💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › karl-klien-contemporary-platformism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:52:25. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

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

Title: Contemporary Platformism
Author: Karl Klien
Date: 2010
Language: en
Topics: platformism, Anarchist Federation
Source: Retrieved on 10th December 2021 from https://libcom.org/library/contemporary-platformism-critical-study
Notes: A discussion document published by the Anarchist Federation in Sheffield. It analyses Platformism as both a valuable tradition within anarchist communism, along with looking critically at the practice of contemporary Platformist groups.

Karl Klien

Contemporary Platformism

Introduction

The following should be considered a discussion document and not the

collective position of either the Sheffield group or the national

federation as a whole. The ideas presented here have been developed

through much formal and informal internal debate and discussion within

the federation. It is intended as a contribution to a wider debate

concerning the current composition of the international anarchist

movement. Many thanks to all those who assisted in its development.

There has perhaps never been such a controversial contribution to the

theory and practice of the anarchist movement than those ideas forwarded

by the Dielo Truda (“Workers’ Cause”) group in the ‘Organisational

Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft)’. The document has

been both praised as a “valuable historical reference” for

class-struggle anarchists seeking “greater effectiveness and a way out

of political isolation, stagnation and confusion” (Heath, 1989), while

also been denounced outright as an attempt to “Bolshevise” anarchism

(Voline et al., 1927). Yet “Platformism”, as contemporary adherence to

the principles of the Platform is generally referred to, continues to be

a vibrant tradition within the global anarchist movement. The Anarkismo

Statement, for example, which is widely considered to be the most

contemporary expression of Platformist principles, has signatories

spanning the globe. Especifismo, an organisational programme emerging

out of Latin American anarchism, although not directly linked to the

Platform, also shares many of the priorities of Platformist groups

-theoretical and tactical unity, collective responsibility and

federalism — and has gained greater influence in recent years within the

global anarchist community. Platformism also continues to be a divisive

issue for our movement. Anarchists will typically position themselves on

either side of the divide, as against or in favour of the positions

outlined by the Platform. Since its publication there has been a great

deal of suspicion and sectarianism between the two parties. Platformists

will be denounced as “authoritarian” or “Leninist”, while Platformists

will routinely accuse other anarchists of being “ineffective” or

“disorganised”. It is the purpose of this paper to attempt to cut across

this divide and to reconcile these two images of Platformism. To, at the

same time as appraising the theory and practice of contemporary

Platformist groups, emphasise that which should be considered and

valuable and useful within the perspectives of Platformism to all social

anarchists. This, I hope, will be part of a broader, more constructive

dialogue within our movement and instigate some open and honest

appraisal of our own values regardless of the labels that we may attach

to ourselves.

Notes on this enquiry: Unfortunately this paper is restricted to

documents that exist in, or have been translated into, the English

language only. I realise that some of the groups I will be discussing do

not speak English as a first language and this may restrict my

understanding of them. I have, given the materials available to me,

endeavoured to represent them in the most accurate way possible. I

welcome criticism and additional sources on any of these points. My

analysis will also largely be framed by the British experience and the

British and Irish anarchist movement, given that this is the context in

which I am politically active as a member of the Anarchist Federation.

The discussion will also be largely limited to contemporary Platformist

groups only. This decision was made due to obvious limitations on space

and time in terms of the scale of this work but also on the basis that

there are already well researched histories of the Platform and

Platformist groups available[1].

Contemporary Platformism: Its basis and its aims

To understand contemporary Platformism it is important to first

understand the context in which those ideas have developed as an

independent tradition within the anarchist movement. Following

counter-revolution in Russian in the wake of the October revolution, two

strains of thought emerged from Russian and Ukrainian exiles on the

perceived failures of the anarchist movement in those countries. For the

Dielo Truda group it was the lack of organisational principles that had

led to the general weakness and lack of influence of anarchist ideas.

The seminal contribution of the Platform document was, therefore, to

stress the importance of tactical and theoretical unity and a shared

understanding of theory and goals across any future anarchist

organisation. The Platform also argued for the primacy of class-struggle

anarchism, indeed, that anarchism as a political philosophy owed its

origins in the struggle of working people. Platformists, consequently,

argue that anything other than this is a recipe for disunity and

organisational paralysis as different tendencies struggle to reconcile

their own values into the common practice of the organisation.

These ideas were in opposition to those ideas emerging from another

group of Russian exiles around Voline and those of the “synthesist”

position. For Voline and his comrades, the Dielo Truda group over-stated

the influence of organisation in the failures of the anarchists and

attributed the problems more to the difficulty of propagating anarchist

ideas within the population and to Bolshevik-led, state repression

(although they also did acknowledge a lack of theoretical coherence

within the Russian movement at the time). They rejected the notion that

anarchist communism was the only valid expression of anarchism and were

keen to emphasise the holistic character of the philosophy as

represented in its different traditions – communism, syndicalism,

mutualism, individualism etc. Voline, accordingly, advocated the

development of synthesist federations which aimed to unite all

self-identifying anarchists – individualist, syndicalist, mutualist,

collectivist, religious etc. – under one banner on the basis of their

shared opposition to the state and their desire for human freedom. The

central idea was that unity and non-sectarian co-operation were the best

means to strengthen the existing anarchist movement. Although it should

also be noted that many synthesist groups were much more limited in

scope, for example, advocating the unity of all “social” anarchists

(-syndicalist, -communist, -collectivist), potentially providing greater

common ground and space for co-operation than there would be with those

activists simply opposed to the state.

Disputes over who, Voline and the syntheists or Makhno and the Dielo

Truda Group, had taken the greater lesson from the Bolshevik experience

were, and continue to be, a source of bitter division for anarchists in

both continental Europe and the Americas over the greater part of the

last Century. In this respect both Platformism and Synthesism are

clearly identifiable and well-established traditions within these

respective movements. In Britain, however, the situation has been

slightly different. Synthesism, for example, is a school of anarchist

thought that has traditionally developed within the context of great

factional disputes within strong, established anarchist movements. The

early contributions of the Cuban-born anarchists Fernando Tarrida del

Mármol and Ricardo Mella, of anarquismo sin adjetivos (an “anarchism

without adjectives”) to the Spanish anarchist movement were meant to

repair the divide between the warring factions of collectivist and

communist anarchists. Likewise, Malatesta would advocate a “wait and

see” attitude to questions on post-revolutionary economic organisation

as a means of advocating greater tolerance between the various strands

of social anarchism he encountered throughout his lifetime. Voltairine

de Cleyre would also emphasise post-revolutionary experimentation with

different forms of social organisation as a means of finding common

ground between groups of individualist and communist anarchists in North

America. Britain has, however, never really enjoyed a comparatively

large or diverse anarchist movement. The individualist philosophy of Max

Stirner, in particular, while gaining great influence in the early

French, Spanish and German anarchist movements, was never as widely read

or as influential in Britain, aside from in the writings of a few

noteworthy artists and intellectuals[2]. Similarly, despite a number of

native socialist movements sharing similar goals to that of the

anarchist traditions of collectivism and mutualism neither really

enjoyed a sustained influence as a philosophy in its own right. Early

proponents of anarchism in Britain — Charles Mowbray, Fred Charles, Guy

Aldred – emerged largely out of the communist movement and were,

therefore, largely drawn towards anarchist communism or

anarcho-syndicalism as the best organisational expression of anarchist

ideals. Where British groups have incorporated anarchists from a variety

of traditions it was largely the result of geographical isolation as

opposed to any formal ideological commitment[3].

The key assertion of the Platform, therefore — that anarchism is a

political philosophy foremost associated with the struggles of working

people for free communism – has been a strong and lasting tradition

within the organised British anarchist movement. Accordingly, in the

British context, Platformism has not been foremost a critique of

synthesism or other economic theories of post-revolutionary organisation

(as it has been in Europe and in the Americas), but a reference point

for the need for greater coherence and tactical unity to an already

fairly ideologically coherent social anarchist movement. We can see

this, for example, in Heath’s (1996) account of the formation of

Britain’s first Platformist group – the Organisation of Revolutionary

Anarchists (ORA);

ORA’s objections to the traditional anarchist movement then, were more

on the level of organisation than of theory. Their advocacy of

collective responsibility, the use of a Chair and voting to take

decisions at meetings, formal membership and a paper under the control

of its “writers, sellers and readers” (Heath, 1996)

Likewise where oppositional currents have existed it has not been on

points of principle, i.e. for non-sectarianism or anarchist unity, but

over tactics, for example, local over national organisation or, more

recently, the influence of insurrectionalist ideas. The question,

therefore, has been largely one of tactics and organisation than

theoretical commitment[4]. Accordingly, the rest of this enquiry will

largely focus on the “Organisational Section” of the Platform, also the

most commonly cited section, and the organisational principles of

tactical and theoretical unity, collective responsibility and

ideological leadership. While debates over Synthesism and non-sectarian

practice are important, this is not an issue of particular relevance to

the experience of the majority of British anarchists (having unlikely

ever encountered a collectivist/individualist/mutualist anarchist).

It is all the more important then, in order to come to a true

understanding of the existing Platformist tradition to also avoid the

often quite crude, but quite frequent, divisions presented in many

contemporary accounts of the British anarchist movement. Depending on

the authors’ sympathies, all non-Platformist strains of anarchism will

be presented as inherently disorganised and/or a failing to appreciate

the necessity of organisational coherence and unity. Or Platformism will

be presented as a rigidly enforced revolutionary doctrine and

Platformists as needlessly preoccupied with questions of organisational

form[5]. Both positions are not only over-simplifications but obvious

misrepresentations. The picture of the “Bolshevised” Platformists on one

hand and the disorganised “small-a anarchists” on the other in the end

does justice to neither party. All anarchists will, to some degree,

address the important issue of revolutionary organisation. Similarly,

all strains of anarchism, even insurrectional ones, acknowledge the

benefits and necessity of some principled unity in practice. To argue

that the Platform stands alone on this point is to in fact sell it far

short of its true value as a guide for organisational praxis. What

Platformists do argue for, and what makes the tradition unique, is the

necessity of a certain method of reaching this organisational coherence

— namely the process of theoretical and tactical unity. That is, of

course, also not to acknowledge how contentious this particular idea has

been.

Franks (2006) in his history of the contemporary British anarchist

movement disparagingly compares theoretical and tactical unity with

Leninism arguing that it leads to “centralisation”, a “paternalistic

attitude” and, ultimately, the “formation of revolutionary cadre”[6].

This is not a particularly new criticism, the process has also often

been characterised as a desire for “mono-think”, a point that Malatesta

first touches on in his exchange with Makhno;

the authors of the Platform say that it is the ‘Union’ that wills and

disposes. But when mention is made of the will of the Union, does this

perhaps mean the will of all its members? In that case, for the Union to

be able to operate it would be necessary for everyone, always and on

every subject, to have the same opinion. (Malatesta, 1927)

Clarity on this issue is not aided by the fact that the Organisational

Section of the Platform, the bit which deals with theoretical and

tactical unity, is quite short and not particularly detailed in its

exposition of these key ideas; it was, after all, originally only

intended as a discussion document. Contemporary groups, however, have

been pretty unequivocal on this issue. The North American-based North

Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (NEFAC), for example, state

that;

Theoretical Unity meant simply that if you don’t agree with someone,

don’t be in a political group with them! This doesn’t mean that everyone

has to agree all the time (they won’t) but there does need to be a

certain amount of ideological unity. Everyone being ‘anarchists’ or

‘libertarian’ isn’t enough. (NEFAC, 2003)

Moreover they also explicitly reject a “majoritarian” approach to the

development of the theory and tactics of the organisation. A commitment

which is designed to encourage criticism of established positions and,

subsequently, avoid a stagnant and conservative political culture. In

other words, they argue that dissident and minority positions are to be

considered to be as valuable as, and not necessarily in conflict with,

the overarching aims of an organisation that strives for unity;

Anarchists are fully aware that the presence of a minority and a

majority does not mean at all that the majority is inherently right.

That’s why any anarchist organization needs to have mechanisms that

enable a minority, while still bound by the decisions taken by the

organization, to defend it’s point of view inside the organization, even

if it was beaten at a conference or in the federation council. In any

case, an anarchist organization must be an environment where

sectarianism is discouraged and dialogue promoted, and where an

atmosphere of camaraderie reigns. (NEFAC, 2002)

In other words, a Platformist organisation needs to find an appropriate

balance between both respecting the collective decision of the majority

and the right to dissent of the minority.

Accusations of theoretical and tactical unity as “mono-think” generally

derive from an understanding of theoretical and tactical unity as

static, as a goal to be achieved and not, as should be the case with

healthy Platformist groups, a continuing process during the course of

activity. It is also, as NEFAC argue, not necessary to reach unanimous

agreement on every single issue. Rather the aim should be to always aim

for common understanding and interpretation on those issues most central

to organisational praxis. This has to happen within the context of a

dialogue existing between all members on both the most valuable ideas

that each holds and on the best common course of action for the future.

This process should be participative and dissent actively encouraged as

both a means to achieve better consensus and as a valuable personal

capacity in itself. Even agreed positions should be open to renewed

debate and re-evaluation. An organisation that attempts to set all of

its analysis in stone is ultimately inflexible, out-of-touch and highly

vulnerable to the entrenchment of hierarchies of experience.

Moreover, formal and established channels of decision-making should not

be perceived as bureaucratic or lacking dynamism. They are actually a

powerful tool to undermine the kind of informal hierarchies that

frequently crop up in other activist groups where there aren’t such

clear-cut channels of accountability and communication. As Thomas (2010)

argues;

Societal influences, from oppressive socialisation such as racism and

sexism, to personality differences such as being shy or being talkative

are likely to create informal hierarchies that reintroduce domination

and hierarchy within the group if clear, explicit, collectively-

established democratic practices are not established and followed.

(Thomas, 2010)

Platformists encourage, or at least should encourage, deep and critical

re-appraisal of the actions that their organisations take. An

organisation should exist to enable those within it to carry out

activity, share ideas and experience and inspire confidence within each

member

The importance of these principles is also underlined by the context

(the British anarchist movement) in which they are being encouraged,

where there is a general absence of sustained, critical reflection

within the movement as a whole. Many anarchist initiatives are sporadic

and dependent on the admirable efforts of dedicated individuals for

their longevity. In the very worst instances this can and has led to

ghettoising tendencies, of anarchists shrinking back into the comfort

zones of organising inside small groups of like-minded and approving

individuals. Platformism puts forward a credible alternative to the

repertoire of localised activist “scenes” which too often exhibit a

short-lived, under-theorised and, often uncritical, approach to

political action — a practice that easily degenerates into an endless

cycle of self-referential activity justified as an end unto itself.

Undoubtedly related to this, Platformists also take far more seriously

the challenge that working class activists face in terms of the

authoritarian and reformist tendencies faced in everyday organising.

Often anarchists will retreat into a scene either out of a desire for

organisational purity, in order to better embody the ideals and

practices they advocate, or simply through lack of an alternative. In

reality, until there is a revolutionary reconstruction of our current

society, there can be no space untouched by the influence of capitalism,

patriarchy, hetero-normativity and the State. These things permeate

every aspect of our lives, at work, in the homes, even amongst partners

and within friendship groups. The response should not be to retreat, but

to strengthen our ideals through action towards the society we hope to

create. The reality is that there is no perfect or pure struggle.

Everywhere anarchists will face reformists and authoritarians (from the

Left and Right) who will attempt to control or subdue struggles.

Individuals involved in these struggles will also often exhibit

contradictory ideas, or have ideas that may seem to conflict with those

we wish to advocate (many people are nationalist, or religious, for

example). Against this, Platformists argue that we need to be well

organised, we need to have confidence in our own ideas and we need to

act on a common programme. Being an organised anarchist means having

trust in your comrades, being able to put forward a coherent strategy

and embodying a common set of ideals that inspires others to do the

same.

The strategy by which this is achieved is, to bring in two more

important concepts from the original document, is by principles of

collective responsibility and through ideological leadership. These,

again, have been controversial propositions. For example, to return to

Franks’ (2006) criticisms, collective responsibility is described as a

“contractual obligation” that is “contrary to the aims of anarchism”

(p.223). It is clear from the document, however, that this was far from

the Dielo Truda group’s interpretation. Instead, I would argue, the

notion of collective responsibility develops from their understanding of

“the areas of revolutionary life” as “above all profoundly collective by

nature”. That is, that while the organisation should recognise “each

member’s rights to independence, free opinion, individual liberty and

initiative”, it is also not merely an accumulation of individuals but,

just like a revolutionary society, communal in nature. As such a degree

of collective thinking, acting and, ultimately, responsibility is an

important component of organisational praxis. As Thomas explains;

Holding each other accountable also means getting used to letting each

other know — in a comradely way — when commitments and obligations

aren’t being fulfilled. This is a practice that must be built through an

organisational culture where comradely honesty and constructive

criticism replaces competitive and individualistic

passive-aggressiveness or talking behind people’s backs. The flip side

of giving comradely feedback is learning how to receive it, using it to

help you and your organisation grow and becoming more self-disciplined.

This is difficult sometimes since the vast majority of the times we’re

being called to task for something, it is coming from top-down

relations; but the practice of holding others accountable and being held

accountable is fundamental to learn, practice and promote if we want to

destroy and replace these top-down relations with horizontal and

egalitarian relations. (Thomas, 2006)

Put more simply, and applied more practically, in essence this is the

very basic idea that if a group of people come to an agreement that

something should be done then they should do it! Accusations that this

implies some form of contractual obligation ignores the emphasis on

voluntarism and free association, not least the fact that in the

Platform itself there is no mention of any kind of disciplinary

mechanism or system of coercion. Of course, many of these disagreements

may ultimately boil down to language and a matter of interpretation[7].

Malatesta, for example, was happy to concede comradeship as essential to

anarchist organisation while also feeling that “collective

responsibility” was too vague a concept invoking anything from strict

military discipline to voluntary association.

Anarchists have always considered “leadership” to some degree synonymous

with the exercise of authority. Accordingly a “leadership of ideas” or

ideological leadership needs to be carefully articulated. The Platform

document, for its part, is pretty clear in its criticism of the

“revolutionary leadership” of the Leninist organisations which

considered the masses backward and incapable of social change alone;

While Bolshevism and its related tendencies consider that the masses

possess only destructionary revolutionary instincts, being incapable of

creative and constructive activity — the principle reason why the latter

activity should be concentrated in the hands of the men forming the

government of the State of the Central Committee of the party —

anarchists on the contrary think that the labouring masses have inherent

creative and constructive possibilities which are enormous, and

anarchists aspire to suppress the obstacles impeding the manifestation

of these possibilities. (Dielo Truda, 1926)

The need for “ideological leadership” derives from an understanding that

social struggle does not represent a vacuum of ideas and the presence of

a clear, revolutionary perspective is the anarchist’s responsibility.

Likewise, the absence of such a perspective can be disastrous for social

struggle, a position that Arshinov states more clearly in his ‘Reply to

Anarchism’s Confusionists’;

Direction of the masses from the “ideas” point of view simply means the

existence of a guiding idea in their movement. In the world of socialist

struggle and socialist demands, such ideas are not numerous. But it is

natural that we anarchists wanted the toilers’ guiding idea to be the

anarchist idea and not that of the social democrats for example, of

those who have only recently betrayed the Viennese workers’

revolutionary movement. (Arshinov, 1927)

Looking at a more contemporary example within the British context, Heath

(2006), when outlining the history of the movement throughout the 1960s,

emphasises that anarchist failings, in terms of both organisation and

ideological leadership, were quickly translated into the Left’s gains;

It was no surprise that many who had been initially attracted to

anarchism were deterred by its chronic disorganisation and lack of

effectiveness. Some of these turned to groups like International

Socialism (precursor of the Socialist Workers Party) and the

International Marxist Group. Digger Walsh, active in the Black Flag

group of the period, was to be quoted in a national paper as lamenting

the fact that 800 militants had gone over to the Trotskyists. (Heath,

2006)

This example also serves to neatly illustrate the inter-connected nature

of all of the components of the Organisational Section. That without a

combination of ideological leadership, tactical and theoretical

responsibility and collective responsibility the anarchist organisation

is rendered less effective than its competitors. That a revolutionary

strategy and a unified tactical response go hand in hand with building

credibility for anarchist ideas. Yet, regardless of these qualifications

over the nature of “ideological leadership” there have been lingering

and legitimate concerns over whether this is a “leadership from within”

or a “leadership from without”. In other words, whether these ideas

emerge in the course and through dialogue with instances of social

struggle or whether they develop from external and independent study and

deliberation, a form of Marxian “proletarian science”. This is a key

issue and one which I will explore in greater detail in the critical

section.

Finally, it is important to emphasise that many contemporary Platformist

groups do not hold to all the organisational prescriptions of the

original document. For example, many contemporary Platformists have

distanced themselves from the idea of “one” General Union, effectively

conceding Malatesta’s point, out of practicality if anything, in his

exchange with Makhno over the preference for many vs. one anarchist

organisation. The Dielo Truda Group’s position is unclear in the

original document as to what will become of the “unhealthy elements” (as

Malatesta puts is) of the anarchist movement, i.e. those not convinced

of the wisdom of the ideas of the Platform. The practice of the modern

Platformist movement would suggest, however, that those “disorganised”

and “chaotic” elements would continue to be just that. Rather than

attempting to “excommunicate them from the anarchist movement”, as

Malatesta suggested would be the case, the preferred outcome would be

that these disparate elements would become eventually superseded in both

size and reputation by the successes of a well organised libertarian

communist organisation (or amalgamation of organisations).

An underlying idea here, and a point that all Platformists are keen to

emphasise, is Platformism as a tradition embodying shared organisational

goals, not simply the prescriptions of a single document. The “Friends

of Durruti” Group are, for example, often cited by Platformists as an

inspiration for the tradition in spite of making no reference to the

Platform or the Dielo Truda Group in their revolutionary programme.

After all, the Platform itself never claimed to be definitive and made

clear that it was up to the movement to enrich the tradition and

principles associated with it through practice. As is stated in the

original document;

We have no doubts that there are gaps in the present platform. It has

such 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. All this is possible, but not of vital importance. What

is important is to lay the foundations of a general organisation, and it

is this end which is attained, to a necessary degree, by the present

platform. It is up to the entire collective, the General Union of

Anarchists, to enlarge it, to later give it depth, to make of it a

definite platform for the whole anarchist movement. (Dielo Truda, 1926)

And the “gaps” are all too obvious to a modern reader. Issues concerning

race, gender and sexuality are absent from the document — a weakness

that shouldn’t be attributed to the document’s age alone given the

activity and analysis of anarchists present on these subjects at the

time. Thankfully this is not an absence that has been replicated in the

practice of contemporary groups, with many publishing theory and

analysis on, and involving themselves in, the struggle of women,

homosexuals, Trans and Genderqueer people and people of colour. In

addition, it would also be fair to say that most existing groups would

place greater emphasis than in the original document on building and

strengthening localised struggle as much as national organisation, a

point which Malatesta also makes. An example would be Zabalaza’s

involvement in the Landless and Shack dwellers movement.

The fact that the original document overlooks such important issues

should not, however, be perceived as a weakness but embraced as a

positive strength. Anarchists reject the rigid formulations and

insistence on adherence to orthodoxy common within Marxism. They embrace

an open-ended, libertarian practice that places far less importance on

“heroic figures” and “great texts” and more on the lessons derived and

developed from practical struggle. While it is always important to look

back at historic debates and what they can tell us about our current

practice it also important to acknowledge the “living” qualities of any

anarchist tradition. Accordingly Platformism, like all anarchist

traditions, will undoubtedly richen and shape itself anew as it is

confronted with new struggles and new possibilities over the coming

decades. This is not, however, to go so far as to say that the

contemporary Platformist movement is in any way undeserving of

criticism. There have been persistent problems and controversies

surrounding this tradition that it would be equally remiss to ignore.

Contemporary Platformism: Criticisms

There has been, and continues to be, a tension within many contemporary

Platformist groups between what I would call an (anti)political and a

representationalist model of activity. I believe there are a number of

potential causes for this, but before delving into this further it may

be necessary to clarify what these terms mean.

By (anti)political, I mean practices that subvert, and eventually render

unnecessary, the hierarchical and authoritarian means of communication

and social organisation existing in statist, capitalist, patriarchal,

racist and hetero-normative society. (Anti)political activity will,

therefore, be typically constructed via direct, face-to-face

communication, participatory decision-making structures and, of course,

the organisation of tasks without the need for hierarchy. Expressions of

(anti)political behaviour have been a continuing inspiration for the

libertarian communist tradition from the soviets and factory councils of

Russia, through the anarcho-syndicalist unions of Spain to the

grassroots movements emerging out of the contemporary, global justice

movement. These methods are also considered to be consistent with what

is termed the anarchist “prefigurative ethic”, described by Goldman in

the following terms;

All human experience teaches that methods and means cannot be separated

from the ultimate aim. The means employed become, through individual

habit and social practice, part and parcel of the final purpose; they

influence it, modify it, and presently the aims and means become

identical. (Goldman, 1923: 260)

The insistence on such an inseparability of ends and means, a

“prefigurative” practice, is a key and defining characteristic of

anarchist political thought and practice.

By representationalism, I refer to the many facets of capitalist

democracy that bar active participation in the processes that govern our

lives and reinforce social hierarchy. In capitalism this process is

multi-faceted and can be anything from the election of representatives

who will make decisions for us, to the strict social control of the

prison and criminal justice system right through to the manipulation of

the very language and information we use to interpret our social

reality. It is experienced through our condition of alienation in

capitalist society. It aims to foster in the social mass a psychological

state that continually reinforces the dividing lines between the

“governors” and the “governed”, “rulers” and “ruled”, “producer” and

“consumer”, even “author” and “reader”. It serves to obscure the

fundamentally communal and holistic qualities of human community and

ensure that the working class is reduced to looking everywhere but to

itself and its own capabilities for alleviation of our social condition.

Representationalism has, unfortunately, its counterparts in

“revolutionary” practice. The concern of anarchists has traditionally

been with the vanguardist practice of the authoritarian Left who will

downplay or deny the constructive capacities of working class

communities. Leftist groups attempt to appropriate this constructive

potential by assuming the power to represent others, judging themselves

to have abilities that “their” constituencies are supposed to lack. This

is justified by varying means, for example, having a privileged,

“scientific” understanding of objective forces, the “correct” formula

for revolutionary struggle or even just a willingness “to go further”

than the “docile” masses. Representatives, most importantly, cannot be

social revolutionaries. Representationalism necessarily depends on a

passive and institutionalised social mass that the representative can

reflect (and hope to mediate in any ensuing conflicts). It denies the

constructive part the working class has to play in forming its own

future and as such is antithetical to self-organisation and the practice

of social revolution.

Both representationalism and the (anti)political have been a constant

concern for libertarians when debating the issue of revolutionary

organisation and it is between these two poles that we often see

political organisations oscillate – between revolutionary and reformist

methods and goals. (Anti)political action is obviously the best

embodiment of anarchist values, but holding oneself to all but the

purest expression of “prefigurative” ideals clearly leads to very little

in terms of available practical action that can be taken. Truly

(anti)political actions only tend to develop at high-points of social

struggle, in the meantime they will often be small and/or isolated from

the condition of the majority of people, e.g. small communal

experiments, minority groups of revolutionaries. This is while there is

still a pressing need for propaganda and activism outside of these

periods of social upheaval. Revolutionary upsurges owe as much of their

origin to the diligent and long-standing work of revolutionaries as they

do to periodic crises. This does imply that a degree of pragmatism, when

it comes to decisions over engagement at least, is required.

The rationale runs close to the following; that given the frequent

impossibility of organising an (anti)political alternative to, for

example, an election or a union it makes more sense to critically

intervene in these processes and push individuals towards anarchist

ideas. The fact that a great number of people will already be invested

in these institutions of capitalist democracy means it makes more sense

to opt for engagement than elect to exclude oneself from them

completely. Contemporary Platformists have commonly advocated this

approach, especially given the emphasis in the original document on

pushing ideological leadership within popular sections of the worker and

peasant movement. A controversial, but obvious, contemporary example of

this would be the Worker’s Solidarity Movement (WSM) campaign for a “No”

vote in the Irish national referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

Suspending, for the moment, any judgement on what kind of “ideological

leadership” a “No” vote in a national referendum represents, the

justification behind this strategy — of the need for popular, political

engagement — is in itself not completely out-of-touch with many other

examples of anarchist practice outside of the Platformist tradition.

Malatesta, for example, would argue along very similar lines in favour

of anarchist participation in the reformist unions over building

specifically (anti)political, anarchist ones. Similarly Aldred argued in

favour of taking a platform during elections, but refusing to take

office, as a vehicle to better spread libertarian ideals. There is

nothing distinctly Platformist about this position. The success of past

anarchist organisations has always depended on a commitment to a

diversity of tactics. Moreover, the question as to whether an individual

or a group begins the creep into representationalism and Leftism should

not be judged by the use of these methods alone. Such questions are

related to far deeper issues concerning a complex interplay of the

content, form and level of social struggle; issues that cannot possibly

be de-contextualised or so easily formed into clear-cut points of

principle. The success of revolutionary struggle can depend as much upon

the vigilance of struggling workers as much as it does the correct

position of revolutionaries (if, indeed, it is even possible to separate

these two categories). There are simply no easy answers here. However,

it would also be equally fair to say that the common perception of

Platformism as a “Bolshevised” anarchist practice has, unfortunately,

been bolstered by the fact that a disproportionate number of these

groups have degenerated into representationalist and

counter-revolutionary theory and activity. There are numerous examples

to support this from the Anarchist Worker Group’s support for the Iraqi

state during the first Gulf War, to Alternative Libertaire’s (France)

statement in favour of Kosovan nationalism and United Nations military

intervention, to even the highly manipulative internal practices of the

French Platformists in vying for influential positions within their

national Anarchist Federation. So, why Platformism? Why has this creep

into Leftism been persistently the case with these groups?

As I have tried to make clear in the first section, I do not believe

there is any validity to the claim that Platformism is an attempt to

“Bolkshevise” anarchism. I do believe, however, that there are a number

of aspects of Platformist praxis that can, but don’t necessarily have

to, lend themselves to representationalism and Leftism. However, that is

also not to say that these are problems exclusive to Platformism but

that all revolutionary organisations are potentially vulnerable in some

way to these tendencies; all the more important, then, to have a

clear-sight of one’s weaknesses to build upon one’s strengths.

One aspect of contemporary Platformist strategy that I have only lightly

touched upon so far is the emphasis that is often placed on the need for

“strategic thinking”. That is, it is assumed that when the organisation

is attempting to form tactical unity on the best course of action, it

will aim to take full account of its resources and aim to apply them

most effectively. There are a number of potential problems leading from

this proposition. First off, it is probably important to make clear that

a stress on capabilities and prioritisation when it comes to resources

is a valuable exercise for any organisation. The drive for efficiency

and expediency is, however, a double-edged sword. While there may be

better ways of allocating one’s resources there are, to put it simply,

no short-cuts when it comes to revolutionary change. The Platform

itself, despite having been written following a great period of

revolutionary defeat (the Bolshevik consolidation of power in Russia and

the defeat and dissolution of the Makhnovtchina in the Ukraine) is

surprisingly optimistic, and as a result perhaps overly naive, in its

recommendations for revolutionary activity. Becoming the “pioneer and

theoretical mentor” of the trade unions, as the Platform advocates, was

a drastically different task in revolutionary Ukraine or Russia, even in

France in the 1920s, than it is in Britain in 2010. As a result, the

type of expediency and efficiency that can be expected from

revolutionary organisations now, especially in Britain where the working

class has been ravaged from almost thirty years of Neo-Liberal economic

policy, has changed.

It is tempting, therefore, but ultimately misguided, to be drawn to the

lingering expressions of working class militancy, or maybe just the

collective organisation of the working class full stop, that exist in

the trade union movement or perhaps in the struggle of nationalities in

search for real, meaningful influence. Unfortunately this has indeed

been the practice of many, old and contemporary, Platformist groups.

Although Platformists have successfully plugged the “gaps” in the

original document when it comes to gender and race, they have largely

failed to deal with its weaknesses and ambiguities when it comes to the

trade unions. Alternative interpretations of “the ‘anarchization’ of the

trade union movement”, as is recommended in the original Platform, can

be made; Whether that means arguing for participation or simply

agitation within, transformation of the union structure or breaking away

from the trade unions altogether. In this regard, it is unfortunate that

Platformists have largely failed to engage with the other important

tradition emerging out of the Bolshevik experience and clarified this

very issue – the Dutch and German Left. Their analysis, emerging out of

the practical experience of mass revolutionary engagement with the trade

unions, is invaluable to any communist today. Such an unequivocal

perspective, as if the the experience of the TUC in Britain was not

enough, should put an end to all doubts concerning the mediating, and

ultimately bourgeois, role of trade unions and the tasks of

revolutionaries within them.

Undoubtedly related to this issue is the question of where revolutionary

strategy, and from this ideological leadership, is being formulated.

Platformist methods have, above all, to be framed by the experience of

class struggle. An “ideological leadership” isolated from working class

resistance will quickly degenerate into representationalism — an

assumed, or de facto, position of leadership over the class. Theoretical

debate and development must be rooted in the experience of the class,

developing out of the actual needs and issues emerging from struggle.

There is, of course, a responsibility to look beyond these struggles

also, as well as a need to combat reformism, Leninism and the multitude

of sins inflicted upon any workers movement. However, this should come

in the form, not of dictat, but of a continuing and evolving dialogue

existing between revolutionaries rooted in the class and the class as a

whole. Most importantly, it should be acknowledged that, although

combating Leftist and authoritarian ideas is important, the “war of

ideas” with the Left should not supplant the class war between worker

and boss. To shift the organisations focus too far in the direction of

“ideological leadership”, is to move closer to the standard operating

practice of the various Trotskyist grouplets. Aping them will only

replicate their over-concentration on the current composition of the

Left and neglect of the shop-floor. In practical terms, and over the

long-term, as Doyle (1991) argues, such a singular focus will lead to an

eventual, “drift away from a day-to-day understanding of where real

class politics are at”.

National liberation and trade unionism, for example, derive from

positions of representation, ideologies that attempt to manage the

condition of the working class. It has been extensively documented how

common culprits for Leftist support, the Palestine Liberation

Organisation (see, for example, Aufheben, 2001) and the early Trade

Unions (see, Wildcat) for example, were not only derived from the

political machinations of the bourgeoisie but had working class defeat

as their goal from the offset. These movements, and the ideas emerging

from them, tell us little about neither the experience of class struggle

nor our real potentialities as a class – not for greater workers

“rights”, or independent nationhood, or a greater slice of the pie but

for the creation of a free, international communist society. If sections

of the class invested in these movements appear militant it is only a

testament to the extent that these structures have been successful in

co-opting genuine class struggle. All the more imperative, therefore,

that those anarchists within them push a clear and unwavering

internationalist, communist analysis.

There has often been an undue emphasis in Platformist literature on the

final two-pages of the Platform (the Organisational Section) in a

document that deals extensively with the principles of anarchist

communism (what the Anarchist Workers Association appropriately called

the “missing bits”). Effective anarchist praxis must be based on sound

libertarian communist principles and this, in turn, has to arise from a

self-educating and participatory process within the organisation itself

(one that is simultaneously engaged with the class). Playing fast and

loose with theoretical principles is a recipe for disaster. In the very

worst cases it has led to the kind of analysis put forward by groups

such as Liberty and Solidarity which have removed politics from the

equation completely, looking to managerial theory (of all things!) as a

guide to a more “effective” organisational praxis, completely ignoring

the highly alienating capitalist practice that such theory embodies (and

undoubtedly perpetuates). Engagement with representationalist

institutions should not mean the adoption of representationalist

practice.

Anarchist organisations will, and should, issue manifestos, political

statements, theoretical analysis etc. However, these should also be done

with the recognition of the real limitations, from a libertarian

perspective, of this medium for spreading our ideas. The real struggle,

the struggle that we should be engaging with, is not happening in the

world of political ideas alone but amongst our friends, our families, in

our workplaces and in our communities. To not just gain “support” for a

political philosophy or a specific programme but to spread an idea and

method that is ultimately self-empowering. It’s about communicating the

ideas of direct action and self-organisation so it is possible for

thousands, maybe even millions, of manifestos to emerge from popular,

grassroots bodies. It’s also about acknowledging that the

class-as-a-whole has as much to tell revolutionaries, perhaps even more,

as we do it. Accordingly, our analysis should always be part of a

dialogue – one that both speaks to and reflects the wider struggle

within our class. The point is that anarchist organisation should be

about both substance and form — a factor that Makhno and the Dielo Truda

Group, appropriately, recognised by stressing the importance of both

tactical and theoretical unity.

And finally, a note on camaraderie. For all the emphasis that

Platformists have historically placed on building unity and common

action, Platformists organisations have had an unfortunate habit of

being either relatively small, in relation to the rest of the anarchist

movement or periodically, and quite spectacularly, falling apart. There

is no catch-all answer to the reasons behind this and obviously the

internal culture of specific groups and the individuals within them will

have their part to play. Doyle’s (1991) (of the WSM) account of the

AWG’s disastrous adoption of the ’Cadre Organisation Document’, which

effectively formalised a privileged stratum of theoreticians and

knowledge specialists within the organisation, is a particularly extreme

illustration of this. The confusions of the AWG aside, I believe there

may be some weight to the claim that the Platformist conception of

“collective responsibility” is perhaps too thin. That an organisation

ought to be as supportive and enabling as it is reliant on the

acceptance of tasks and duties by the membership. Indeed that a concern

for the support and well-being towards other members ought to form a

part of this collective responsibility. Again, this is not something

particularly exclusive to Platformism and good analysis on comradely

behaviour is lacking in much anarchist communist literature.

Interestingly, it is Insurrectionalist authors who have tended to

provide the most revealing writings on the subject of comradely

behaviour. This may be due to the fact that Insurrectionalism, as a

theory of praxis, depends almost entirely on informal, fraternal links

between comrades in struggle. Links that should be present but that we

also perhaps take for granted inside of a formal, membership

organisation. As such, Insurrectionalists tend to have a much better

understanding of what these informal relationships should practically

entail. The bond that brings us together here, it is argued, is the

process of building affinity. Affinity should not be confused with the

idea of sentiment, although these things can co-exist as well. There

could be comrades, for example, with whom we consider having affinity

but whom we do not find sympathetic and vice versa. Rather, to have

affinity with a comrade means to know them and to aim to deepen one’s

knowledge of them. As the knowledge grows, the affinity can increase to

the point of making an action together possible. Most importantly, this

is understood to be an infinite process, a permanent negotiation between

each other’s values and understanding of the circumstances present. This

process can help cement more formal channels of organisational cohesion.

If there are, for example, tasks which need doing in the organisation

that may be tedious or boring (but are, nonetheless, useful) it is often

not, in reality, the abstract relationship one has to the organisational

collective that creates a sense of responsibility but a sense of

obligation based on affinity with one’s comrades. Likewise, internal

debates and discussions that aim to build tactical and theoretical unity

should be conducted via collective deliberation. For this communication

to occur requires efforts towards understanding and trust in other

members and attempts to overcome misunderstandings and disagreements

should they occur. There is no real “end-game” to this process. In fact,

an organisation that does have such a static conception of its own

identity is ultimately a stagnant one also. Plurality, difference and

disagreement are ultimately features of all human life; as libertarian

communists, as those who argue in favour of the best capacities of the

human character we should be embracing this also.

Anti-conclusion

I always felt that there was something very un-libertarian about

concluding arguments. As the Anarchist Federation state’s in our

‘Introduction to Anarchist Communism’, when it comes to anarchist

communism, there is no real conclusion, it’s a necessarily open-ended

practice. Accordingly, the arguments I have made here should not be

taken to be definitive or final in any sense. Rather, as I stated at the

beginning, they are intended to be part of a wider process, and I

believe a great tradition within the anarchist movement also, of

exercising self-criticism of the way we organise. I will “conclude” this

paper, therefore, by instead looking to the reasons as to why I believe

these debates are important.

I am a Platformist. I do, however, feel completely unrepresented by many

of the organisations that claim to be acting in the spirit of the

Organisational Platform. While I feel that many tenets of Platformism –

particularly building tactical and theoretical unity and the centrality

of class struggle — are the remedy to the localised, short-term and

ghettoised activity of large portions of the anarchist movement today, I

do also, however, feel a somewhat uncomfortable Platformist as one who

greatly values the importance of our core libertarian communist

principles for successful praxis. I guess writing this paper was an

effort to find that middle-ground, to tease out the useful and

interesting ideas from both sides of the Platformist/anti-Platformist

divide. Along with this, it was also important, I believe, to explore

the notion that we can learn something more valuable about our own

traditions by looking to the values of others. That such a process leads

to a re-affirming, modification or even outright rejection of our own

ideals. This, I believe, is a very healthy activity for a movement that

intends to stay true to its revolutionary mission. In this respect, and

I hope that this sentiment has also been expressed through my analysis,

it is the values and the ideas that are the most important things to me,

not the labels that come attached to them.

References

Arshinov, P. (1927) Reply to Anarchism’s Confusionists: A Response to

the ‘Reply to the Platform’ by Several Russian Anarchists. [online]

(Updated 7^(th) April 2010) Available at:

www.nestormakhno.info

(Accessed 19^(th) October 2010)

Aufheben (2001) Behind the 21^(st) Century Intifada. [online] (Updated

5^(th) January 2006) Available at:

libcom.org

(Accessed 19^(th) October 2010)

Dielo Truda (1926) Organisational Platform of the General Union of

Anarchists (Draft) [online] (Updated 20^(th) April 2010) Available at:

anarchistplatform.wordpress.com

(Accessed 19^(th) October 2010)

Doyle, K. (1991) What Went Wrong with the AWG? [online] (Updated date

unknown) Available at:

flag.blackened.net

(Accessed 19^(th) October 2010)

Franks, B. (2006) Rebel Alliances: The Means and Ends of Contemporary

British anarchisms. AK Press and Dark Star: Edinburgh

Goldman, E. (1923) My Disillusionment in Russia. Dover Publications: New

York, 2003.

Gordon, U. (2008). Anarchy Alive! Anti-authoritarian Politics from

Practice to Theory. Pluto Press: London.

Heath, N. (1989) Platform: Historical Introduction. [online] (Updated

7^(th) April 2010) Available at:

www.nestormakhno.info

(Accessed 19^(th) October 2010)

Heath, N. (1996) “Anarchist Communism in Britain, 1870–1991”, Organise!

42. Anarchist Communist Editions.

Heath, N. (2006) “Looking Back and Forward” Black Flag.

Malatesta, E. (1927) A Project of Anarchist Organisation. [online]

(Updated 21^(st) April 2010) Available at:

anarchistplatform.wordpress.com

</span> [Accessed 19^(th) October 2010]

North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (2002) The Question of

Revolutionary Organisation: A NEFAC Position Paper. [online] (Updated

27^(th) December 2002) Available at:

nefac.net

[Accessed 19^(th) October 2010]

North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (2003) Anarchism and

the Platformist Tradition. [online] (Updated 30^(th) July 2003)Available

at:

nefac.net

[Accessed 19^(th) October 2010]

Thomas (2010) Anarchist Accountability [online] (Updated 16^(th) March

2010) Available at:

miamiautonomyandsolidarity.wordpress.com

[Accessed 19^(th) October 2010]

Voline, Sobol, Fleshin, Steimer, Roman and Ervantian (1927) “’Reply’ by

several Russian Anarchists to the ‘Platform’” Available in: Maximoff,

G.P. (1930) Constructive Anarchism – The Debate on the Platform. Monty

Miller Press: Sydney, 1988.

Wildcat (date unknown) “Good Old-Fashioned Trade Unionism”, Wildcat #16.

Retrieved March 15^(th), 2010 from

libcom.org

[1] Skirda, A. (2001) Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist

Organisation from Proudhon to May 1968. AK Press: Edinburgh; Maximoff,

G.P. (1930) Constructive Anarchism – The Debate on the Platform. Monty

Miller Press: Sydney, 1988; Anarchism and the Platformist Tradition: An

Archive of Writings on the Platformist Tradition Within Anarchism —

anarchistplatform.wordpress.com

[2] The notable exception is a persistent, and particularly radical,

interpretation of Stirnerite thought developed by anarchists in Glasgow

who took Stirner’s “Union of Egoists” literally as the basis for their

syndicalist and communist organising from the 1940s onwards.

[3] The Anarchist Federation of Britain (1963–72), could technically be

described as a structurally “synthesist” grouping, bringing together

“members” (it had no formal membership list) from a variety of anarchist

traditions. This, however, was more by virtue of its lack of commitment

to any organisational principles as opposed to any theoretical

commitment to synthesism. Christie in his Edward Heath Made Me Angry

remarks that the Anarchist Federation of Britain “wasn’t really a

federation at all, more an ad hoc body convened for a particular purpose

then disbanded again”.

[4] Summarised by Doyle (1991) as the following;

(1) A general lack of organisation in the anarchist movement.

(2) Its poor quality where it does exist.

(3) Confusion over the role of the anarchist organisation.

[5] See, for example, Graebar’s description of the US anarchist movement

as split between,

“a minority tendency of ‘sectarian’ or ‘capital-A anarchist groups,’”

which have developed, dogmatic, political programs, and “a majority

tendency of ‘small-a anarchists’…who ‘are the real locus of historical

dynamism right now’” and who are much looser programmatically. (quoted

in Gordon, 2008: 23–4)

[6] He also states,

The Platform’s other shared characteristics with Leninism are a

paternalistic attitude towards subjugated groups, which designates a

universal vanguard, and the repressive character of this representative

body, the centralised Anarchist union, which is to lead the social

revolution. (Franks, 2006: 220)

Although it should also be noted that Franks’ quite hostile reading is

likely to also be strongly influenced by the history of the “Anarchist

Workers Group” (AWG) and their understanding of the Platform. The AWG

was a small Platformist group that existed in Britain from 1988 to 1992,

it led a controversial existence and eventually dissolved when a large

proportion of its membership joined Trotskyist organisations. Franks

acknowledges the criticisms the A(C)F levelled at the AWG at the time

but (erroneously) assumes this to be a break with Platformism in favour

of George Fontenis’ ‘Manifesto of Libertarian Communism’ (p.224).

[7] Language is an important thing. The use of the term “executive

committee”, for example, in the original Platform has been a source of

contention for many years. The phrase has obvious resonance with the

highly vanguardist practice advocated by Lenin and has made it all too

easy for detractors to denounce Platformism as an attempt to

“Bolshevise” anarchism. The highly loaded nature of the language

obscures the actual context in which the Dielo Truda group were writing.

Makhno’s memoirs, for example, mention numerous “executive committees”

within the Ukrainian peasant and workers movement -– Makhno, M. (1929)

The Russian Revolution in Ukraine. Black Cat Press: Edmonton, 2007.

These were, however, contrary to the Bolshevik way of organising,

largely functional and always filled with recallable delegates directly

accountable to the organisations that appointed them. Makhno even, in

spite of this limited function, personally declined a place on the

executive committee of a peasant soviet on the basis that the tasks

should be fulfilled by the peasants themselves (only to relent and join

after much lobbying on the part of the soviet). Arshinov, for his part,

also attempts to lay rest any doubts that the “executive committee” is

Bolshevik-inspired in his reply to the Russian anarchists;

Anybody in the least degree slightest conversant with politics knows

well that an executive committee and a central committee are two quite

different ideas. The executive committee may very well be an anarchist

agency; indeed, such an organ exists in many anarchist and

anarcho-syndicalist organizations. (Arshinov, 1927)