💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › gustavo-rodriguez-leninism-without-lenin.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:40:32. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Leninism Without Lenin Author: Gustavo Rodriguez Date: August 18, 2008 Language: en Topics: The Utopian, critique of leftism, platformism, criticism Source: Retrieved on 4th August 2021 from http://utopianmag.com/archives/tag-The%20Utopian%20Vol.%207%20-%202008/leninism-without-lenin-aproximaciones-al-leninismo-sin-lenin/ Notes: Published in The Utopian Vol. 7.
the Plan to Seize It?
Before beginning, I would like to make it clear that I am writing these
modest lines with the intention of encouraging reflection, more in the
search for the Truth than with the idea that I am somehow the repository
of it.
The first thing we need to do is to place our subject in the context
that gives it its significance: the advance of what I call
“Anarcho”-Bolshevism.
This offensive, which has developed over the last decade, has now
conquered many anarchist organizations, taking over the corpse of
anarcho-syndicalism and appropriating various publications, publishing
houses, libraries, social centers, squats, infoshops, editorials, and
initials (often linked with historic struggles of the now defunct
workers movement). This process can be traced through many articles,
reflections, and communiques in an infinite number of publications
created for the occasion and on different websites, such as
Anarkismo,net., A-Info, La Haine, Clajadep, and Kaos, among others.
In order to promote their advance, the “Anarcho”-Bolsheviks have had to
set in motion their own Frankenstein, in effect, reviving past
“deviations” of the anarchist project. Specifically, we can identify the
party-ist Platform of Nestor Makhno (a leader of partisan bands that
fought against both the Bolsheviks and the White counterrevolutionaries
during the Civil War in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917),
and the Mexican Liberal Party of the Flores Magón brothers. These were
lamentable attempts to build anarchist parties that we cannot fully
analyze here, but which were responses to the specific influences of
their epoch and to the needs and demands of the historical context in
which they found themselves. Nevertheless, we should not hide the fact
that these projects were refuted at the time, subjected to tough
critiques on the part of the partisans of Anarchy. Today, however, the
“Anarcho”-Bolsheviks don’t present themselves as they really are, and
for good reason. In the past, they were not able to impose explicitly
Leninist theses on the anarchist movement: They were not able to confuse
people with (Lenin’s) The State and Revolution; nor could they sell the
Cuban “Revolution” as anarchist, nor the experience of the Sandinistas
in Nicaragua, nor the “Foquismo” of Che Guevara and Regis Debray, nor
the “Prolonged People’s War” of Chairman Mao, nor the “necessity” of the
Popular Front. They could not do this openly, and they cannot do so
today. But, by camouflaging Leninism in “libertarian” clothes, they have
been following essentially the same path, pursuing their offensive and
consolidating their gains. With this strategy, they are developing an
international network with the sole and decided purpose of constructing
what they call “Our Party.”[1]
In the United States and Canada, the first steps in the construction of
“Our Party” date back to the summer of 1999, during which an initial
level of regional coordination and diffuse regional networks,
specifically in Quebec and New England, began to develop. These efforts
were directed toward promoting a “bi-national” regroupment, motivated by
the “mutual dissatisfaction with the state of the anarchist movement on
both sides of the border,”[2] and found fruition in April 2002, in the
formation, during a congress held in Boston, of the Northeast Federation
of Anarcho-Communists (NEFAC). This organization was founded on the
“platformist principles of theoretical and tactical unity, discipline,
collective responsibility, and internal democracy,” and modeled after
the Workers Solidarity Movement of Ireland, a platformist organization,
based in Dublin, that has been in existence for almost 25 years.
The tactical maneuvers of the Irish neo-platformists, in their concern
for geographic expansion, have been felt throughout North America. Some
examples are their unsuccessful attempt to assert control over the
Anarchist Encounter in Mexico City; the international meeting, titled
Anarkogaláctica, in the city of San Cristóbal de las Casas in the state
of Chiapas, both held in July 2007; and the National Anarchist
Encounter, held recently in the city of Guadalajara, promoted as a
continuation of the Anarchist Encounter in Mexico City, but with the
intention of pulling out of the hat a national “anarchist” organization
of clear neo-platformist tendency. Also part of this “Unity” strategy
was the recent tour of talks and interviews on the part of Andrew
Flood.[3] This took him to 45 cities in the United States, where he made
contact with various anarchist groups, collectives, and individuals,
with the goal of drawing up a “map” of the different tendencies within
the North American anarchist movement.
It is necessary to distinguish between the events that took place in
Mexico and the speaking tour in the US. At the anarchist Encounter of
Mexico City, platformist discourse was present only through the
chairmanship of Jose Antonio Gutierrez, in the name of the Workers
Solidarity Movement of Ireland and the Libertarian Communist
Organization of Chile, which intended to promote the “revolutionary
political organization of libertarians, in which to be able to discuss
the entire problematic of the construction of popular power.” On the
other hand, the Anarkogaláctica meeting in San Cristóbal de las Casas,
Chiapas, was integrally synchronized with the programmatic activities of
the platformist international and was explicitly intended to be a
satellite in the orbit of the Zapatistas, under the logic of “tactical
alliances,” and marked by the concern for numbers that characterizes
them. Also part of this approach was Andrew Flood’s tour and the
invitation to all those contacted to participate in an
inter-organizational “strategic encounter” in New York City. This
conference, with the participation of the anarcho-syndicalist Industrial
Workers of the World (IWW), the Workers Solidarity Alliance (WSA), and
the neo-platformist NEFAC, concluded with the creation of a new
organization, the Class Action Alliance (CAA), which placed itself in
the hands of the neo-platformists who coordinate the orientation
committee of Anarkismo.net.
In order to leave no doubt about its political orientation and
objectives, the CAA underlines in its General Principles: “We have
confidence in our esteemed anarchocommunist comrades throughout the
world and in the inspiration and solidarity which we expect of them in
our common search for a new world.”
Every time someone refers to the obvious similarity between classical
Leninism and the neo-platformist tendency, he/she is diagnosed as
suffering from congenital paranoia. Nevertheless, to judge by both the
practice and the discourse of the neo-platformists, we might better
diagnose them as amnesiacs. It is sad to say it, but it seems that some
people are absolutely incapable of learning the fundamental things about
the history of our movement.
Going further into the basic principles of neo-platformism, we need to
emphasize its insistence, often repeated in its discourse, that the
revolutionary political organization of anarchists “requires clear
premises to carry out their role—theoretical unity, tactical unity,
discipline, collective action, and internal democracy.” Such words
reveal the true intentions of the “anarchist” partyists. Particularly
noteworthy is the stress the neo-platformists place on their claim that
“Anarchism requires a program, a social plan, not only for the glorious
day of the revolution but also for the here and now.”
However, before immersing ourselves further in neo-platformist politics,
it is worth dissecting the Frankenstein monster that I mentioned
earlier. In so doing, we will be able to analyze the different members
that add up to the body of “neo-platformism” so as to better understand
its origins.
By way of a brief summary, we can state that neo-platformism is based on
a theoretical melange, in the shape of a body, created out of four
corpses:
best results, it is best that this be preceded by a lightning bolt at
midnight—and then, Presto! It’s alive! It’s alive!!)
Present-day specificism claims the historic continuity of the old FAU
(Uruguayan Anarchist Federation), but with particular emphasis on the
period 1963–73. This history— above all, the FAU’s actions during that
decade—is the source of the recent doctrinal elaborations on the part of
the majority of the “specificist” nuclei that currently exist. It is
precisely because of the influence exercised by the FAU in distinct
milieus that the term “specificism” has begun to be used as nearly
equivalent to “platformism.”
It is through the influence, direct or indirect, of the Irish Workers
Solidarity Movement (WSM) that these elaborations have dovetailed with
the old term “platformism,” by adopting the proposal of the
Organizational Platform of Dyelo Truda (Labor’s Cause, in Russian) to
“make profound and necessary changes in the habitual anarchist
conceptions of organization, through the formation of a General Union of
Anarchists, the adoption of a sole program of transformation, and the
full acceptance of the principles of collective responsibility and
tactical unity.”
The above allows us to see how the third member, which enables the
creature to take its first steps, or at least to try to do so, is
attached.
This limb is the theoretical work of the Frenchman Georges Fontenis. It
was he who facilitated, with his Libertarian Communist Manifesto, and
even more so, with his work, “The Revolutionary Message of the Friends
of Durruti,” the word game that has served as the theoretical
justification for neo-platformism. This is the supposed opposition
between “government” and “power.” According to the neoplatformist
interpretation, during the Spanish Revolution, the Spanish anarchists
were obligated to stay out of the Republican government but ought to
have established “Workers Power.”
It is here where, giving free rein to our rhetorical image, we come upon
the fourth limb of the creature: the Workers Councilism of Pannekoek.
This complements the call to “Unity” with an “indication of its
objective: Organize Production through Workers Councils!”
By means of this theoretical concoction, various expressions, such as
“organized anarchism,” “popular anarchism,” “introduced anarchism,”
“revolutionary anarchism,” “social anarchism,” “mass anarchism,” “rank
and file anarchism,” “anarchocommunists,” “libertarian communists,” and
variations on this theme, have become synonyms of
“neoplatformism/specificism.” These terms are meant to give shape to
what we have called “Leninism without Lenin,” with the clear strategic
purpose of converting itself into the sole means to achieve the
libertarian society. The underlying message is clear: All individuals,
collectives or groups that do not fully support the principles of
collective responsibility and tactical unity; all individuals,
collectives or groups that do not join the General Union of Anarchists,
all individuals, collectives or groups that do not adopt the sole
program of transformation, are not anarchist.
It is worth emphasizing the distinctive elements of neoplatformism:
“tactical unity,” as opposed to the autonomy of groups and collectives;
“collective responsibility,” as something distinct from individual
responsibility; the permanent construction of the party, the General
Union of Anarchists, in contrast to the diversity of organizational
forms, and the disciplined commitment to the sole program of
transformation as the road to establish “WORKERS POWER.” The similarity
between this and the classical conception of the Leninist party is not
pure coincidence.
It is ironic that neo-platformism presents itself as a renovating
tendency, intent on solving the political/practical problems that have
long confronted the anarchist movement, but at the same time, seeks
ideological support in doctrines that are only relevant to a historic
scenario that is not our own: abstract principles extracted from a
critical evaluation of the defeat of the anarchists in Russia in 1921.
Although the Organizational Platform that Makhno, Peter Arshinov, and
Ida Mett drew up in their Parisian exile dates from the early years of
the 20^(th) century, the extension of its influence is a relatively
recent phenomenon: no earlier than the 1970s and the early 1980s in
Europe; and with less than 10 years on the American continent, although
one might consider the Libertarian Communist Manifesto of Georges
Fontenis, written in 1953, to be a distant ancestor.
In fact, the influence of the Organizational Platform in anarchist
circles was practically nil until its recent reappearance. It never came
up for discussion in the FAI (Iberian Anarchist Federation), for
example, nor did it influence any of the federations that were created
in its image. Moreover, the evolution (rather, the involution) that the
Uruguayan Anarchist Federation experienced during the period 19631975
was completely endogenous and only marginally related to the Platform,
so much so that the document was not even known at the time nor was it
ever mentioned in the writings of that deplorable period. There can be
no doubt that the Platform fell into oblivion and remained in the
dustbin of history until in the 21^(st) century, when it began to be
circulated once again, thanks to a new version promoted by the Irish
Workers Solidarity Movement. In sum, the Organizational Platform played
no notable role as a model of organization and action in any country,
and, if I find myself obligated to give a brief explanation of the
causes of its current diffusion, I would say that it is similar to a
critique of the so-called “federations of synthesis” and, in the words
of comrade Daniel Barret, is meant as a reevaluation of the problem of
political effectiveness.
Such was the fate of those Russian exiles in Paris who devoted
themselves to writing such a document, the sad result of asking
themselves why the Russian anarchists had not been able to be as
“decisive” and as pragmatic as the Bolsheviks, and why the Bolsheviks,
although they were a minority, were able to defeat the anarchists,
jailing and exterminating them en masse.
It is worth mentioning that, at the time, the proposals of the
platformists were the subject of much discussion by those who up until
then had considered themselves to be “specificists” and
“organicists”—specifically, Errico Malatesta and Fabbri—especially
because they were so alien to anarchist principles, and that they played
no relevant role until the last 50 years, when they began to be rescued
by a few French and Italian nuclei.
With respect to “specifism” or “specificism,” I must admit that I am not
quite clear about who is the accredited “father” of the creature. Most
probably it was Malatesta, since we owe to him the most prolix
discussions of the issue. What is certain is that at the beginning of
the last century, during the period of anarcho-syndicalism, the term was
used in a fairly precise way to refer to the nontrade unionist
organizations of the “pure” anarchists. Thus, in Spain, and also on both
sides of the Rio de la Plata (that is, in Argentina and Uruguay), people
spoke of the ���specifics” to refer to those anarchist organizations that
were parallel to the trade unions. Such parallelism was fraught with
conflict, since the pure anarcho-syndicalists were always fiercely
opposed to the “specifics,” so much so that in Uruguay and Argentina
during the 1920s, the political differences between the factions
resulted in shootouts. However, the term “specificism” is far from
belonging exclusively to the Friends of Durruti, and even less so, to
the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation.
All the disquisitions of the FAU on the subject of “specificism” come
from Juan Carlos Mechoso— who in that area was directed by the teachings
of the old Spanish anarchists who arrived in the barrio of El Cerro, in
Montevideo, Uruguay, after the defeat of Spanish anarcho-syndicalism.
And from him derive the current usage and meaning of the term.
Recently—as a result of the influence the FAU exercises in various
milieus—the term “specificism” has come to be used as the equivalent of
“platformism” when in reality it also ought to encompass the
“federations of synthesis.”
Without a doubt, the best discussion of the subject is contained in the
pamphlet, “The Seditious Awakening of Anarchy,”[4] by comrade Daniel
Barret, and can be found as a marginal gloss in notes 82 and 84. Here
Barret states that “specificist” refers to any anarchist organization,
independent of its size, age, or level of formal structure. That is, all
nuclei that define themselves as specifically anarchist would properly
be characterized as “specificist.”
Nevertheless, as I indicated before, current “specificism” claims for
itself the historic continuity of the old FAU, with specific emphasis on
the “official” vision of the period 1963–1973. This vision has existed
for some time in condensed form in a thick book consisting of three
volumes: Anarchist Direct Action: A History of the FAU, under the
signature of Juan Carlos Mechoso. Laregly a collection of documents,
this book has come to exercise an enormous influence over
neo-platformist organizations. It is a shamelessly uncritical text, with
little serious discussion of anything, sufficiently useful to feed the
internal mystique of the organization and for presentation to the
outside world, but completely useless today, either as a review of the
mistakes committed by the FAU in past or as a guide to appropriate
anarchist activity in the present.
Whoever reads this book, especially the volume dealing with the period
1965–1973 (which covers the last part of the history, but which was in
fact edited first), might find the account of the expropriations (armed
robberies) and legal proceedings somewhat humorous. But he/she will find
no clear explanation of exactly how and why the FAU, which was founded
in 1956, came to adopt, during those years 1965–73, political positions
that were increasingly less anarchist: in its internal organization, in
its daily political pronouncements, in its medium—and long—range plans,
etc. This “evolution” culminated in a congress in July 1975, in which
the FAU changed its entire self-conception and turned itself into a
political party—the Party of the People’s Victory—whose aim was to form
a provisional government with all the forces opposed to the military
dictatorship of the time. These developments are discreetly omitted from
this so-called history. As a result, the book really goes no further
than 1973, because if it had, it would not serve the ends of the
present-day FAU, nor would it be useful for neo-platformism in its
current work of wooing other anarchist organizations.
It really isn’t strange that the history of the FAU, especially the
period 1965–1973 (omitting, of course, its transformation into a party
of the Marxist-Leninist type) is so appealing to the neo-platformist
groupings today, since it offers them, on a silver platter, an
antecedent with which they can easily identify. Nevertheless, the big
problem with any international debate over this subject results from the
terrible ignorance of at least one-half of the FAU’s history. It is
worth adding that in those years the FAU wound up much further away from
anarchist principles than any other “deviation.” Among other things, it
rejected federalism, something the Platform itself did not dare to do,
and that the neo-platformists have also not subscribed to, at least not
publicly.
As far as the Friends of Durruti are concerned, I have to note the
galloping opportunism that is implied in their very name, given that
Buenaventura Durruti had already been assassinated by the time the group
was formed. The “rescue” of his name reflects more a marketing strategy,
an attempt to take advantage of the popularity of the martyred
anarchist, than a question of ideological affinity. Moreover, a certain
mythology has developed around the whole affair, since the group itself
had little significance in its own time. However, the organization’s
message is extremely interesting as a critique of the ministerial
anarcho-syndicalism of Federica Montseny, Abad Santillan, etc., in spite
of the lamentable conclusions to which their forced landing in the
dangerous waters of “Workers Power” (a euphemism employed in
“anarcho”-communist organizations to mean the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat) led them.
Having said all this, I think it is crucial to emphasize that the
present day anarchist “movement” is still immature, that it lacks a
model of organization and action, and that it is undergoing a degree of
ideological confusion, or worse, an ideological discussion that is
considerably out of touch with our present needs. However, leaving this
topic aside for the moment, we can draw some preliminary conclusions
about our theme.
In analyzing present-day neo-platformism, it is necessary to distinguish
several distinct circles, since the farther away they are from the
concrete historical context that gave rise to the Organizational
Platform, the more the groups are responding to situations that are in
no way comparable to that situation.
At one time, we indicated three circles which we had, perhaps
arbitrarily and no doubt malevolently, named according to their degree
of proximity to Leninism: “non-Leninists,” “proto-Leninists,” and
“hidden” and/or “admitted Leninists.” After thinking about the most
recent movements of the groups that I included under the heading of
“non-Leninists,” I’ve decided to change their label to “in transition to
Leninism.”
Here I feel obligated to make it clear that I do not believe that any of
the groupings belonging to this category (of those furthest away from
Leninism but in transition to that ideology, the one that stands out is
NEFAC) are motivated by any “diabolical” inspiration. I simply think
they are naive in their formulations and guided by an over-eagerness to
make alliances with other groups. This, of course, does not absolve them
from criticism.
The second group—that of the “proto-Leninists”—is the circle that orbits
around the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation, which has remained enrolled
as neo-platformist, out of reasons of simple political proximity and in
the face of the unity moves of the Social Action Group of the General
Confederation of Labor—the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) of
Burgos, Spain, and the WSM.
The last group —that of the “hidden” or “admitted Leninists”—is made up
of the Revolutionary Anarchist Organization (ORA) of Argentina, the
Libertarian Communist Organization (OCL) of Chile, as well as the
Libertarian Communist Alliance (ACL), and a pair of “anarcho”-Zapatista
nuclei of diffuse politics, also in Mexico, such as the Popular
Indigenous Council of Oaxaca-Ricardo Flores Magón (CIPO-RFM). Because of
its opportunist practice, and above all, in response to the
international initiatives of the neo-platformist organizations (such as
the Social Action Group of the General Confederation of Labor of
Burgos), the latter has donned the T-shirts of “anarcho”-communism, in a
search for its “soul.”
All this raises a list of topics that deserve serious reflection, since
they are real problems of present-day anarchist practice.
As comrade Daniel Barret reminds us: “Anarchist thought and action work
with very specific and distinct materials, not to realize the goals of
others more rapidly or with more energy, but to fertilize their own
dreams.”[5] It is an arduous task that some comrades, or not so close
comrades, consider to be divisive, instead of understanding that the
only thing that is meant by this is to concretize, here and now, the
destruction of the State/Capital, thus giving free rein to Anarchy, not
as a philosophical model, but as an objective necessity, and that any
“deviation” from this obligation only allows the continuation of the
system of the State/Capital in new forms.
Perhaps it is necessary to “advise” the neo-platformist groupings that
they might just as well shorten their trajectory, that if they choose to
follow the example of the FAU, the best thing to do is to begin at the
end —I don’t see what impediment there could be—and transform themselves
right now into the kind of political party the FAU of the 1960s and
1970s became; in other words, to tell them that if this is the example
they have chosen to follow, there is no reason not to go straight to the
conclusions instead of spending years, perhaps even decades, playing
around with the premises.
The lamentable thing is that in the face of these critical conclusions,
the neo-platformists will, once again, opt for the “red herring,”
dredging up the over-used diagnosis of congenital paranoia, complaining
about the false accusations of the “purists,” or citing the trite
fallacy of the “Law of the Pendulum,” where opposites supposedly meet or
coincide.
Nevertheless, our arguments and criticisms throw light on this verbiage.
We are convinced that in the daily struggle against Power, we will stand
shoulder to shoulder with those who are not now nor ever will be
anarchists, and that we will act, consistent with our anti-authoritarian
principles, to nourish solidarity in practice. And there, I hope we will
meet everybody, fulfilling our dreams of expropriation, insurrection and
destruction, until not a vestige of the past remains, nourishing with
deeds that liberating spirit which is—in the words of the “disappeared”
comrade, Amanecer Fiorito—”the only anarchism possible, negator of
antiauthoritarian institutions, cleansed of liberal, Social Democratic
and ‘dictatorial’ (statist) influences, and blessed with revolutionary
feeling.”[6]
Gustavo Rodríguez
June, 2008, Sierra Norte de Puebla, Mexico
[1] “Our Party” is the “original” way the Chilean neo-platformists of
the Libertarian Communist Organization (OCL) and the members of the
neo-platformist Revolutionary Anarchist Organization of Argentina (ORA)
named their organizations.
[2] Taken from Who We Are and What We Do? This is NEFAC! An Introduction
to the Northeast Federation of Anarcho-Communists. In:
[3] Founding member of the Workers Solidarity Movement of Ireland.
[4] In:
[[http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/descargas/Despertares-Barret[7].rtf][www.nodo50.org]]
[5] Barret, Daniel, Anarchism, Anti-Imperialism, Cuba and Venezuela: A
Fraternal Dialogue (But Without Concessions) with Pablo Moras. In:
[6] Fiorito, Amanecer, Severino di Giovanni y Paulino Scarfo, “La
Película,” La Protesta No. 8214, September-October 2000, Buenos Aires,
Argentina. In: Fiorito, Amanecer, The Black Selection of Articles of
Protest, Liberty Editions, 2007, Buenos Aires, Argentina, pp. 15–22.