No Platform For Fascists - Discuss (5 Viewers)

[CITY BABY]

WARNING - POLITICAL NERD ALERT!!!
The platform referred to is not a general idea of having an organisation and a set of principles but a specific document - the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists (Proposed) by Makhno, Arshinov, Mett, Valevsky and Linsky, written in 1926 by a group of exiles from Russia who had lost the civil war against the Bolsheviks and were trying to figure out ways to stop it from happening again in the future. Not necessarily a bad idea, but their proposal was the formation of a monolithic General Union of Anarchists, a centralized member based organization to try and out-Bolshevikize the Bolsheviks. It demands that members adhere to the discipline of the organizationa and not think or act for themselves, thus gaining a centralized unity of ideas and tactics.
"The practice of operating on one’s individual responsibility must be strictly condemned and rejected within the ranks of the anarchist movement."
As opposed to the far more succesful FAI (Federation of Iberian Anarchists) in Spain in the 30's which was organized from the bottom up, by already existing collectives of friends, neighbours, co-workers etc. forming a federation of free association, the General Union of Anarchists idea would require that all anarchists work towards the building of the GUA and undertake no revolutionary action not authorized by the organisation, ie the creation of a super-structure from the inside outwards (not quite from the top downwards if you get what I'm saying).
"The platform’s task is to assemble all of the healthy elements of the anarchist movement into a single active and continually operating organization, the General Union of Anarchists. All of anarchism's active militants must direct their resources into the creation of this organization."
Imho the platform was written by a group of disillusioned bitter exiles who abandoned all their anarchist principles in an attempt to formulate a revenge on the commies that killed their dreams. It was immediately rejected by almost all the anarchist luminaries of the time including Malatesta, Berkman, Voline and Nettlau among others.
The problem is that whenever i try to have this conversation with people who identify themselves as platformists they repeatedly claim that it isn't like that, that everyone thinks for themselves, has their own opinions on things and position papers and the like are just general ideas on stuff and not party policies or whatever. If that is the case, which i would expect from any people identifying themselves as anarchists, i don't understand the idea behind calling yourself or your group Platformist. The whole document would seem to run counter to any claims of free-thinking, free-acting individuals, which is surely the basis for all anarchist ideas? Is it simply a case that you are not actually basing your ideas on this document, but just using the idea behind it in a totally different way to the authors? Why would you want to identify yourself with a set of ideas that you have fundamental disagreements with? If that is the case, why bother identifying yourself as a platformist at all?

thats it sean get it all out of yer system before ya get in the van ,cause if i hear one word of that egghead shite

 

[Janer]

Let the thread die ffs

 

[therealjohnny]

It's become like this:

 

[W.]

It's disgusting that I'm only up three minutes and i'm actually excited by this thread. I need purges.

There's a new translation of "The platform" over here - http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1000

WARNING - POLITICAL NERD ALERT!!!
The platform referred to is not a general idea of having an organisation and a set of principles but a specific document - the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists (Proposed) by Makhno, Arshinov, Mett, Valevsky and Linsky, written in 1926 by a group of exiles from Russia who had lost the civil war against the Bolsheviks and were trying to figure out ways to stop it from happening again in the future. Not necessarily a bad idea, but their proposal was the formation of a monolithic General Union of Anarchists, a centralized member based organization to try and out-Bolshevikize the Bolsheviks. It demands that members adhere to the discipline of the organizationa and not think or act for themselves, thus gaining a centralized unity of ideas and tactics.

I'd agreethat the platform was more an attempt to learn from the bolshevik experience and move forwards. It's an attempt to push anarchism more towards class struggle and solid organisation rather than the anti-organisational elements which had already emerged and would go on to plague the anarchist movement.

"The practice of operating on one’s individual responsibility must be strictly condemned and rejected within the ranks of the anarchist movement."

Without the context of the next line that does look a bit shit.

"The areas of revolutionary, social and political life are profoundly collective in nature. Revolutionary public activity in those areas cannot be based upon the individual responsibility of single militants."

As libertarian socialist/communists this makes a lot of sense, bourgeois individualism and by this I don't mean thinking different we mean acting in ways which are harmful to the organisation or on a broader level the working class should be rejected. This also helps to do away with would be leaders and anti-democratic elements.

As opposed to the far more succesful FAI (Federation of Iberian Anarchists) in Spain in the 30's which was organized from the bottom up, by already existing collectives of friends, neighbours, co-workers etc. forming a federation of free association, the General Union of Anarchists idea would require that all anarchists work towards the building of the GUA and undertake no revolutionary action not authorized by the organisation, ie the creation of a super-structure from the inside outwards (not quite from the top downwards if you get what I'm saying).

The FAI also enjoyed having an anarchist trade union with a majority of workers in it, this union was organised federally and was not entirely dis-similar to how platformist groups would organise now. If you look at the CNT's strike in 1919 which could have been but never amounted to a revolution we see their shortcomings in terms of having collectively agreed tactics and ideas. It wasnt until the congress of 1919 that the CNT declared its theoretical belief in libertarian communism. The fai played the role of being a radical guide for the cnt forcing out liberal elements and to an extent installing a form of theoretical unity. Of course we see later at the end of the revolution that the CNT-FAI's programme didn't go far enough and they scuppered their gains by entering into a populist antifascist government. Something platformists are yet to do and something the platform would help prevent.

The problem is that whenever i try to have this conversation with people who identify themselves as platformists they repeatedly claim that it isn't like that, that everyone thinks for themselves, has their own opinions on things and position papers and the like are just general ideas on stuff and not party policies or whatever. If that is the case, which i would expect from any people identifying themselves as anarchists, i don't understand the idea behind calling yourself or your group Platformist. The whole document would seem to run counter to any claims of free-thinking, free-acting individuals, which is surely the basis for all anarchist ideas? Is it simply a case that you are not actually basing your ideas on this document, but just using the idea behind it in a totally different way to the authors? Why would you want to identify yourself with a set of ideas that you have fundamental disagreements with? If that is the case, why bother identifying yourself as a platformist at all?

It's an organisational tool. I find anti-organisational elements to be completely contrary to the concept of anarchism and honestly don't think the platform runs counter to being free-thinking except when quoted selectively. Even your post-leftist comrades and insurrectionists seem to spend most of their time comparing their actions or justifying them with historical comparisons to Sabate, Makhno, Berkman and a million other dead dinosaurs never realising that there is a huge difference between these people who were socialist/communist anarchists (who were part of solid organisations) and the post-left milieue.

 

[seaners]

It wasn't in any way intended as an attack upon libertarian-communism, anarcho-communism, libertarian socialism or left anarchism or any of the million other labels people insist on putting on themselves, (diversity in struggle and all that) it's just that i am genuinely confused as to why people who i recognise as being anarchists/comrades in struggle/whatever would want to place such an affinity with a document that i find so completely abhorrent, to the extent that they go and actually label themselves as its adherents? And then go and say that they don't actually agree with it after all, but would still like to use the label and get all defensive when asked about it?


Probably should just let this one die...

 

[W.]

I don't see why a thread should die just because janer says so, if he doesnt like it he can ignore it. I've already thrown in my 2cents on the platform though.

Platformist groups are one of the quickest growing currents in anarchism at the moment there are groups in Ireland, Canada, USA, South America, South Africa, maybe more? For more platformist news visit http://www.anarkismo.net/index.php </shameless plug>

 

[seaners]

"Platformist groups are one of the quickest growing currents in anarchism at the moment"
Funnily enough the primmos say the same thing!
And for anyone looking for an alternative view on anarchism you might try browsing these, but remember kids, real life is not on the internet...

www.schnews.org.uk
www.anarchymag.org
www.anti-politics.net
www.325collective.com
www.re-pressed.org.uk/
www.greenanarchy.org
www.geocities.com/insurrectionary_anarchists/
www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/
www.geocities.com/aufheben2/
digilander.libero.it/guerrasociale.org/inglese.htm

 

[São Paulo Punk]

... but remember kids, real life is not on the internet...

That's right Seaners, it's on the TV... right?

 

[Blog Bloc'er]

WARNING - POLITICAL NERD ALERT!!!
The platform referred to is not a general idea of having an organisation and a set of principles but a specific document - the Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists (Proposed) by Makhno, Arshinov, Mett, Valevsky and Linsky

The Platform was a document intended to instigate a debate on anarchist principles of organisation. It was not intended to be a blueprint or manifesto, it's a collection of proposals and suggestions. "We have no doubts that there are gaps in the present platform. It has gaps, as do all new, practical steps of any importance. It is possible that certain important positions have been missed, or that others are inadequately treated, or that still others are too detailed or repetitive. 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."

but their proposal was the formation of a monolithic General Union of Anarchists, a centralized member based organization to try and out-Bolshevikize the Bolsheviks.

If you read the platform you'll see that it stresses the need for federalism not monolithic centralism. "Against centralism, anarchism has always professed and defended the principle of federalism, which reconciles the independence and initiative of individuals and the organisation with service to the common cause.

It demands that members adhere to the discipline of the organizationa and not think or act for themselves, thus gaining a centralized unity of ideas and tactics.

Were exactly in the platform does it say that? Of course people think for themselves and formulate policy through direct democracy (federalised if neccessary). "In reconciling the idea of the independence and high degree of rights of each individual with the service of social needs and necessities, federalism opens the doors to every healthy manifestation of the faculties of every individual."

We can sit on our holes and achieve nothing by not work with anybody or we can work towards the same goal with like minded people....I know which I think is more effective.

The idea of theoretical unity is pretty basic. An organisation with anarcho-capitalists, primitives and anarcho-communists is going to run into all sorts of problems. Synthesis is a non-goer. People who regard themselves as Platformists recognise Anarchist-Communism as the basis of the movement and the importance of class struggle

Tactical unity - ie how to get were you're going. WSM firmly believes in the importance of social revolution,class struggle and syndicalism as a principal methods of struggle.

 

[W.]

WSM head office.

 

[Janer]

I passed youtr gaff 2day, red car I think

I am also drunk

 

[Eddie Gorilla]

Just found this now.
Amazing thread.

 

[Janer]

In what way?

 

[Eddie Gorilla]

Insanely interesting.
Some great points made.