💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-letters-to-anarchy-on-platformism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:12:45. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

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

Title: Letters to Anarchy on Platformism
Author: Anarcho
Date: March 3, 2009
Language: en
Topics: platformism, Bob Black, letter
Source: Retrieved on 29th January 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=219
Notes: Three letters to the US-based Anarchy magazine in response to an issue it did on “Platformism” pointing out the mistakes made — as well as the irony of Bob Black attacking the Platformists as vanguardists while repeating some of Lenin’s arguments from What is to Be Done?

Anarcho

Letters to Anarchy on Platformism

First Letter to Anarchy

Dear Anarchy

I was deeply disappointed by the last issue of Anarchy. The reason is

simple. While denouncing what it considers the “repeated pronouncements

of contempt for many (often even most) anarchists” and those who present

“no hint ... that the people denounced might have genuinely radical and

intelligent reasons for thinking and acting as they do,” we were

subjected to exactly this as regards “Platformism.”

In the various articles bashing the Platform, at no time was there any

attempt to explain why some anarchists have felt an affinity to that

document and the tradition is created (and, yes, it does have a

tradition and influence even if some contributors to Anarchy may want to

deny it). This seems strange, considering the claim that Anarchy thinks

other anarchists should be doing that. What are we to conclude from

this? That “workerist, organisationalist” anarchists have to apply one

set of standards while the contributors of Anarchy another? I get that

impression. Even the review of NorthEastern Anarchist magazine failed to

meet the exacting standards Anarchy set for others. I re-read both

Aileen O’Carroll’s article on the Russian Revolution and Brian

Sheppard’s one on the labour movement and I have to say that Anarchy‘s

“review” of both was simply a distortion of what they argued.

I am not going to reply to every point raised in the numerous articles

produced. That would be impossible. Likewise, as I am not a Platformist

I will not defend it. I will say this, Malatesta’s critique of the

Platform was substantially correct and, moreover, exactly the kind of

critique Anarchy promised but failed to deliver. Malatesta understood

the motivations of the original Platformists and had a dialogue with

Makhno without questioning his anarchism. Unlike Anarchy‘s contributors,

he did not slander Makhno as being a crypto-Leninist but rather an

anarchist whose position should be constructively discussed. But, then

again, Malatesta was an “organisationalist” anarchist (maybe even a

“workerist” one as well) and so, presumably, “one step” from Platformism

and so two steps from Leninism.

I will, however, make a few comments.

Firstly, I need correct one of Bob Black’s inaccuracies. He states that

the WSM “without so indicating, omits several interesting passages from

the Platform.” Presumably this is part of some plan to hide the Leninist

aims of that document and so, presumably, the WSM itself. Sadly for

Black, his comments are simply not true. These “interesting passages”

are not, in fact, from the Platform. They are from a later document

(which is reprinted as “document no. 3” in Skirda’s Facing the Enemy).

Skirda’s translation of one passage simply states that “decisions,

though, will have to be binding upon all who vote for and endorse them.”

No mention of “sanctions.” Ignoring the question of which translation is

correct, is Black suggesting that abiding by collective decisions you

took part in making equates to “the state”? If so, then any organisation

becomes “the state” and so anarchy becomes an impossible dream. If not,

then surely abiding, in general, by group decisions you help make is an

example of the “responsible individualism” he contrasts to the Platform?

Secondly, I find it ironic that while Black accuses the Platform of

Leninism, his critique of it rests, in part, on the basic idea of

Leninism, namely the false notion that working class people cannot

develop socialist ideas by their own effort. He is at pains to mock the

Platform for arguing that anarchism was born in the class struggle.

“This is of course untrue,” he asserts. It appears to be a case of

“class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from

without, that is, only outside of the economic struggle, outside the

sphere of relations between workers and employers”? Black again? No,

Lenin (from What is to be Done?). Or, in other words, “socialism and the

class struggle arise side by side and not one out of the other” (to

quote, as Lenin did, Social Democratic leader Karl Kautsky).

It seems strange that Black seemingly subscribes to Lenin’s maxim that

“there can be no talk of an independent ideology being developed by the

masses of the workers in the process of their movement.” Where does that

leave working class spontaneity and autonomy? Lenin was clear, “there is

a lot of talk about spontaneity, but the spontaneous development of the

labour movement leads to its becoming subordinated to bourgeois

ideology.” Which, from his perspective, makes perfect sense. But where

does it leave Black?

Not only can Black’s argument be faulted logically, it can be faulted

factually. Echoing Lenin and Kautsky, Black argues that anarchism comes

from Proudhon. Yet was Proudhon somehow separate from the experiences of

the class he was part of? He was not, of course. Proudhon got many of

his ideas (and the term Mutualism itself) from the artisans in Lyon who

had developed their ideas independently of bourgeois intellectuals and

had practised class struggle for some time (rising the black flag in

insurrection in the 1830s). In 1848, Proudhon stressed that his ideas

were not abstract concepts divorced from working class life. As he put

it, “the proof” of his mutualist ideas lay in the “current practice,

revolutionary practice” of “those labour associations ... which have

spontaneously ... been formed in Paris and Lyon.” But, then again, the

likes of Proudhon, according to Lenin, contribute to socialist ideas

“not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians.” Black seems to share

that perspective.

Similarly, Bakunin’s anarchism seems, for Black, to have popped into his

head from some unspecified place. However, the facts are that the ideas

championed by Bakunin had been developed independently within the First

International by workers before he joined. This, in part, explains his

success in the International. He was a focus for ideas that had already

been developed by workers as part of their struggles and experiences,

ideas he of course add to and deepen. Bakunin contributed to anarchism,

but working class people and their ideas contributed to the development

of his ideas.

Then there is Kropotkin. While Black uses him to discredit the Platform

on this issue, the fact is that Kropotkin expressed the same ideas as

that document. In “Modern Science and Anarchism”, for example, he notes

that “Anarchism originated among the people” and, indeed, that it

“originated in everyday struggles.” In his “Great French Revolution” he

argues that “the principles of anarchism ... already dated from 1789,

and that they had their origin, not in theoretical speculations, but in

the deeds of the Great French Revolution.” The Platform, clearly,

follows Kropotkin in this. Personally, I’ll side with Kropotkin (and the

Platform) against Black (and Lenin) on this issue.

All this is not surprising, given a basic knowledge of anarchist theory

and history. What is surprising is that someone like Black should make

such an argument. I expected better from him, but I’m unfortunately

getting used to being disappointed by his (often sloppy) assertions

against “workerist” and “organisationalist” anarchists.

Thirdly, I have to question why Black feels the necessity of mentioning

Makhno’s drinking in his account of the Platform. Given that Makhno had

seen non-stop combat for four years, I’m not surprised that he turned to

drink to dull the pain (both mental and physical). And, incidentally,

why mention Arshinov’s return to Russia when discussing the Platform? I

suppose it is to suggest that Platformists were (and are) just hidden

Leninists. But, then, how can be explain the fact that Makhno and Mett

remained anarchists to the end? Mentioning Arshinov’s return seems as

petty as mentioning Makhno’s drinking. Equally, to compare the

Platform’s arguments for a revolutionary army with “the

counter-revolutionary People’s Army” in Spain is incredible. Looking at

its suggestions on this matter surely shows that the CNT’s

“revolutionary militias” were a close approximation to what was desired.

Given the similarities between the CNT militias and the Makhnovist

movement, I am surprised that anyone could claim otherwise.

Fourthly, the whole “dual power” article seems flawed. After all, Lenin

and Trotsky were simply describing situations that arose in the process

of class struggle. As such, it is not about “how to create a set of

institutions that can pull the allegiance of the governed away from the

existing state” (as Lawrence Jarach states) but rather institutions

which the governed create themselves to counter the power of the

existing state. That the Bolsheviks used the soviets to seize power

should not blind us to their origins and initial function as a strike

committee created in 1905 to co-ordinate struggle against the Tsarist

state. Significantly, anarchist support for the soviets as both a means

of fighting the state/capital and as the framework of a socialist

society predates Bolshevik lip-service to this idea by twelve years (and

can be traced back to Bakunin, even Proudhon).

As such, the idea of “anarchist dual power” (if you want to use that

term) simply means the idea that the embryo of the new world must be

created while fighting the current one. Rather than signify a desire for

“loyalty” to “a state-in-formation” it means encouraging organs of

self-management by which the oppressed exercise their autonomy and

restrict the power of boss and government until such time as they can

abolish both. Kropotkin expressed this idea as follows in 1909: “To make

a revolution it is not ... enough that there should be ... [popular]

risings ... It is necessary that after the risings there should be

something new in the institutions [that make up society], which would

permit new forms of life to be elaborated and established.”

That the Bolsheviks used such organs to take power does not mean we

should eschew support for them. Quite the reverse, as such bodies are

the only means by which working class people can manage their own

affairs directly. The task of anarchists is, in part, to stop vanguards

turning these bodies into hierarchical institutions, into the structures

of a new state. So the idea of building “societies of resistance” within

capitalism is an old one within anarchism, one which predates the birth

of Lenin and Trotsky (never mind their descriptive expression “dual

power”).

Fifthly, it seems to me that the only people who take the Platform as a

bible are the anti-Platformists. All the Platformists I have met argue

that they see the Platform as a flawed guide, not a blueprint. No

“Platformist” I know subscribes to the organisational schema outlined in

it. The principles of federalism, tactical and theoretical unity, and so

on are generally supported, of course, but the system of secretariats is

not applied. Even “tactical and theoretical unity” is generally used to

signify co-operation and sticking by collective decisions once they have

been made. As such, to attack the Platform without considering how it is

applied seems a pointless task. It smacks more of an ideological

approach than a theoretical one. Perhaps, as argued in reply to a

letter, it would make more sense for the Platformists to call themselves

neo-Platformists to avoid confusion on this matter but, then again,

perhaps the “post-left” anarchists could take this as read and move onto

concrete critiques of current Platformist ideas and practice?

Finally, on a totally different subject, I would like to make a few

comments on (I)An-ok Ta Chai’s letter calling for unity between

anarchists and “right anarchists.” As there is no such thing as “right

anarchists” it would be impossible to work with them. By “right

anarchists” I assume it is meant right-wing libertarian capitalists who

falsely call themselves anarchists. Given that these people are in

favour of private police, property (and so theft), obedience (to private

power by wage slaves), private rulers and have blind faith in both

private property and the capitalist market, it seems that they and

anarchists do not, in fact, share much in common in terms of what we are

against. In terms of what we are for, they are against free association,

free speech, autonomy, and independent thought if the property owner so

decrees. They may be against state power, but they are in total favour

of private power and the means of defending it (e.g. by means of private

police). I think its obvious that little in common and we should resist

their attempts to appropriate the anarchist name for their authoritarian

ideology.

Ultimately, I feel that the whole “post-left” argument is flawed simply

because anarchism already rejects everything which is labelled “leftist”

by Anarchy contributors. It seems to me a case of semantics, over which

much pointless arguing past each other will result. I also find it

strange to see anarchists influenced by Platformism arguing for

diversity of tactics and organisation while “post-left” anarchists

denounce all those who organise and act in non-approved ways as

“workerists,” “organisationalists” and “leftists.” But in these times

I’ve come to expect such strangeness.

Hopefully comrades in North America will realise that the mistakes made

by a real revolutionary movement will always be more important than a

thousand articles. After all, only practice will see who is right. Sadly

Anarchy’s contributors singularly failed to appreciate that many

anarchists are influenced by the Platform precisely because of their

negative experiences of current forms of anarchist organising and

activity. If some anarchists are organising into a specific organisation

(and I think it is good that they are) then, surely, this is due the

failure of the “anti-organisationalism” which seems to dominate North

American anarchism. I hope that anarchists everywhere will avoid the

problems of both “anti-organisationalism” and Platformism and embrace a

truly anarchist approach to organising together to spread our ideas

within the struggle against hierarchy in order to turn it into a

struggle for freedom. Reading Malatesta’s critique of the Platform would

be a good first step.

Yours in solidarity

Iain

Second Letter to Anarchy

Dear Anarchy,

I do think it’s significant that Black starts off by insulting me,

saying I have “earned the nickname Dolly II as the cloned Scottish sheep

of Stewart Home, who claims that all anarchists are Nazis.” As Black is

well aware, I am nothing of the kind.

And what of the issues I raised in my letter? Black takes exception to

the parallels I drew between Lenin’s vanguardist ideas and his claim

that anarchism was not the product of working class people in struggle

but rather the product of “Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin.” He claims

that these are “well known facts” which “should not be controversial.”

They are only “not controversial” if you are a vanguardist. They should

be controversial if you are an anarchist. I even quoted Proudhon and

Kropotkin to show how they considered anarchist ideas to be the product

of working people’s self-activity. Black, significantly, fails to

mention this.

Instead, he claims that I have “obviously never read Lenin.” Except, I

have and critiqued him at length. Lenin, Black informs us, “was

discussing socialism, not anarchism.” No shit, Sherlock! (although that

did not stop Lenin bringing Proudhon into it to defend his position). I

was drawing the parallel between that aspect of Black’s attack on the

Platform with Lenin’s argument. Replace “socialism” with “anarchism” in

Black’s essay and we have the core of Lenin’s argument.

The strange thing is, while Black huffs and puffs, he continues to agree

with Lenin! He states that he (“unlike Lenin [!] and McKay”) knows

“anarchism did not originate in the Group Mind of a social class.”

Except, of course, I made no such claim about a “Group Mind.” Rather I

argued anarchist ideas have spontaneously developed from the

self-activity of working class people. Anarchist thinkers have taken up

those ideas and generalised them into a theory. This was what Kropotkin

argued and the Platform repeated this. Black mocked this idea and, in

the process, repeated Lenin’s argument. He still does and happily admits

it. Why is he wasting my time?

Black states incredulously that he is “accused of falsification of the

Platform for repeating passages quoted in Voline.” Yet that is not what

I claimed. I pointed out that Black had accused the WSM of falsifying

the Platform by editing it (the WSM “without so indicating, omits

several interesting passages from the Platform.”). This, it goes without

saying, is a radically different accusation.

He meekly states that it “turns out that these quotations were taken

(unknown to me) not from the Platform itself but from” another document.

It is nice to see that Black does admit this. Sadly, he does not bother

to thank me for doing his work for him by finding that out. If you are

going to accuse other anarchists of secretly editing a text you could at

least check to see if the claim was true. I found the relevant facts out

in ten minutes, obviously far too much effort for Black. And rather than

apologise to the members of the WSM for smearing them, Black accuses

Alexandre Skirda of exactly the same thing! Rest assured, though, rather

than actually investigate the matter he glibly states that he

“suspect[s]” Skirda of doing so! Given Black’s track record on such

matters, I won’t share his (unsupported) assertions until I see the kind

of evidence Black tends to eschew.

This does not stop Black saying the “quotations were true, not false.

McKay’s contrary statement is false, not true”! Except, of course, Black

has just admitted that my statement was true. The Platform, as he

admits, does not contain the passages he claimed it did. The WSM did not

edit the pamphlet, as he asserted. And he then turns round and says my

statement “is false”! And he writes that I have “either forgotten what I

originally wrote or hopes that everyone else has”!

As part of this surreal experience, Black also quotes the original

Platformists on “coercion” and freedom of the press. As for the former,

he quotes them saying that decisions will be implemented “not through

violence or decrees.” Coercion without violence? He quotes that

decisions “will have to be binding upon all who vote for and endorse

then.” So making decisions is now considered “coercion”? As for freedom

of the press, he quotes the Platformists saying that “there may be

specific circumstances when the press ... may be restricted.” Black,

unlike the Platformists, does not say what these circumstances were,

namely in a “civil war context” and the “role that enemy mouthpieces

will be undertaking in relation to the ongoing military struggle.”

Outside these “extraordinary cases (such as civil war)” free speech and

freedom of press, the Platformists stress, would be “the pride and joy

of the free toilers’ society.”

Clearly Black is quoting out of context. Perhaps he is arguing that it

is “leftist” not to grant freedom of press to people actively trying to

kill you. If so, then fine. He should say so. And if it is non-anarchist

to do so, then Emma Goldman will also have to be excommunicated from

anarchism. She though it was “childish to expect the CNT-FAI to include

Fascists and other forces engaged in their destruction in the extension

of complete political freedom.” (Vision on Fire, p. 228).

Black repeats his nonsense on how the Platform’s call for a

revolutionary army was “exactly” the same as the Spanish Republic’s call

for a People’s Army. The Platform called for an army similar to the

“detachments of insurgent partisans ... during the Russian revolution.”

Yes, that was “exactly” the same kind of thing introduced by the

Stalinists and Republicans. He states that the Platformists argued for

“an authoritarian formal army” while, of course, they argued for a

volunteer, class army based on self-discipline and explicitly denied

that they wanted “a standing, centralised army.” They did argue for a

“common revolutionary strategy,” but so did the CNT militias (and

Voline, whose call for co-ordinated defence they dismissed as “aping”

their ideas). I can only assume that Black is against the idea that the

defence of a revolution should be co-ordinated. If he is, then he should

say so and explain why.

Black says I invoke, “as holy all the great names of anarchism . =2E .

in defence of Platformism without even once citing any evidence that any

of them, except Makhno, advocated anything like the vanguard

organisation espoused by the Platform.” That is unsurprising, as I was

not defending Platformism. I made that clear in my first letter: “as I

am not a Platformist I will not defend it.” What part of that did Black

not understand?

He then moves on to assert that when I listed all these anarchists into

the “defence” of a Platform I do not support I “did so in the face of

the fact that Voline, Malatesta, Goldman, Berkman, Nettlau, Fabbri,

Berneri – all the notable anarchists when the Platform was promulgated –

denounced it.” Except, of course, I actually wrote the following: “I

will say this, Malatesta’s critique of the Platform was substantially

correct.” I even ended my letter by saying “I hope that anarchists

everywhere will avoid the problems of both “anti-organisationalism” and

Platformism ... Reading Malatesta’s critique of the Platform would be a

good first step.” What part of that is denying that notable anarchists

did not criticise the Platform?

And based on this he claims that I am “not even close” to being an

anarchist!

Black then gets even more surreal (if that is possible). He states

incredulously that Bookchin’s “Listen, Marxist!” does “not espouse

revolutionary organisation or, for that matter, anarchism” and so finds

it amusing I “should claim” it “for organisationalist/workerist

anarchism.” Sorry, what planet is he on? Bookchin in that essay, as I

noted, argued for “an organisation of affinity groups.” He even stated

there was “a need for a revolutionary organisation”! What part of that

does Black have difficulty understanding? As for that essay not

espousing anarchism that comes as a surprise given its explicitly

anarcho-communist critique of Leninism.

Black ends by stating that I have “already renounced the substance of

anarchism.” In what way? It cannot be because I am a Platformist,

because I am not. It cannot be because I failed to note that anarchists

like Malatesta opposed the Platform, because I did. Can it be because I

think a revolution will need organisation and co-ordinated defence? Is

it because I think anarchists should organise together to spread their

ideas? Or that I think workers like myself should organise together to

fight for a better world? If so, then he excommunicates Malatesta,

Bakunin, Goldman, Berkman, et al, along with myself. So that cannot be

it.

I think its more personal than that. I think he excommunicates me from

anarchism because I have pointed out Black’s own mistakes. I think the

real source of his bile is simply that I fact-checked him and shown him

to be lacking. Perhaps it is also because I disagree with him? That may

be it. After all, he calls me a “cloned Scottish sheep.” True free

thinkers obviously don’t question Black’s assertions nor check his

sources and references to see if they support his claims.

But I am not alone in being excommunicated, so is NEFAC (and presumably

all other neo-Platformists). As far as the latter goes, he does so

apparently because “What Neo-Platformists most value in the Platform

must be the model of a vanguard revolutionary organisation – the only

novelty in the Platform, the Leninist import.” Fine, bar one thing.

Black does not indicate that any modern day Platform-influenced group

actually implements the organisational model advocated in the 1926

document. From what I can tell, none does. If he bothered to talk to

neo-Platformists, he would quickly find this out as well as what they

really “most value” in that document. But I feel that actually listening

to what others say is the last thing Black wants to do. It may force him

to think rather than insult.

So Black excommunicates people from the movement based on what they do

not support (in my case) and what a 79 year old draft document says

rather than what anarchists today actually do (for neo-Platformists).

Says it all, really.

Yours,

Iain McKay

Third Letter to Anarchy

Dear Anarchy

Jason McQuinn states he cannot make sense of some of my “extensive

rant.” Sadly his reply proved my point by its descent into insults and

attempts at ridicule. Yes, indeed, the “horror of it all” if you cannot

respond to a letter without lowering the tone. “Don’t make [you] laugh”?

Please. Does labelling another comrade’s letter a “rant” suggest a good

environment to discuss issues? Hardly. Obviously some kinds of “personal

attacks, irrational labelling, irrelevant mudslinging” are more

horrendous that others.

Similarly, to suggest that my letter indicates being “afraid of

criticism” seems incredulous. If so, I would not bother writing. I did

so, partly, to highlight the hypocritical tone of the “anti-Platform”

issue with its petty attacks on Platformists (which detracted from any

positive points being made) along aside the plea for rational debate

between anarchists. Debate and critique is essential, it is how it is

done which matters. The issue promised one thing and (sadly) delivered

another. My other concern was to correct some inaccuracies and to

highlight some issues with two of the articles. But, clearly, to do this

equates with producing a “rant” and being afraid of criticism. Silly me.

I had failed to realise that critique was a one-way street.

Jason defends labelling other anarchists with “post-left” approved

descriptions. Apparently “workerist” simply applies to “would-be

radicals who focus almost exclusively on work, workplaces and workers.”

Assuming that this is all that is meant by this term (which I doubt),

Jason fails to indicate why this is a bad thing. Given that the vast

majority of the population is working class, it seems strange that a

desire to reach these people with libertarian ideas should be worthy of

a label?. Particularly as being subject to hierarchy for 8 hours plus a

day they have a real interest in ending it. So please explain why

radicals should fail to “focus almost exclusively” on the vast majority

of the population? Particularly as these “would-be” radicals are, in the

main, working class. Should they not focus on what directly oppresses

them and seek to end it?And if a concern to discuss our ideas with

fellow working class people equates to “workerism” then anarchism has

always been so.

I would also suggest that saying so-called “workerist” anarchists focus

almost exclusively on “work” or the “workplace” is not an accurate

reflection of reality. I know few, if any, anarchists who do so. I do

know plenty who include workplace struggle in a wider approach which

includes community struggle, opposing sexism, racism and homophobia, a

concern for cultural issues and a whole lot more. As such, it feels like

a straw man argument. Even assuming that they do concentrate on “work”

as much as suggested, why is this a bad thing? What happens in work

impacts in all aspects of our lives. And most people spend most of their

lives in work. It would make sense, therefore, to address the issue and

help any struggles which combat hierarchy in it — particularly as

capitalism is rooted in the exploitation of labour.

Apparently “organisationalist” refers to those “who so steadfastly

fetishize organisation-building.” As opposed to those who so steadfastly

fetishise the rejection of organisation-building? And what, exactly,

does this mean? It sounds impressive, but beyond an insult I’m not sure

it means anything. So organisation-building is a bad thing. Why?

Shouldn’t anarchists work together? If they do, then an organisation has

been built. But, I guess, only building informal, temporary,

organisations is appropriate (not that this fetishises a specific form

of organisation, of course, only “left” anarchists do that!). But

temporary organisations means having to rebuild everything from scratch

time and time again. And how long is temporary? Anarchy Magazine has

being going for decades. When does it stop being temporary? Or is

permanent organisation okay when it is a small group? If so, then why

does this change if these permanent (small) groups seek to federate with

like-minded other groups and share resources and co-ordinate their

activities? As for the informal/formal difference, well, I’m not sure

why having known, agreed policies and procedures is a bad thing. After

all, Anarchy magazine has an agreed policy on responding to critical

letters. Or am I missing something? Does formal simply mean being a

member of a group? If so, then why is that bad?

But, of course, organisations can take on a life of their own and become

more than the sum of their parts. Very true. However, I fail to see why

this means rejecting organising together any more than the fact that

camp fires can cause forest fires means rejecting being warm when in the

woods. It simply means being aware of the dangers and taking suitable

precautions. In the case of anarchist federations, ensuring local

autonomy, self-management, federalism and decision-making from the

bottom up. I cannot help feeling that for “post-left” anarchists there

is only one way of organising, namely their way. If you reject it then

you are a “left” anarchist (and not really an anarchist anyway

perhaps?).

Then there is “left”, that word which is apparently producing such

“obvious, genuine differences between real existing anarchists.” As far

as I can see, the differences are related to the question of whether we

should reject “workerist” and “organisationalist” attitudes. If you

don’t then you are a “left” anarchist. Given Jason’s definitions of

these terms in his reply, then “post-left” means rejecting addressing

the vast majority of the population and what they do the vast majority

of their lives and reject working and co-operating with your fellow

anarchists in anything but a strictly limited and ad hoc basis (if at

all). Surely there is something wrong here? Are “real existing

anarchists” really rejecting such basic anarchist ideas as these? I hope

not.

I will turn to the one important point in his reply. This is my

criticism of his review of North-Eastern Anarchist. He “stands by [his]

very, very brief comments” and criticises me for making “completely

unsupported” comments. I failed to do so before because I did not want

to make my “extensive rant” longer than it was and, moreover, because

anyone familiar with the articles in question would see I was correct. I

will provide my summary with some evidence for those who have not read

the articles.

Jason states that Brian Sheppard’s article implies “if only there were

some anarchist leaders in the AFL-CIO and Teamsters they’d be

revolutionary.” Only if you quote out of context. Brian argued that the

“problem with ‘organized’ labor ...is precisely how it is organized,”

namely “in a very undemocratic and disempowering way.” As such, to

suggest Brian considered the sole problem as “its leadership” is a

distortion. Particularly as he says “what is needed, then, is this: the

classical ideas and spirit of anarchism infused into the labor

movement.” It is clear from this that Brian is arguing for a radical

transformation of how unions operate and not about changing who makes up

the leadership.

Jason claims that Aileen O’Carroll’s article “ignore[d] the effects of

authoritarian ideology and organisation” of the Bolsheviks. This seems

incredulous as the whole article discussed that. By quoting her out of

context, Jason turns an article on the limitations of Bolshevik ideology

into its opposite. When Aileen notes that “the Bolsheviks could have

followed a more democratic route, but they chose not to” she was

specifically discussing modern-day Leninist rationales for the

Bolsheviks’ authoritarian practice. The rest of the essay shows why

these rationales are wrong as Bolshevik ideology played its part. For

example, she states that “the Leninist idea of socialism has more to do

with the nationalisation of industry or State Capitalism than the

creation of a society in which workers have control over their own

labour power.” She argues that “Leninists believe it is the job of the

party to exercise control of society on behalf of the ruling class and

like a parent, the party interprets what the best interests of the

working class are.” She clearly notes that “with or without the civil

war their strategic decisions would have been the same, because they

arise out of the Leninist conception of what socialism is and what

workers control means. Their understanding of what socialism means is

very different from the anarchist definition.” Moreover, “our argument

is that no matter what the objective factors were or will be, the

Bolshevik route always and inevitably leads to the death of the

revolution.”

I could go on, but I have made my point. Is Jason’s summary of Aileen’s

article reflective of what she actually argued? I can only assume a

(irrational?) dislike for “leftist” anarchism made him fail to see the

bloody obvious.

Moving on from Jason’s somewhat pointless reply, I turn to the “reader

response.” I had to laugh at my anonymous critic when she/he defended

Bob Black’s appropriation of Lenin’s arguments from “What is to be

done?” Apparently Black was merely “emphasising the original

contributions of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, ... and that anarchist

theory did not simply arise spontaneously from the class struggle.” And

there I was thinking that Black was attacking the Platform for arguing

exactly this when, in fact, he was agreeing with it! Silly me. And what

of Black’s “post-leftism” embracing a key concept from leftism in one of

its most authoritarian forms? Not a word. Perhaps that explains the

attempt to put words in Black’s typewriter?

But, then again, Black does get off easy from our critic, who fails to

mention Black’s errors in his article. The best that they can come up

with is that Black is addressing the “compulsory” nature of the Platform

— by quoting something not actually in the Platform! I corrected this

inaccurate assertion about the Platform and provided the real source as

well as an alternative translation. I also corrected the suggestion that

the WSM editing their version of the Platform to exclude the quote in

question. It appears that casting false assertions on the honesty of

your comrades is fair game in “rational” debate and not worthy of

comment.

I also find it significant that our anonymous comrade considers it

unworthy of mention to ponder the relevance of Black’s review in the

first place. After all, I know of no anarchist group which applies the

Platform as it was written. Black is, therefore, simply repeating

criticisms which were relevant in the 1920s (criticisms made at the

time, much of which I agree with). It reminds me of when Leninists (real

“leftists”) talk about Bakunin’s secret organisations when arguing

against modern anarchism. They fail to note that no-one has actually

organised in that way since the 1870s, yet consider it essential that

they highlight its limitations! Black’s review of the Platform is a

simply a similar exercise in ideology passing as theory. Yes, many

anarchist groups call themselves Platformist but by that they mean they

are inspired by aspects of the Platform while rejecting other parts of

it. Just as anarchists are inspired by some aspects of Bakunin’s ideas

while rejecting other parts. Why concentrate on the parts that are

rejected?

Then there is the question of the Platform’s call for a “common command”

for a revolutionary army. Apparently Black was merely channelling the

spirits of long dead anarchists when he talked about the

counter-revolutionary “People’s Army” and the CNT militias and can take

no responsibility for his words. Shame, then, that these “Russian

anarchists” could not have used the Spanish example as they were writing

ten years before the outbreak of the Spanish revolution. I should also

note that the CNT militias also argued for a co-ordination of all

fronts, seeing it as essential to defeat Franco. They wanted this

co-ordination to come from below, via elected war committees. As

practised by the Makhnovists, who were used as an example of what was

meant in the Platform incidentally.

Our comrade states that Black’s mention of Makhno’s drinking and

Arshinov’s return to the USSR was “insignificant” in terms of his

“overall critique.” Then why mention them at all then? Why should

Makhno’s drinking be even considered worthy of note unless you seek to

trivialise the ideas you are attempting to refute. Similarly, our

comrade (like Black) does not explain how Arshinov’s return to Russia

signifies more about the Platform than Makhno’s and Mett’s continued

opposition to the regime. As such, it is simply a case of guilt by

association and unworthy of rational debate. I do, however, find this

ironic, as “post-left” anarchists denounced Bookchin for doing exactly

the same thing as regards individualist anarchists and fascism (and,

even more ironically, a book review in this Anarchy makes the same

point). Apparently individualist anarchists becoming fascists says

nothing, but one of the five authors of the Platform returning to Russia

is deeply significant!

Moving onto the “dual power” question (an expression I don’t

particularly like, incidentally, as I thought I had indicated in my

letter). Apparently forming such “armed revolutionary organisations” as

“soviets, factory committees, and peasant committees” and other organs

popular self-management cannot be “viewed as anything other than a

proto-State.” So when I talk about people managing their own affairs

directly, I (in fact) meant “management by elected delegates and

specialists, operating within whatever bureaucratic structure was put in

place.” But where does that leave anarchism? My arguments are simply

repeating the ideas of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman, Malatesta

and a host of other anarchist thinkers. Ideas I think are still

relevant. So my “ideological agenda” appears to be simply promoting

anarchist ideas.

So where does this rejection of key ideas of revolutionary anarchism led

us? Well, apparently no factory committees to organise production. That

means any workers’ militias fighting to defend the revolution will not

get weapons and ammunition. Not that such militias would exist.

Organising self-managed militias and federating them into war committees

would mean creating a “centralised, regular army” and so that’s out too.

Far better to have the militia groups not co-ordinating their defence of

the revolution! As for soviets, well, obviously Kropotkin (and

Malatesta, Goldman, Makhno, et al) were simply wrong to see anything

positive in them. Bloody leftists, not knowing what anarchism really

stands for!

So I do find his/her dismissal of self-managed struggle and organisation

as a “proto-state” incredible. As such, when he/she concludes by stating

that they hoped anarchists will “embrace a truly anarchist approach to

confronting all forms of power” I really have to wonder what this “truly

anarchist approach” is. Reading Murray Bookchin’s “Listen, Marxist!” is

recommended as “a good start.” Having read it numerous times, I have to

wonder why it is recommended as it follows my basic argument, not

his/hers. As well as arguing for “an organisation of affinity groups” it

states that anarchists “seek to persuade the factory committees,

assemblies or soviets to make themselves into genuine organs of popular

self-management.” But all this, we are assured by our anonymous comrade,

is a “proto-State” and the “organisationalist agenda” is, in fact, “the

most pernicious Leftist influence in the contemporary anarchist

movement”!

So, yes, I would wholeheartedly recommend reading “Listen, Marxist!” It

shows how much far some “post-left” anarchists are from a “truly

anarchist approach” to the problems of revolutionary change.

What is significant is that a “post-left” anarchist should recommend a

book which attacked Marxist attitudes prevalent 35 years as being

relevant to the current debate within anarchist circles today. Does that

mean today’s “organisationalist” and “workerist” anarchists simply

parrot the ideas of Marxist-Leninists in the 1960s? Of course not. But

its seems sad that “post-left” anarchists think they do. And it does

point to the ideological nature of much of the “post-leftist” critique

of anarchism. Rather than critique what anarchists are doing now, we

just subjected to reviews of a 80 year-old document (which is not being

even being applied in its pure form) and recommendations to read an

excellent (“organisationalist”?) anarchist essay directed to

non-anarchists in the 1960s. Hardly convincing.

Ultimately, the replies to my letter just confirm my worse fears about

“post-left” anarchism. At its best, it simply repeats basic libertarian

ideas and is so redundant. At its worse, it simply allows some comrades

to feel smug and insult others while systematically attacking the core

ideas of anarchism. Ideas other anarchists still see as valid simply

because the “post-left” anarchists suggest nothing to replace them with.

Tell you what. Someone please explain how “post-left” anarchists see a

revolution developing without federations of factory committees,

neighbourhood assemblies and militia columns as well as all the other

popular organisations anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin advocated

and are dismissed by some as a “proto-state.” Does “post-left” anarchism

have any concrete suggestions, however vague, on how to solve the

problems every revolution has faced? Enlighten me about how a revolution

will defend and organise itself without embracing the ideas advocated by

these anarchist thinkers? It should make interesting reading to see how

“post-leftists” avoid the “false ideas and sloppy thinking” derived from

such anarchists as Bakunin, Kropotkin and Malatesta on this and other

important issues!

Obviously I have not addressed every issue raised in the two replies.

This letter is already long enough (I would not want to be accused of

producing another “extensive rant”) so I will leave it there. I look

forward to the “scathing” replies which will, as seems all too common,

ignore the important issues raised while spreading the insults

liberally.

yours,

Iain McKay