recomposition Blog. Accessed 12/15/11.
http://recompositionblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/we-are-not-platformists-we-strive-to-be/