đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș workers-solidarity-movement-the-platform.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:55:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Platform Author: Aileen OâCarroll and Alan MacSimĂłin Date: November 2000 Language: en Topics: the platform, platformism, work, Workersâ Solidarity Movement, Red & Black Revolution Source: Retrieved on 8th August 2021 from http://struggle.ws/rbr/rbr4_platform.html Notes: This article was originally published in Red & Black Revolution No 4.
Anarchists are constantly thinking about how society is and how it could
be. We strive towards the ideal of a free and democratic society. We
know that, in order to get there, it will be necessary to tear down the
present authoritarian system of government. Our struggle for freedom
throws up many areas of controversy and debate. One of these has always
been, and always will be, how do we get to a revolution? How do we
organise for change? An important contribution to this debate was the
Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists, a document which
was written in 1926 by a group of exiled Russian and Ukrainian
anarchists, and which still has much to offer to todayâs debates around
the question of organisation.
The authors had participated in the Russian revolution and saw all their
work, their hopes and dreams fail as an authoritarian Bolshevik state
triumphed and destroyed real workersâ power. They wrote the pamphlet in
order to examine why the anarchist movement had failed to build on the
success of the factory committees, where workers organising in their own
workforces began to build a society based on both freedom and equality.
In the first paragraph they state
âIt is very significant that, in spite of the strength and incontestably
positive character of libertarian ideas, and in spite of the facing up
to the social revolution, and finally the heroism and innumerable
sacrifices borne by the anarchists in the struggle for anarchist
communism, the anarchist movement remains weak despite everything, and
has appeared, very often, in the history of working class struggles as a
small event, an episode, and not an important factor.â
This is strong stuff, a wake up call for the anarchist movement. It is a
call that we still need to hear. Despite the virtual collapse of almost
all other left wing tendencies, anarchism is still not in a position of
strength. Even though the Trotskyist organisations have either
evaporated into thin air, shrunk drastically in size or moved to social
democracy, it is a sad fact, that were there a revolution tomorrow, they
still would be in a better position to have their arguments heard and
listened to than we would. This fact alone should give us pause for
thought. We cannot be complacent, and rely on the hope that the obvious
strength and rightness of our ideas will shine through and win the day.
The world we live in is the product of struggles between competing ideas
of how society should be organized. If the anarchist voice is weak and
quiet, it wonât be heard, and other arguments, other perspectives will
win the day.
It is not my intention to go through The Platform with a fine-tooth
comb. It was never intended to provide all the answers, in the
introduction they make this clear
We have no doubts that there are gaps in the present platform. It has
gaps, as do all new, practical steps of any importance. It is possible
that certain important positions have been missed, or that others are
inadequately treated, or that still others are too detailed or
repetitive.
It was hoped, however, that it would form the beginning of a debate
about how anarchists could escape from the doldrums they were in.
Instead I will look at some of the documentâs underlying principles, in
particular the problems which they identify in anarchist organisations,
which they describe as follows.
In all countries, the anarchist movement is advocated by several local
organisations advocating contradictory theories and practices, leaving
no perspectives for the future, nor of a continuity in militant work,
and habitually disappearing hardly leaving the slightest trace behind
them.
Their solution is the creation of certain type of anarchist
organisation. Firstly the members of these organisations are in
theoretical agreement with each other. Secondly they agree that if a
certain type of work is prioritised, all should take part. Even today
within the anarchist movement these are contentious ideas so it is worth
exploring them in a little more detail.
The Platformâs basic assumption is that there is a link between
coherency and efficiency. Those who oppose the Platform argue that this
link does not exist. To them efficiency has nothing to do with how
coherent an organisation is, rather it is a function of size. This
position argues that the Platform, in its search for theoretical
agreement, excludes those not in absolute agreement, and thus will
always be smaller than a looser organisation. As size is of more
importance than theory, practically these organisations will not be as
effective.
This debate takes us to the centre of one of the most important debates
within anarchism. How does a revolutionary change of society occur? What
can anarchists do to assist in the process of bringing such change
about?
Capitalism is an organized economic system. Its authority is promoted by
many voices, including the parliamentary political parties, the media
and education system (to name but a few). A successful revolution
depends on the rejection of those voices by the majority of people in
society. Not only do we have to reject capitalism, but we also need to
have a vision of an alternative society. What is needed is an
understanding both that capitalism should be defeated and that it can be
replaced. For an anarchist revolution there has to be the recognition
that we alone have the power and the ability to create that new world.
The role of an anarchist organisation is to spread these ideas. Not only
do we need to highlight the negative and injurious aspects of capitalism
(which is obvious to many anyway), we also need to develop explanations
of how the system operates. This is what is meant by theory, simply it
is the answer to the question âwhy are things as they are?.â And we need
to do one more thing, we need to be able to put our theory into
practice, our understanding of how things work will inform how we
struggle.
Returning to the Platform, the key problem with anarchist organisations
as they existed is that they were not only incapable of developing such
an approach, but didnât even see it as necessary. Because there was no
agreement on theoretical issues, they could not provide answers to the
working class. They could agree that womenâs oppression was wrong, but
not explain why women were oppressed. They could agree that World War
One was going to lead to death and destruction, but not why it had
occurred. Such agreement is important because without it cooperation on
activity, agreement on what to do, is unlikely. This is how the
Platformâs authors described such an organisation
âSuch an organisation having incorporated heterogeneous theoretical and
practical elements, would only be a mechanical assembly of individuals
each having a different conception of all the questions of the anarchist
movement, an assembly which would inevitably disintegrate on
encountering realityâ
By a âmechanical assembly of individualsâ they mean a group of
individuals meeting together, yet not united in mind or in action. This
undermines the entire meaning of organisation, which is to maximise the
strength of the individuals through co-operation with others. Where
there is no agreement, there can be little co-operation. This absence of
co-operation only becomes obvious when the group is forced to take a
position on a particular issue, a particular event in the wider world.
At this point, two things happen. Either, the individuals within the
group act on their own particular interpretation of events in isolation,
which raises the question, what is the point of being in such an
organisation? Alternatively the group can decide to ignore the event,
thus preventing disagreement.
This has a number of unfortunate side effects for anarchist politics.
Most seriously, it means that the anarchist interpretation of events
still will not be heard. For no matter how large the organisation, if
all within it are speaking with different voices, the resulting
confusion will result an unclear and weak anarchist message. Such an
organisation can produce a weekly paper, but each issue will argue a
different point of view, as the authors producing it change. Our ideas
will not be convincing, because we ourselves are not convinced by them.
The second side effect is that our ideas will not develop and grow in
depth and complexity because they will never be challenged by those
within our own organisation. It is only by attempting to reach
agreement, by exchanging competing conceptions of society, that we will
be forced to consider all alternatives. Unchallenged our ideas will
stagnate.
Without agreement on what should be done, the anarchist organisation
remains no more than a collection of individuals. The members of that
organisation donât see themselves as having any collective identity. Too
often the lifetimes of such groups are the lifetimes of those most
active individuals. There is no sense of building a body of work that
will stretch into the future. Considering that in these times the
revolution is a long term prospect, such short term planning is a tragic
waste of energy and effort.
Often the experience of anarchists is that they are energetic and
committed activists, but fail to publicize the link between the work
they do and the ideas they believe in. One example of this is the
successful anti-Poll Tax Campaign in England, Scotland and Wales.
Although many anarchists were extremely involved in the struggle against
this unjust tax, when victory finally came, anarchists didnât come out
of it, as might be expected, in a strengthened position. We need to ask
ourselves why this is so.
It would seem to be because anarchists concentrated their efforts making
arguments against the tax, and sidelined arguments in favour of
anarchism. Furthermore, though many worked as individuals they couldnât
give any sense that they were part of any bigger movement. They were
seen as good heads, and that was all. In contrast, despite the WSMâs
extremely small size when a similar campaign â the Anti-Water Charges
Campaign â ended, we had heightened the profile of anarchism in Ireland.
We emphasised that our opposition to an unjust tax was linked to our
opposition to an unjust society and our belief that a better society is
possible.
Returning to the question of efficiency and size, organisations in the
âPlatformâ tradition agree that size is important and they all seek to
grow so that they are in a position of importance in society. However,
they emphasise that all the positive attributes of belonging to a larger
organisation, the increased work that can be undertaken, the increased
human potential that can be drawn on, are undermined if such an
organisation is directionless. The key point is that it is not a case of
choosing between size or coherency, rather we should aim for both.
The importance of the Platform is that it clearly highlights the serious
problems caused by the disorganised nature of loosely based anarchist
organisations. It exposes a problem, it highlights how fatal this flaw
in anarchism can be, it emphasises the urgency with which we must deal
with it and compels us to come up with some answers.
This section outlines what they saw as the basic anarchist beliefs. They
look at what is meant by class struggle, what is meant by anarchism and
libertarian communism. They explain why they oppose the state and
centralised authority. The role of the masses and of anarchists in the
social struggle and social revolution is also explained. They criticise
the Bolshevik strategy of obtaining control of the state. Finally they
look at the relationship between anarchism and the trade unions.
This outlines how a future anarchist society would be organised, they
look at how the factories would operate and how food would be produced.
They warn that the revolution will have to be defended, and talk a
little about how this might be done.
This is the shortest and most contentious section of The Platform. Here
the authors sketch their idea of how an anarchist organisation should be
structured. They call this the General Union of Anarchists.
By this they seem to mean one umbrella organistion, which is made up of
different groups and individuals. Here we would disagree with them. We
donât believe there will ever be one organisation which encompasses
everything, neither do we see it as necessary. Instead we envisage the
existence of a number of organisations, each internally unified, each
co-operating with each other where possible. This is what we call the
Anarchist movement, it is a much more amorphous and fluid entity than a
General Union of Anarchists.
However, what we do agree on are the fundamental principles by which any
anarchist organisation should operate.
theory. By theory they donât mean abstract musings on the meaning of
life. By theory they mean the knowledge we have about how the world
operates. Theory answers the question âwhy?,â for example âwhy is there
poverty?â âwhy havenât Labour Parties provided a fairer society?â and so
on and so on. By theoretical unity they mean that members of the
organisation must agree on a certain number of basics. There isnât much
an organisation can do if half their members believe in class struggle
and the other half in making polite appeals to politicians, or one in
which some people believe union struggles are important and others think
they are a waste of time. Of course, not everybody is going to agree
with everybody else on every single point. If there was total agreement
there would be no debate, and our politics would grow stale and sterile.
Accepting this however, there is a common recognition that it is
important to reach as much agreement as possible, and to translate this
agreement into action, to work together, which brings us to ...
together as an organisation, rather than struggle as individuals in
opposition to each other. So for example in Ireland, the WSM identified
the anti-water charges campaign (see R&BR3 for more details) as an issue
of great importance. Once it was prioritised, all of our members
committed themselves to work for the campaign, where possible. The
tactics and potential of the campaign were discussed at length at our
meetings. It became the major focus of our activity.
support the decisions made by the collective, and each member will be
part of the collective decision making process. Without this, any
decisions made will be paper decisions only. Through this the strength
of all the individuals that make up the group is magnified and
collectively applied. The Platform doesnât go into detail about how
collective responsibility works in practice. There are issues it leaves
untouched such as the question of people who oppose the majority view.
We would argue that obviously people who oppose the view of the majority
have a right to express their own views, however in doing so they must
make clear that they donât represent the view of the organisation. If a
group of people within the organisation oppose the majority decision
they have the right to organise and distribute information so that their
arguments can be heard within the organisation as a whole. Part of our
anarchism is the belief that debate and disagreement, freedom and
openness strengthens both the individual and the group to which she or
he belongs.
and organisations to work collectively towards common objectives.â
Anarchist organisations that have been influenced by the Platform are
well aware that it is no Bible full of absolute truths. There is no
grouping anywhere that would be so stupid to treat it as one. Anarchists
have no need of such things. It is just one of the signposts pointing us
in what we believe is the direction of making anarchism the most
realistic and desirable alternative to both the present set-up and the
authoritarian alternatives served up by most of the left.
Its ideas have been developed and modified in the light of experience
over the years. Two other relatively well known documents are Towards A
Fresh Revolution by the Friends of Durruti (which arose from the
experience of the Spanish revolution) and the Manifesto of Libertarian
Communism by Georges Fontenis (which arose from French experiences in
the post-World War II years). The WSM stands in this tradition because
it is the best one we have found, but it is a continually developing,
modifying and growing one. We have no tablets carved in stone, and we
donât want or need any.
Organisations which are influenced, to varying degrees, by this
tradition can be found in countries where anarchism has sunk deep roots,
like France (Libertarian Alternative), Switzerland (Libertarian
Socialist Organisation) and Italy (Federation of Anarchist Communists);
and also in countries where anarchism is a fairly new force, like the
Lebanon (Al Badil al Taharouri) and South Africa (Workers Solidarity
Federation). In the last year new translations of the Platform have
appeared in Polish and Turkish.
In the English speaking world, however, many anarchists are either
unaware of what is in the Platform, or are hostile to it. Why? The
authors drew 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 âego,â without
obligation to account for duties as regards the organisation.â 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 prominent anarchists such as
Voline, Fabbri, Malatesta and Camilo Berneri who accused them of trying
to âBolshevise anarchism.â 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 had to be spelled out when
addressing other anarchists but seemingly it did, and the âPlatformâ 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 and 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 Union.â
The last sentence of the document talks about the aim of the Union to
become the âorganised vanguard of the emancipating process.â 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 read as part of 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.
Two arguments 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, but then it would be far less credible to throw the
same accusation at Nestor 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 in 1926
any more than Kropotkinâs support for Allied imperialism in the First
World War invalidated all his previous anarchist writings.
The other reason is the experience in Britain where the Anarchist
Workers Association in the 1970s and the Anarchist Workers Group of the
early 1990s 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 has been held up
as some sort of proof that the basic ideas of the Platform inevitably
lead to an abandonment of anarchism.
Of course, even the briefest look at the movement beyond the shores of
Britain shows that this is clearly not the case at all. But what did go
wrong with both the AWA and the AWG? After all, mistakes that are not
understood can easily be repeated.
One factor shared by both organisations was that they were formed by
people who were already anarchists and who saw the need for an
alternative to the loose organisation and lack of theoretical clarity so
prevalent in British anarchism. Or to put it simply: they saw a movement
with great ideas but a very poor ability to promote them. They started
off by concentrating too much on what was wrong with the movement; they
lost sight of all that is sensible and inspiring, and increasingly only
saw the problems.
In so far as there was regular internal education and discussion it
tended to be about strategies and tactics. New members were recruited on
the basis of activity in strikes and campaigns, and often had little
understanding of basic anarchist ideas. These people had, however, come
from a background where anarchists were presented as a group of clowns
without two ideas to rub together or as dropouts, incapable of dealing
with modern society and wishing for a return to living on the land.
There were no formal educationals on the anarchist tradition but a fair
few slagging off other anarchists.
At the last conference of the AWG one observer was shocked to discover
that someone who had been in that organisation for over a year knew, by
his own admission, virtually nothing about the biggest ever practical
anarchist experiment â the Spanish revolution. Not surprisingly many of
these new members came to believe that the AWG must be a radical
departure from anarchism for it seemed radically different from what
they had been told anarchism was. This, in turn, strengthened a feeling
that there was little to learn from the anarchist tradition.
The result of this was that, as the anarchists got demoralised and
drifted away, the remaining members felt they had to move âbeyond
anarchism.â In both cases the surviving rumps ended up moving into
authoritarian politics. We cannot be surprised when organisations where
the majority of members have little understanding of anarchist ideas
cease to be anarchist organisations. To expect anything else would be
crazy.
The ideas of the Platform can aid anarchists to organise more
effectively, but this is meaningless if we have not first ensured that
those in the anarchist organisations have a good grasp of anarchist
ideas, are confident enough to disagree and debate, and are united by
the common cause of making anarchism a reality.