Questions

sam05
Posts: 222 Joined: 11-01-05
Submitted by sam05 on 28 August, 2005 - 10:15.

Some general questions about anarchism etc.. which have been bugging me for a while:

(1) - Whats the main differences between a 'Platformist Anarchist Organisation' i.e. WSM and a 'Class Struggle Anarchist Organisation' i.e. Organise?

(2) What does the anarchist symbol of a E in a circle mean, what does it stand for?

(3) What are the general anarchist opinions on the catalan/basque situation and other similar 'struggles' (or whatever you call them)?

(4) What is libertarian communism, is it similar to anarchism?

Cheers Guys,

circle A red n black star

12next ›last »
Jimmy
Posts: 58 Joined: 18-06-05
28 August, 2005 - 14:02

Platformist – an ugly term – means basicially that like-minded anarchists form an organisation to pool resources and increase effectiveness. The four key areas outlined in the origingal Platform (actually restated, as in some ways they're common sense and are present in Bakunin's time) are having a high level of agreement on prinicples, and tactics (so called theoretical and tactical unity), people taking responsibility for their involvement in the struggle, i.e. carrying out decisions democratically agreed (collective responsibility) and finally organising in a libertarian federalist basis (federalism).

Platformists are also class struggle anarchists. (We described Organise! as class struggle anarchists when we redesigned our paper because it was the simplest most accurate one at hand.) Both groups are quite similar in that we produce propaganda and get involved in campaigns. They don't describe themselves as Platformist though. They'd have syndicalist sympathies (which I do myself) and are a merger between two groups the Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation and the Anarchist Federation Ireland.

I think the E symbol means Equality.(?)

Not sure that there is a general anarchist position on the Catalan-Basque question. Actually this general issue is one where there is probably the greatest difference between Organise! and the WSM as you can guage from debates on this forum and elsewhere (the other area might be in approach to Trade Unions). Though both organisations favour a class based approach towards freedom rather than uniting with bosses of own's nationality. I'm not all that well up on either the Basque or Catalan question to be honest.

Libertarian Communism and anarchism are interchangeable in my opinion. I like “libertarian communism” because it's a postive description of what we're for: liberty and community – our friends! Anarchists started using the word “libertarian” when the word “anarchist” was censored in France around the 1890s. The Spanish anarchists in the numerous insurrections would try to implement “communismo liberatario” before WWII and it was the declared goal of the massive anarchist-syndicalist trade union the CNT.

Anarcho-Syndicalism is where the workers organise in one huge and ultra democratic union in order to make a revolution.

James - WSM

xeirecorex
Posts: 62 Joined: 08-12-03
28 August, 2005 - 15:40
sam05 wrote:

(2) What does the anarchist symbol of a E in a circle mean, what does it stand for?

It means "Equality", apparently, not sure of the origins though.

Quote:
(4) What is libertarian communism, is it similar to anarchism?

Libertarian Communism.. A less sexy name for anarchism.

malatested
Posts: 50 Joined: 20-02-04
29 August, 2005 - 10:34

"Platformist – an ugly term – means basicially that like-minded anarchists form an organisation to pool resources and increase effectiveness."

What you have described is essentially why folk create organisations. Point is in the UK and Ireland only the WSM use the term. I've never really been sure why...

"The four key areas outlined in the origingal Platform (actually restated, as in some ways they're common sense and are present in Bakunin's time) are having a high level of agreement on prinicples, and tactics (so called theoretical and tactical unity), people taking responsibility for their involvement in the struggle, i.e. carrying out decisions democratically agreed (collective responsibility) and finally organising in a libertarian federalist basis (federalism). "

I think the use of the term 'platformist', ugly as it is, is only really relevant in the context of an anarchist movement which lacks any real organisational structures, say in the U.S. not too long ago, and hence the appearance of the 'platformist' NEFAC. In the UK and Ireland our problem may be that we have too many organisations. Quite obviously, not calling yourself 'platformist' doesn't mean you are anti-organisation. Any implication otherwise would be nonsense.

If we look at the four key areas that James mentions I can't see how an organisation like the anarcho-syndicalist Solfed in Britain could disagree with them seeing that they fulfil those areas in what they do practically. So, you can be a syndicalist and 'platformist' but why even use the term?

I think in Europe where there are more so-called 'synthesist' organisations (ie organisations with anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists and other lefties perhaps -incidentally all anarcho-syndicalists are anarcho-communists though not all a-communists are a-syndicalists) the term 'platformist' probably carries more weight as it is seen as anti-synthesist. Outside the IWW in Britain there are no synthesist organisations and a lot of folk don't think the IWW are anarchists anyways.

Jimmy
Posts: 58 Joined: 18-06-05
29 August, 2005 - 12:01

This is a general reply, rather than addressed just to yourself Malatested; I know you’re familiar with these points, but not everybody may be…

malatested wrote:

What you have described is essentially why folk create organisations. Point is in the UK and Ireland only the WSM use the term. I've never really been sure why...

The rest of your post kinda outlines why. It’s a term that gets most, if not all, of its relevance from the internal anarchist movement. I’d tend to agree that the term itself is not of the utmost importance if organisations are organising in the way it envisages anyway. I think it’s no harm to use the term because it brings clarity and there have been times when the anarchist movement hasn’t been well organised. The example of Nefac is a good one as it appears to have helped them in their development.

The main alternative type of anarchist organisation is a synthesis type where there are people with fairly divergent views as to the type of anarchism and strategies people like all contained with the same organisation. So, for example, you might get individualists and communists, people for acting within trade unions and those that despise them, all present and doing their own thing. We tend to think that deep contradictions are a recipe for paralysis and would prefer to have separate anarchist organisations and work together in broader campaigns where there is common ground. That’s one reason why Platformist groups aren’t mad recruiters.

In a Platformist organisation there’d be a higher level of core agreement on basics than in a synthesist one and though obviously there’s differences over tactics, people usually agree to give the agreed position a go even if they disagree with it.

In South America the term “especifista” is used instead of Platformist – it developed independently but is essentially the same. I prefer that myself as it’s more descriptive., i.e. a specific anarchist organisation which aims to intervene in wider struggle.

This point is quite important for us; we're be strongly in favour of participating in wherever there are lots of workers and trying to influence them with libertarian ideas rather than waiting for them to come to us. That means being involved with things like Trade Unions, or campaigns alongside decidedly non-revolutionary people. That is perhaps the biggest difference between class-struggly and lifestyle anarchism (though the two aren’t mutually exclusive [not gone on the terms – I won’t start]).

I’m unfamiliar with British Anarchism and SolFed in particular, but from what you say it sounds like they themselves would be pretty similar to a platformist group. But an anarcho-syndicalist union which had tens of thousands of members, many of them non-anarchist, wouldn’t be.

Personally, I’ve never been fond of the dichotomy between Platformist anarchism and syndicalism; the original Platformist document didn’t either, if I recall, Makhno et al regarded syndicalist unions as one of the main weapons of anarchism. I think myself we in the WSM have been a little bit harsh in print on syndicalism. Having a specific anarchist organisation and a mass union of direct action oriented workers with the aim of establishing libertarian communism sounds like a winning combination! Getting to there though…

www.struggle.ws/wsm

www.nefac.net

malatested
Posts: 50 Joined: 20-02-04
29 August, 2005 - 18:14

"The rest of your post kinda outlines why. It’s a term that gets most, if not all, of its relevance from the internal anarchist movement. I’d tend to agree that the term itself is not of the utmost importance if organisations are organising in the way it envisages anyway. I think it’s no harm to use the term because it brings clarity and there have been times when the anarchist movement hasn’t been well organised. The example of Nefac is a good one as it appears to have helped them in their development."

Thanks for getting back, James. I understand what you say above but think that use of the term by the WSM doesn't bring 'clarity' in the context of these islands where every other organisation pays lip service to the four main points outlined in the Platform document. It's not that the WSM are the FdCA (Italian platformists) and the rest of us a bunch of synthesists. So, in a local context the defination of whatever a platformist is has no relevance IMHO.

"This point is quite important for us; we're be strongly in favour of participating in wherever there are lots of workers and trying to influence them with libertarian ideas rather than waiting for them to come to us. That means being involved with things like Trade Unions, or campaigns alongside decidedly non-revolutionary people. That is perhaps the biggest difference between class-struggly and lifestyle anarchism (though the two aren’t mutually exclusive [not gone on the terms – I won’t start])."

Ok, so we have a political opinion on TUs but what has this got to do with platformism? Organise!, for example, would agree with the WSM on TUs (leaving aside the thorny issue of Mr. Derwin and supporting the election of higher officialdom in TUs) but that does not imply synthesism or life-stylism on our parts. (I know your're not suggesting this but I'm trying to work out whether your concept of platformism involves taking certain positions on TUs, nationalism etc...). The Anarchist Federation in Britain would disagree with WSM on TUs but they remain a class struggle organisation...they started out as 'platformist' btw

"I’m unfamiliar with British Anarchism and SolFed in particular, but from what you say it sounds like they themselves would be pretty similar to a platformist group. But an anarcho-syndicalist union which had tens of thousands of members, many of them non-anarchist, wouldn’t be."

Well, we only have the CNT-FAI to fall back on here who weren't platformist but were a fairly impressive outfit nonetheless.

"Personally, I’ve never been fond of the dichotomy between Platformist anarchism and syndicalism; the original Platformist document didn’t either, if I recall, Makhno et al regarded syndicalist unions as one of the main weapons of anarchism. I think myself we in the WSM have been a little bit harsh in print on syndicalism. "

Ok, this is interesting. We have the document on the one hand, and the interpretation of the document. Now for platformism to put so much stock into one particular document (I know it doesn't just rely on it btw), how can such an attitude to a-syndicalism evolve when there is no critique in the document? Well, obviously from Platformist groups who have published critiques of a-syndicalism. Now, an organisation doing that is fair enough, but it's fairly suspect if they're doing so under the banner of platformism. Another reason for getting rid of the terminology?

Finally, a question. Would you say that 'platformism' globally entails a shared political outlook on issues beyond those of organisation. You mentioned the TUs. What about nationalism? If this is the case, why is it so since what should only matter is if the platformist organisation follow the 4 golden rules?

Jimmy
Posts: 58 Joined: 18-06-05
30 August, 2005 - 13:36
malatested wrote:

in a local context the defination of whatever a platformist is has no relevance IMHO.

I guess we’ll have to disagree on the usefulness of using Platformist. It’s much more important that a group organises coherently – whether they use the term or not is very much secondary. We find it useful, you don’t so much…it’s a minor enough difference. I can’t see many disadvantages of using the term – and maybe it’s handy in case things go all Italian on us!

Does any term besides “platformist” usefully describe Organise (in addition to class struggle) in its approach to organisation and involvement in wider social struggle. If so what is it? (As I said, all Platformist groups are class-struggle ones, probably most synthesist ones too)

malatested wrote:

I'm trying to work out whether your concept of platformism involves taking certain positions on TUs, nationalism etc...)

I mentioned involvement in Trade Unions as an example of being outward looking rather than it being in itself a necessary part of Platformist Anarchism. Whether it makes tactical sense to be involved with any may differ from circumstance to circumstance. For example, in a right-wing society, the unions could be Catholic ones and it may be better to start afresh and set up new ones. The important point from a Platformist tradition I guess is that the anarchist group is outward looking, i.e. it makes an effort to engage with regular non-politicised folks where they are rather than waiting for them to see the light and come to anarchism.

malatested wrote:
how can such an attitude to a-syndicalism evolve when there is no critique in the document? Well, obviously from Platformist groups who have published critiques of a-syndicalism.Now, an organisation doing that is fair enough, but it's fairly suspect if they're doing so under the banner of platformism. Another reason for getting rid of the terminology?

I wouldn’t be overly concerned with the document as written in the 1920s. It’s only one contribution despite it giving the label to that anarchist tendency. Some of the unclear things in the pamphlet, like the General Union of Anarchists, have been clarified over the years. Platformist groups have evolved their own practices since then which are of more relevance – the ideas and tradition, both of which predate the 1920s, are more important than the document.

In addition to Platformists, many anarcho-syndicalists (e.g. WSA, maybe the CNT itself?) have been critical of choices made in 1936, say, and the thinking behind them. This I guess shows the interest that anarchists have in not just blaming nasty capitalists for the defeat, but is a serious attempt to improve anarchism itself. Which is to be commended. I think some of the criticism the WSM have made of say the tactics taken in 1936 are valid, but it is too great a leap to then say that syndicalism is inherently flawed. Anarcho-syndicalism can and does do the same reflection and improving. This reflection is what the writers of the Platform were trying to do in the wake of their defeat; i.e. come to grips with their own failure and take steps to rectify it.

I’m not sure what’s suspect about it. A group advocating ideas it believes to be valid is to be expected and a platformist group is obviously going to argue the case for specific anarchist groups and its approach. Besides, I don’t think any group is so into Platformism that they consider it separate from anarchism. Again, the difference here appears to be very minor, I think there’s no harm in being clear about which anarchist tendency we favour but I can see why you think it’s unnecessary.

malatested wrote:

Finally, a question. Would you say that 'platformism' globally entails a shared political outlook on issues beyond those of organisation. You mentioned the TUs. What about nationalism? If this is the case, why is it so since what should only matter is if the platformist organisation follow the 4 golden rules?

I’m not sure that Platformist anarchist groups do share exactly the same political analysis. Obviously we are likely to be close because a)we’re anarchists, b)probably have a similar mind-set (actually that’s me speculating!).

I only read English so I’m really only familiar with what Nefac and Zabalaza have written and they seem very close to the WSM in politics. So probably we would be closer to other Platformist groups, but that’s an answer not based on deep knowledge.

Do you know if the AF were unhappy with aspects of “especifista” anarchism and if so what did they replace them with? Or was it more thinking it was unnecessary to use the term “platformist” in Britain, as you were saying above? Besides trade unions are there any other differences, both political and organisational, between them (and Organise! for that matter) and the WSM that you’d be aware of?

malatested
Posts: 50 Joined: 20-02-04
30 August, 2005 - 16:17

"I guess we’ll have to disagree on the usefulness of using Platformist. It’s much more important that a group organises coherently – whether they use the term or not is very much secondary. We find it useful, you don’t so much…it’s a minor enough difference. I can’t see many disadvantages of using the term – and maybe it’s handy in case things go all Italian on us!"

Well, we can agree to differ, but I still don't understand how the term is 'useful' especially if it creates the kind of confusion the original poster seems to have had, given the local context in which the term is used and political positions which seem to define one as 'platformist' and bearing no relation to the original meaning to the term. But we'll leave it there.

"Does any term besides “platformist” usefully describe Organise (in addition to class struggle) in its approach to organisation and involvement in wider social struggle. If so what is it? (As I said, all Platformist groups are class-struggle ones, probably most synthesist ones too)"

I can't say there is a term beyond 'class struggle' -not that I think that terminology is relevant either except to say such and such an organisation is not lifestylist which folk would know anyway, most of all by the fact that lifestylism and broad organisation don't really mix. Or perhaps it is useful to deflect the likes of the SWP who think we're all MC anyways!

"I mentioned involvement in Trade Unions as an example of being outward looking rather than it being in itself a necessary part of Platformist Anarchism. Whether it makes tactical sense to be involved with any may differ from circumstance to circumstance. For example, in a right-wing society, the unions could be Catholic ones and it may be better to start afresh and set up new ones. The important point from a Platformist tradition I guess is that the anarchist group is outward looking, i.e. it makes an effort to engage with regular non-politicised folks where they are rather than waiting for them to see the light and come to anarchism."

Fair enough

"In addition to Platformists, many anarcho-syndicalists (e.g. WSA, maybe the CNT itself?) have been critical of choices made in 1936, say, and the thinking behind them. This I guess shows the interest that anarchists have in not just blaming nasty capitalists for the defeat, but is a serious attempt to improve anarchism itself. Which is to be commended. I think some of the criticism the WSM have made of say the tactics taken in 1936 are valid, but it is too great a leap to then say that syndicalism is inherently flawed. Anarcho-syndicalism can and does do the same reflection and improving. This reflection is what the writers of the Platform were trying to do in the wake of their defeat; i.e. come to grips with their own failure and take steps to rectify it."

Sure. Given the fact that FAI entered government in 36 doesn't really put the failure simply at a-syndicalist's door. In any case, the question is not simply why platformism critiqued a-syndicalism...a more interesting one is what's the difference between non-synthesist anarchist organisations and platformist ones? None IMHO.

"I’m not sure what’s suspect about it. A group advocating ideas it believes to be valid is to be expected and a platformist group is obviously going to argue the case for specific anarchist groups and its approach. "

Well, if the first group is synthesist, fair enough, and if those 'ideas' are based on an organisational premise, ok. Organise! doesn't have a different approach to organisation. And 'if' those ideas are 'political' ones, shared by other platformist groups, fair enough again, but at least call a spade a spade, and come up with a term that doesn't relate to methods of organisation only.

"Besides, I don’t think any group is so into Platformism that they consider it separate from anarchism. Again, the difference here appears to be very minor, I think there’s no harm in being clear about which anarchist tendency we favour but I can see why you think it’s unnecessary."

Well, I have no problem with your choice of 'tendency'. I was initially interested in the use of the term 'platformist' and its application on these islands

I’m not sure that Platformist anarchist groups do share exactly the same political analysis. Obviously we are likely to be close because a)we’re anarchists, b)probably have a similar mind-set (actually that’s me speculating!).

Well, NEFAC's original aims and principles were heavily influenced by the AF in Britain. They have moved on TUs to a position closer to our own, though that may differ from region to region (and wouldn't be very platformist incidentally). Not sure about nationalism though.

"Do you know if the AF were unhappy with aspects of “especifista” anarchism and if so what did they replace them with? Or was it more thinking it was unnecessary to use the term “platformist” in Britain, as you were saying above? Besides trade unions are there any other differences, both political and organisational, between them (and Organise! for that matter) and the WSM that you’d be aware of?"

After the break up of the Mancs based council communists Subversion there entered a left communist tendency into the AF which changed their position on TUs. Their roots in late 70s/early 80s anarchism was very 'platformist' which begs the question if the politcal change on TUs coincided with the dropping of the term??? The AF would share Organise!'s position on nationalism, and organise federatively. So closer to them on nationalism and closer to you on TUs...piggy in the middle!

Boulcolonialboy "the meanest"
Posts: 1695 Joined: 02-10-04 Location: Belfast
31 August, 2005 - 12:37

sam05, for more on the differences between Organise! and the WSM see the earlier thread:

http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5584

Cheers;

circle A red n black star

sam05
Posts: 222 Joined: 11-01-05
31 August, 2005 - 13:19

Just Sam is fine. wink

Yeah, cool thanks...

mort
Posts: 14 Joined: 31-07-05
31 August, 2005 - 13:44
Jimmy wrote:
The important point from a Platformist tradition I guess is that the anarchist group is outward looking, i.e. it makes an effort to engage with regular non-politicised folks where they are rather than waiting for them to see the light and come to anarchism.

Does this mean that to be "outward looking" is a singn of Platformismism whereever it is found (in anarchist groups ofcourse) even pre-manifesto & all the groups that dont regard themselves as 'platformist' or is it only since the conception of the hallowed volume?

Or can it mean that if a group does not define itself as 'Platformist' then it is naturaly "inward looking" and somehow wrong ?

Why is it when i read the Manifesto i think not of anarchism but of a stalinist military sate?

Jimmy
Posts: 58 Joined: 18-06-05
31 August, 2005 - 22:26
mort wrote:

Does this mean that to be "outward looking" is a singn of Platformismism whereever it is found (in anarchist groups ofcourse) even pre-manifesto & all the groups that dont regard themselves as 'platformist' or is it only since the conception of the hallowed volume?

Being outward looking is a trait of the platformist groups that I'm aware of. You'd have to go through groups, both ancient and modern, one by one to see how much they have in common with Nefac, ZACF etc in terms of organisation and politics. It would be one factor in making links and tracing influence but I'd say it varies on the whole, though some would be closer than others. A certain member of the WSM, when a little drunk, likes to claim Bakunin's Alliance as a forerunner of platformist thinking.

mort wrote:

Or can it mean that if a group does not define itself as 'Platformist' then it is naturaly "inward looking" and somehow wrong ?

No, it doesn't follow at all that groups that don't use the term 'platformist' are inward looking. This is pretty obvious even from pure logic, but it's clear from the discussion above as well. It would mean that the various types of anarchist groups would share this approach and so have something in common. Hence Malatested's point that the term 'platformist' is redundant in Ireland.

Re the hollowed document:

it sometimes appears that people critical of the platform apply it far more rigourously than the platformist groups themselves. As I said, it's a tendency that existed before Makhno et al, and has developed since. The particular document isn't very hallowed at all. If you have criticisms of platformist anarchism why not base them on the practice of the groups themselves rather than on the document.

mort wrote:

Why is it when i read the Manifesto i think not of anarchism but of a stalinist military sate?

Difficult to know the inner workings of your mind. Could be that you've misunderstood the nature of the document, anarchism, and a Stalinist military state. But since you haven't even produced an argument it's hard to know.

georgestapleton "an indistinguishable part of a nationalist front sticking up for Irish independence"
Posts: 1471 Joined: 04-08-05 Location: Dublin, Ireland
1 September, 2005 - 14:26

Well platformism is a theory of organisation but there are two aspects of organisation

1) Internally

2) Externally

Internally, platformism is fairly clear, you need theoretical and tactical unity, collective discipline and action, and federal strutures. As far as I know Organise are strutured in the same basic way.

Externally, platformism is also fairly clear, you need different levels of organisation, and you need to engage with struggles as they happen and not wait until a struggle occurs that you think should happen. This explains why platformist groups often get involved in non-anarchist and non-revolutionary groups and movements such as TUs and Anti-imperialist movements.

In other words platformists believe in a coherent and 'pure' anarcho-communist organisation acting in mass groups and campaigns as oppossed to believeing in coherent or 'pure' mass groups or campaigns. Because we believe that basically you can't have or at least you rarely have coherent or 'pure' mass groups and campaigns.

This is also key to understanding the platformist belief that anarcho-syndicalism is not enough.

A point implied by all of this is that popular power doesn't necessarily express itself as anarchism. Therefore anarchist groups are needed to contest other political groups and movements within class organisations and more widely. One example of this would be the need for anarchists to lead the charge in smashing the state in spain 1936 even if anarchists were in a minority.

Finally platformism is not the platform. It is a tendency within the libertarian communist movement. The TWO main documents of it are The Platform by Dielos Truda group and Towards a Fresh Revolution by the Friends of Durruti Group. Both documents came out of the two great defeats for the anarchist movement of the 20th C. The Spanish and Russian Revolutions.

Malatested if you want to know more about the platformist/non-platformist non-synthesist distinction read the polemic between malatesta and membersof the dielos truda group.

malatested
Posts: 50 Joined: 20-02-04
1 September, 2005 - 15:52
Quote:
Externally, platformism is also fairly clear, you need different levels of organisation, and you need to engage with struggles as they happen and not wait until a struggle occurs that you think should happen.

Well, don't know what this has to do with platformism. Depending on circumstances, most organisations engage with struggles as they happen (say, Organise! involving itself in the plight of the Firefighters a while back) but an organisation, not necessarily calling itself 'platformist' can help precipitate struggle (Organise! calling for a fight against water charges in the north from the very start etc..). Again, this is not something just 'platformists' do.

Quote:
This explains why platformist groups often get involved in non-anarchist and non-revolutionary groups and movements such as TUs and Anti-imperialist movements.

Well, non-synthesist/anarcho-syndicalist groups get involved in TUs. I don't actually know what you mean by 'anti-imperialist movement'. Your 'external' organisation reads to me as a carte blanche for following certain political objectives on TUs and 'anti-imperialism' . Question again: do platformist organisations share an agreed political outlook on these issues and others, and if so, why not say so?

Quote:
In other words platformists believe in a coherent and 'pure' anarcho-communist organisation acting in mass groups and campaigns as oppossed to believeing in coherent or 'pure' mass groups or campaigns. Because we believe that basically you can't have or at least you rarely have coherent or 'pure' mass groups and campaigns.

Well, most organisations have aims and principles, coherence along theoretical and tactical lines -not sure about your use of the word 'pure' here...doesn't happen too much in nature, and our friend James in the WSM would, by this analysis, need a few a-syndicalist 'impurities'/sympathies sifted out.

About campaigns, Organise! members 'act' together in campaigns after agreeing a coherent approach, so I imagine do Solfed and the AF. As far as not 'believing' that mass campaigns can be 'coherent' I take it then they need an injection of platformist purity from without to have any coherence. It's a wonder then that any campaign not involving self-labelled 'platformists' ever achieves anything.

Quote:

A point implied by all of this is that popular power doesn't necessarily express itself as anarchism.

Well, I know it doesn't in Portadown! I think that's why we're not having a revolution this week.

Quote:
Therefore anarchist groups are needed to contest other political groups and movements within class organisations and more widely. One example of this would be the need for anarchists to lead the charge in smashing the state inand react to spain 1936 even if anarchists were in a minority.

Well, platformism doesn't rate a-syndicalism very highly but you don't mind using Spain 36 as an example of 'leading the charge'...that would be the CNT, no?

Quote:
Malatested if you want to know more about the platformist/non-platformist non-synthesist distinction read the polemic between malatesta and membersof the dielos truda group.

Read it years back. Just wanted to know why the term is used in these islands.

georgestapleton "an indistinguishable part of a nationalist front sticking up for Irish independence"
Posts: 1471 Joined: 04-08-05 Location: Dublin, Ireland
2 September, 2005 - 14:50
malatested wrote:
As far as not 'believing' that mass campaigns can be 'coherent' I take it then they need an injection of platformist purity from without to have any coherence. It's a wonder then that any campaign not involving self-labelled 'platformists' ever achieves anything.

That's obviously not what i'm saying. you're just being antagonistic.

Quote:
Read it years back. Just wanted to know why the term is used in these islands.

Yeah on the Organise WSM divide. I think it's silly and when I joined the WSM almost 2 years ago I thought and hoped we'd have merged by now. The main reasons we haven't I think was because a lot of WSMers were really pissed off by Organise's Reply pamphlet. Also I think the debate that followed was really unhealthy and at times veered into being really personal and destructive. Also a number of WSMers hoped the EWN initiative would help heal rifts, lead us to working together and then when we are working together re-assess what level of union the two organisations need. But clearly that hasn't happened so a lot of WSMers don't see the point in flogging the seemingly dead donkey that is the WSM/Organise divide. I obviously don't know what the feeling on Organises side is.

I don't think the platformist thing would pose any real problem though.

As to why we use the term. Well beyond Ireland our use of the term and the politics that go with it has had a major impact on NEFAC, NAF, ZACF, MACG, BAAC, and that group in Atlanta. We've even had an influence on the OSL in Chile, the FdCA in Italy and some Turkish groups.

As for in Britain. Well I don't live there so it's had to judge but I know a lot of individual activists say they really like our stuff and have been influenced by it. As for the groups that are over there. CW is a joke (allbeit a very funny one), SolFed doesn't seem to do anything. The AF seem to be the only serious national fed. but again I never hear about anything they do aside from produce Resistance, Organise!, and a few pamphlets. And it's probably just me but I really don't like the way AF literature is written. I find it very didactic. But I suppose my literary sesibilites don't really stand up as a substantial criticism. I have also found that the British groups are phenomenonally sectarian and seem to be more interested in being pure and maintaining there ghetto than actually building a substantial and serious anarchist movement in Britain. Which is a shame.

I hope I'm not being to antagonistic. I think I know who you are and if you are who I think you are then you are one of the Organise/AF joint membership heads, and the first AFer in Ireland, or at least since it became the AF and not the ACF. I'm just trying to give my honest appraisal, this is not a condemnation nor a rejection nor an exclusion.

I honestly think I can live to see communism, but I won't if all anarcho-communists ever do is bite at each others throats. So constructive comments, correections, whatever are welcome.

malatested
Posts: 50 Joined: 20-02-04
2 September, 2005 - 15:59

Ok, just going to repeat a few things I wrote before as I really am interested in getting a response. My interest here is genuine not sinister...

Quote:
Externally, platformism is also fairly clear, you need different levels of organisation, and you need to engage with struggles as they happen and not wait until a struggle occurs that you think should happen.

Well, don't know what this has to do with platformism. Depending on circumstances, most organisations engage with struggles as they happen (say, Organise! involving itself in the plight of the Firefighters a while back) but an organisation, not necessarily calling itself 'platformist' can help precipitate struggle (Organise! calling for a fight against water charges in the north from the very start etc..). Again, this is not something just 'platformists' do.

Quote:
This explains why platformist groups often get involved in non-anarchist and non-revolutionary groups and movements such as TUs and Anti-imperialist movements.

Well, non-synthesist/anarcho-syndicalist groups get involved in TUs. I don't actually know what you mean by 'anti-imperialist movement'. Your 'external' organisation reads to me as a carte blanche for following certain political objectives on TUs and 'anti-imperialism' . Question again: do platformist organisations share an agreed political outlook on these issues and others, and if so, why not say so?

Quote:
In other words platformists believe in a coherent and 'pure' anarcho-communist organisation acting in mass groups and campaigns as oppossed to believeing in coherent or 'pure' mass groups or campaigns. Because we believe that basically you can't have or at least you rarely have coherent or 'pure' mass groups and campaigns.

Well, most organisations have aims and principles, coherence along theoretical and tactical lines -not sure about your use of the word 'pure' here...doesn't happen too much in nature, and our friend James in the WSM would, by this analysis, need a few a-syndicalist 'impurities'/sympathies sifted out.

About campaigns, Organise! members 'act' together in campaigns after agreeing a coherent approach, so I imagine do Solfed and the AF. As far as not 'believing' that mass campaigns can be 'coherent' I take it then they need an injection of platformist purity from without to have any coherence. It's a wonder then that any campaign not involving self-labelled 'platformists' ever achieves anything.

Quote:
Therefore anarchist groups are needed to contest other political groups and movements within class organisations and more widely. One example of this would be the need for anarchists to lead the charge in smashing the state inand react to spain 1936 even if anarchists were in a minority.

Well, platformism doesn't rate a-syndicalism very highly but you don't mind using Spain 36 as an example of 'leading the charge'...that would be the CNT, no?

Quote:
ME: As far as not 'believing' that mass campaigns can be 'coherent' I take it then they need an injection of platformist purity from without to have any coherence. It's a wonder then that any campaign not involving self-labelled 'platformists' ever achieves anything.

Quote:
YOU: That's obviously not what i'm saying. you're just being antagonistic.

First of all, I'm really not being antagonistic. I mean I would be within my rights to feel a bit antagonised myself by the idea that for a campaign to have merit it needs a particular set of ideas, ie those belonging to a particular tendancy. Was the Bin Tax campaign in the south 'pure' and coherent or where other folk outside platformists involved?

Quote:
Yeah on the Organise WSM divide. I think it's silly and when I joined the WSM almost 2 years ago I thought and hoped we'd have merged by now. The main reasons we haven't I think was because a lot of WSMers were really pissed off by Organise's Reply pamphlet. Also I think the debate that followed was really unhealthy and at times veered into being really personal and destructive.

Well, it takes two to have an argument. All I can say was that Organise! genuinely believed that the response would open up the possibility of serious debate on this issue, an issue on which the WSM are still in the process of debating themselves.

Quote:

Also a number of WSMers hoped the EWN initiative would help heal rifts, lead us to working together and then when we are working together re-assess what level of union the two organisations need. But clearly that hasn't happened so a lot of WSMers don't see the point in flogging the seemingly dead donkey that is the WSM/Organise divide. I obviously don't know what the feeling on Organises side is.

Well, I was the one who proposed the EWN in the first place. Yes, a lack of comunication, probably caused by the fall-out over the response, hasn't helped matters as well as not being in the same geographical area as one another. From what I know, the EWN is to be discussed formally this month. I'm personally up for this and will come to Dublin to get things moving...

Quote:
As to why we use the term. Well beyond Ireland our use of the term and the politics that go with it has had a major impact on NEFAC, NAF, ZACF, MACG, BAAC, and that group in Atlanta. We've even had an influence on the OSL in Chile, the FdCA in Italy and some Turkish groups.

Well, at last. A frame of reference we are led to believe has to do with good methods of organisation etc... now simply denotes certain political views on TUs and nationalism, but not only this, views held by one particular organisation. I mean, I don't know, but do you think that these other organisations could have been convinced of these positions if they believed not doing so wasn't 'platformist'? Quite simply, being a 'platformist' (btw Organise! itself could define itself as platformist by its method of organisation but doesn't feel the need) now means being someone who has certain positions on certain political issues. (Incidentally, my argument is not with the fact that you have influenced other groups -what the OSL do does not really affect me here in Ireland -but the strange fact that these groups use the term 'platformist'.

Quote:
As for in Britain. Well I don't live there so it's had to judge but I know a lot of individual activists say they really like our stuff and have been influenced by it. As for the groups that are over there. CW is a joke (allbeit a very funny one), SolFed doesn't seem to do anything. The AF seem to be the only serious national fed. but again I never hear about anything they do aside from produce Resistance, Organise!, and a few pamphlets. And it's probably just me but I really don't like the way AF literature is written. I find it very didactic. But I suppose my literary sesibilites don't really stand up as a substantial criticism. I have also found that the British groups are phenomenonally sectarian and seem to be more interested in being pure and maintaining there ghetto than actually building a substantial and serious anarchist movement in Britain. Which is a shame.

I hope I'm not being to antagonistic.

Well, not to me, but maybe to the organisations you slag off above. I can speak as an ex-AFer for them when I say that they do a lot more than simply produce publications. Their problem may be that they do a lot of wok in local groups and not under the AF banner. So when Surrey anarchist Group do this and that, you'll usually find an AFer in the mix there.

About sectarianism, a bit of it may exist in London, but I know that Solfed and the AF have good relations in the north. Thre was a movement to set up a confedertion a few years back which felll through but at least the impetus was there.

Quote:
I think I know who you are and if you are who I think you are then you are one of the Organise/AF joint membership heads, and the first AFer in Ireland, or at least since it became the AF and not the ACF. I'm just trying to give my honest appraisal, this is not a condemnation nor a rejection nor an exclusion.

Fair enough. I accept the fact you're being sincere here and welcome it. You can buy me a pint when I'm in Dublin as the prices there irk me.

Jimmy
Posts: 58 Joined: 18-06-05
2 September, 2005 - 20:01
malatested wrote:
Depending on circumstances, most organisations engage with struggles as they happen...Again, this is not something just 'platformists' do.

I dunno, but it seems you're really flogging that question. Because Platformist groups say “this is what we do” doesn't necessarily mean that every other non-anarchist group doesn't do it. We speak primarily for ourselves unless otherwise stated.

My own view is that identifying that tradition is mildly helpful in that it makes clear for our own heads and those outside where we are coming from...but I've sent long enough posts on this already... Hard to see much more being added.

George wrote:
In other words platformists believe in a coherent and 'pure' anarcho-communist organisation acting in mass groups and campaigns as oppossed to believeing in coherent or 'pure' mass groups or campaigns. Because we believe that basically you can't have or at least you rarely have coherent or 'pure' mass groups and campaigns.

malatested wrote:
Well, most organisations have aims and principles, coherence along theoretical and tactical lines -not sure about your use of the word 'pure' here...doesn't happen too much in nature, and our friend James in the WSM would, by this analysis, need a few a-syndicalist 'impurities'/sympathies sifted out.

Hmm, you don't agree with me that there isn't an inherent contradiction between syndicalism and platformist anarchism?

malatested wrote:
As far as not 'believing' that mass campaigns can be 'coherent' I take it then they need an injection of platformist purity from without to have any coherence. It's a wonder then that any campaign not involving self-labelled 'platformists' ever achieves anything.

Don't think that's being said. In a large campaign or indeed trade union there's likely to be people from all sides of backgrounds with various ideas simply because it is large. This makes it harder to have a common position, how hard depends on the issue. That diversity isn't necessarily bad either.

Obviously the WSM think it's useful to have an explicitly anarchist organisation participating in campaigns. It doesn't logically follow that a campaign won't achieve anything if such an organisation isn't there. Clearly many do achieve much. We do think it is less likely that people involved in such campaigns will hear anarchist arguments if there aren't organised anarchists involved, or that they will follow an anarchist trajectory if they don't have the opportunity to come across them.

George wrote:
As to why we use the term. Well beyond Ireland our use of the term and the politics that go with it has had a major impact on NEFAC, NAF, ZACF, MACG, BAAC, and that group in Atlanta. We've even had an influence on the OSL in Chile, the FdCA in Italy and some Turkish groups.

malatested wrote:
Well, at last. A frame of reference we are led to believe has to do with good methods of organisation etc... now simply denotes certain political views on TUs and nationalism, but not only this, views held by one particular organisation. I mean, I don't know, but do you think that these other organisations could have been convinced of these positions if they believed not doing so wasn't 'platformist'? Quite simply, being a 'platformist' (btw Organise! itself could define itself as platformist by its method of organisation but doesn't feel the need) now means being someone who has certain positions on certain political issues.

You're reading too much into particular examples and missing the bigger point a little. George is making the general point that for the Platformist groups it is important to go to where people are. For him the Trade Unions and anti-imperialist struggles are examples of this. As I said above, while generally good examples, this is not rigid and there are contexts when a different strategy towards, say, the existing trade unions would be adopted. However, whatever that strategy is, it would still be “outward looking”.

In any case the influence carries both ways, we're very interested in hearing the positions and activities of groups. It could be that the outward looking nature of Platformist groups would prod them into taking generally similar political positions. I guess this is I what I meant earlier when I said that maybe we've similar mindsets.

I suspect that groups like Nefac and ZACF identified with the platformist tradition because it was similar in approach and politics rather than first agreeing the Platform and logically deducing “correct” platformist politics. As I see it, we're platformist anarchists because of our politics – we don't have our politics because of the platformist tradition - if you get what I mean. It is a useful theoretical tool to focus ourselves organisationally and over time. And being useful, we decide to use it.

mort
Posts: 14 Joined: 31-07-05
2 September, 2005 - 21:19

i

Jimmy wrote:

Being outward looking is a trait of the platformist groups that I'm aware of. You'd have to go through groups, both ancient and modern, one by one

So there is still the possibliity of a 'platformist' group that is not inward looking, fair enough. I suppose they could still join the Union, lets face it the manifesto is the result of an inward look at anarchist organisation.

jimmy wrote:
A certain member of the WSM, when a little drunk, likes to claim Bakunin's Alliance as a forerunner of platformist thinking.

but does 'platformism' become more imprtant than anarchism, anarchy becoming a tendancy within platformism?

jimmy wrote:

No, it doesn't follow at all that groups that don't use the term 'platformist' are inward looking.

sorry i thought there was a suggestion of the inference that they were.

jimmy wrote:
This is pretty obvious even from pure logic,

All known platformist groups are outward looking

Groups that are outwardlooking dont have to be platforist

therefore, platformist gorups are nothing special.

ofcoure the only conclusion we can really draw from the above is that 'groups can be outward looking'. Hardly, ground breaking and we still dont have a clue what 'platformist' group actualy is.

jimmy wrote:
but it's clear from the discussion above as well. It would mean that the various types of anarchist groups would share this approach and so have something in common. Hence Malatested's point that the term 'platformist' is redundant in Ireland.

I'd go further and say that the only place that it has any form off emplyment is whitin groups that need some sort of intellectual pedigree to validate their anarchist tendancies. but i dont know shit from spade.

[qoite="jimmy"]Re the hollowed document:

it sometimes appears that people critical of the platform apply it far more rigourously than the platformist groups themselves.

we seek it here we seek it there that damned elusive platform,

jimmy wrote:
As I said, it's a tendency that existed before Makhno et al, and has developed since. The particular document isn't very hallowed at all. If you have criticisms of platformist anarchism why not base them on the practice of the groups themselves rather than on the document.

Sorry but action do not help define a 'platformist' group. Take for example the Des derwin thing. Both O! (i personly practised not voting for him, hard work) and the WSM had opposing positions and whole thing. and as the above discussion has pointed out boith groups are 'platformist'. so what gives?

mort wrote:

Why is it when i read the Manifesto i think not of anarchism but of a stalinist military sate?

jimmy wrote:
Difficult to know the inner workings of your mind.

i know your difficulty

jimmy wrote:
Could be that you've misunderstood the nature of the document, anarchism, and a Stalinist military state. But since you haven't even produced an argument it's hard to know.

Christ i would'nt want to start an argument, not amogst platformists

mort
Posts: 14 Joined: 31-07-05
2 September, 2005 - 21:52
Jimmy wrote:

I suspect that groups like Nefac and ZACF identified with the platformist tradition because it was similar in approach and politics rather than first agreeing the Platform and logically deducing “correct” platformist politics. As I see it, we're platformist anarchists because of our politics – we don't have our politics because of the platformist tradition - if you get what I mean. It is a useful theoretical tool to focus ourselves organisationally and over time. And being useful, we decide to use it.

Sorry did'nt see this post before my last one.

This last para helps me see a little better, that 'platformism' has nothing to do with actions sd such, as you first aserted, but has to do with a what informs your actions. That informer being a Historical document that tells you what anachism, sorry libertarian commnuism is and should be. thanks.

malatested
Posts: 50 Joined: 20-02-04
3 September, 2005 - 10:23

Depending on circumstances, most organisations engage with struggles as they happen...Again, this is not something just 'platformists' do.

Quote:
I dunno, but it seems you're really flogging that question. Because Platformist groups say “this is what we do” doesn't necessarily mean that every other non-anarchist group doesn't do it. We speak primarily for ourselves unless otherwise stated.

I don't think I'm 'flogging the question'. I'm trying to understand the logic of using a frame of reference in the context of these islands where most groups would follow similar patterns of organisation anyway, where there is no major synthesist organisation, where all organisations are 'outward looking' etc...

Quote:
My own view is that identifying that tradition is mildly helpful in that it makes clear for our own heads and those outside where we are coming from...but I've sent long enough posts on this already... Hard to see much more being added.

It may make things clearer for you. Having a similar pattern of organisation makes things clearer for Organise!, but for those outside I don't think calling oneself 'platformist' helps hence the original post on this list. I think for those outside, the assumption might be 'oh, these lot are really into organisation...everybody else must be a shambles then!'. Ok, they wouldn't be that clueless, but you get my point.

malatested wrote:

Well, most organisations have aims and principles, coherence along theoretical and tactical lines -not sure about your use of the word 'pure' here...doesn't happen too much in nature, and our friend James in the WSM would, by this analysis, need a few a-syndicalist 'impurities'/sympathies sifted out.

Quote:

Hmm, you don't agree with me that there isn't an inherent contradiction between syndicalism and platformist anarchism?

Well, you're the one with the syndicalist sympathies and calling yourself a 'platformist'. Organisationally, as far as the syndicalist propaganda group (Solfed) and WSM are concerned, no, I see no contradiction. Regarding their long term objectives of creating an a-syndicalist union, yes, a contradiction emerges. Point is, all anarcho-communists (and I mean here those anarcho-communists who are not also a-syndicalists) ie those who find themselves in a synthesist organisation, those who label themsleves 'platformist' and those who don't use the term 'platformist', would disagree with the long term objective of a-syndicalists. This is not news, but why focus on 'platformist anarchism' versus a-syndicalism. Why suggest a difference in attitude all non-syndicalists have to that long term objective?

malatested wrote:

As far as not 'believing' that mass campaigns can be 'coherent' I take it then they need an injection of platformist purity from without to have any coherence. It's a wonder then that any campaign not involving self-labelled 'platformists' ever achieves anything.

Quote:
Don't think that's being said. In a large campaign or indeed trade union there's likely to be people from all sides of backgrounds with various ideas simply because it is large. This makes it harder to have a common position, how hard depends on the issue. That diversity isn't necessarily bad either.

Well, George speaks of purism and you speak of diversity? Look, I know how WSM involve themselves in local campaigns...there are diverse folk involved, same as when Organise! get involved in something. Using a word like 'purity' gives folks the heebie-jeebies and doesn't square with reality.

Quote:
Obviously the WSM think it's useful to have an explicitly anarchist organisation participating in campaigns. It doesn't logically follow that a campaign won't achieve anything if such an organisation isn't there. Clearly many do achieve much. We do think it is less likely that people involved in such campaigns will hear anarchist arguments if there aren't organised anarchists involved, or that they will follow an anarchist trajectory if they don't have the opportunity to come across them.

Totally agree. Now, if Organise! and WSM were involved in some future campaign, I would certainly hope the work we both did wouldn't get lost in a quagmire of purism. I mean if we were as pure as the WSM, we'd all be in the WSM - a joke.

George wrote:

As to why we use the term. Well beyond Ireland our use of the term and the politics that go with it has had a major impact on NEFAC, NAF, ZACF, MACG, BAAC, and that group in Atlanta. We've even had an influence on the OSL in Chile, the FdCA in Italy and some Turkish groups.

malatested wrote:

Well, at last. A frame of reference we are led to believe has to do with good methods of organisation etc... now simply denotes certain political views on TUs and nationalism, but not only this, views held by one particular organisation. I mean, I don't know, but do you think that these other organisations could have been convinced of these positions if they believed not doing so wasn't 'platformist'? Quite simply, being a 'platformist' (btw Organise! itself could define itself as platformist by its method of organisation but doesn't feel the need) now means being someone who has certain positions on certain political issues.

Quote:
You're reading too much into particular examples and missing the bigger point a little. George is making the general point that for the Platformist groups it is important to go to where people are. For him the Trade Unions and anti-imperialist struggles are examples of this. As I said above, while generally good examples, this is not rigid and there are contexts when a different strategy towards, say, the existing trade unions would be adopted. However, whatever that strategy is, it would still be “outward looking”.

My point is, who isn't 'outward looking'? Do the rest of us spend our times navel-gazing? You're creating a difference where there isn't one, not on non-syndicalist anarcho-communist attitudes to the a-syndicalist union, not on whether one group is 'outward looking' or not.

Now, one can say, 'this group is terrible, they don't do anything' but it has nothing to do with 'platformist'. Probably, they're just lazy, disillusioned etc...

Quote:
In any case the influence carries both ways, we're very interested in hearing the positions and activities of groups. It could be that the outward looking nature of Platformist groups would prod them into taking generally similar political positions. I guess this is I what I meant earlier when I said that maybe we've similar mindsets.

I suspect that groups like Nefac and ZACF identified with the platformist tradition because it was similar in approach and politics rather than first agreeing the Platform and logically deducing “correct” platformist politics. As I see it, we're platformist anarchists because of our politics – we don't have our politics because of the platformist tradition - if you get what I mean. It is a useful theoretical tool to focus ourselves organisationally and over time. And being useful, we decide to use it.

Well, Jimmy, you said before that :

Quote:
I’m not sure that Platformist anarchist groups do share exactly the same political analysis.

So, now I'm confused. In any case, what are these 'correct platformist politics' ( I really want to know!) and would I as a member of Organise have them? Or, don't I have them because I disagree with you eg. on the north? Is this why I'm not a 'platformist'?

Jimmy
Posts: 58 Joined: 18-06-05
3 September, 2005 - 15:29
malatested wrote:
My point is, who isn't 'outward looking'? Do the rest of us spend our times navel-gazing?

No of course not, we're talking mostly about ourselves...we're not making the final judgment on every other anarchist group going as an aside in our statements on organisation! Though George isn't shy about his own views..

malatested wrote:
I'm trying to understand the logic of using a frame of reference in the context of these islands where most groups would follow similar patterns of organisation anyway, where there is no major synthesist organisation, where all organisations are 'outward looking' etc...

Ok maybe I'm flogging it but here's a hastily thought up and probably crap analogy! -

As far as I know in rugby, there is only rugby union in Ireland and no rugby league. Still these rugby people describe themselves as the Irish Rugby Football Union. You might think it unnecessary as there isn't any rugby league here. I bet most of the time people only refer to plain rugby, but for the interested chap, digging for more detail, it will be explained to him that the rugby around here is “union”.

We are an anarchist group. Most of the time that suffices when explaining what we are. Sometimes, particularly with those interested in left politics and anarchism in particular we'd be pressed for more detail. Then we'd elaborate more on anarchist-communism, and the platformist approach.

'Platformist' is in our paper, where I'm guessing Sam saw the two organisations mentioned (or maybe WCR), because Chekov put it in when laying it out and you're down as 'class struggle' down because that's what occured to him at the time. Not a whole lot of consideration went into it one way or the other. Dunno what you guys did with yours. BTW the are we still swaping papers? Haven't seen any around the office for a while. Care to resume?

---

Not sure I understood you on the syndicalist paragraph. I don't see any contradiction between having an anarcho-syndicalist union and an anarchist group which acts in it AND in other unions. None of us are slaves to what previous anarchists thought...

James wrote:
I suspect that groups like Nefac and ZACF identified with the platformist tradition because it was similar in approach and politics rather than first agreeing the Platform and logically deducing “correct” platformist politics.

malatested wrote:
Well, Jimmy, you said before that :

James wrote:
I’m not sure that Platformist anarchist groups do share exactly the same political analysis.

malatested wrote:
So, now I'm confused. In any case, what are these 'correct platformist politics'

Well, it's a tentative hypothesis, I'm not sure! I haven't had many conversations with the other groups and am guessing a bit. I only “suspect” that is the case. But it seems plausible. “correct” platformist politics was in inverted commas because it is not something I think is unambiguously deduced from the couple of documents.Look at it as an organic, bottom-up approach to coming to common positions. That was the point of that paragraph. I would imagine that each platfomist group has its own particular analysis that is a bit different from the rest but that we have enough in common to use the term.

malatested wrote:
would I as a member of Organise have [platformist politics]? Or, don't I have them because I disagree with you eg. on the north? Is this why I'm not a 'platformist'?

Sounds like you're very very close. I could easily and repeatedly ask you why Organise! don't call yourselves – it's your decision - platformist as it is so very close to the platformist approach, but it would be a wee bit odd. I thought you didn't identify with the platformist tradition because you thought it unnecessary to do so in Ireland. Don't think you're views on the north are strictly relevant.

Incidentally, re George's comment on your pamphlet, I'd say there was a wide reaction to it, not simply pissed off. Some were baffled, and thought it misinterpreted some things a lot (e.g. stagist strategy) that it made responding difficult. In the end, we thought it would be better to wait until you've got your own pamphlet/position paper published, which we understand is sometime this year, and then to resume the discussion, preferably in person.

To Mort (The Logician!)

There are anarchists who have taken a different approach to organisation than platformists...the tradition really only makes sense when viewed in that context. If every group was outward looking or organised in that fashion I suppose it would be redundant. They don't. Even in Ireland, there would be anarchists who would have a different view of anarchism, in which case it's no harm, in my opinion, to be clear about our own approach.

mort
Posts: 14 Joined: 31-07-05
3 September, 2005 - 16:15
JimmyThere are anarchists who have taken a different approach to organisation than platformists...the tradition really only makes sense when viewed in that context. If every group was outward looking or organised in that fashion I suppose it would be redundant. They don't. Even in Ireland, there would be anarchists who would have a different view of anarchism, in which case it's no harm, in my opinion, to be clear about our own approach.[/quote wrote:

So your now saying its they way you organise and not the fact there is some form of 'outward looking' that defines platformist groups.

If so could you not have said that in the first place and not wasted so much time with why your little group is better than others, "because....".

What are you a recruitment officer?

malatested
Posts: 50 Joined: 20-02-04
4 September, 2005 - 10:02

malatested wrote:

I'm trying to understand the logic of using a frame of reference in the context of these islands where most groups would follow similar patterns of organisation anyway, where there is no major synthesist organisation, where all organisations are 'outward looking' etc...

Quote:

Ok maybe I'm flogging it but here's a hastily thought up and probably crap analogy! -

As far as I know in rugby, there is only rugby union in Ireland and no rugby league. Still these rugby people describe themselves as the Irish Rugby Football Union. You might think it unnecessary as there isn't any rugby league here. I bet most of the time people only refer to plain rugby, but for the interested chap, digging for more detail, it will be explained to him that the rugby around here is “union”.

We are an anarchist group. Most of the time that suffices when explaining what we are. Sometimes, particularly with those interested in left politics and anarchism in particular we'd be pressed for more detail. Then we'd elaborate more on anarchist-communism, and the platformist approach.

Yes, but what is the platformist approach and how is it different from the approach of Organise!/AF/Solfed? It can't just be an issue of organisation. What are the platformist politics you mention which identify one organisation as 'platformist' and one not? I'm still waiting to hear?

Quote:
'Platformist' is in our paper, where I'm guessing Sam saw the two organisations mentioned (or maybe WCR), because Chekov put it in when laying it out and you're down as 'class struggle' down because that's what occured to him at the time. Not a whole lot of consideration went into it one way or the other. Dunno what you guys did with yours. BTW the are we still swaping papers? Haven't seen any around the office for a while. Care to resume?

Sure, we'll send you a few copies of the latest WCR.

---

Quote:
Not sure I understood you on the syndicalist paragraph. I don't see any contradiction between having an anarcho-syndicalist union and an anarchist group which acts in it AND in other unions. None of us are slaves to what previous anarchists thought...

This is what you actually said...

Quote:
I’m unfamiliar with British Anarchism and SolFed in particular, but from what you say it sounds like they themselves would be pretty similar to a platformist group. But an anarcho-syndicalist union which had tens of thousands of members, many of them non-anarchist, wouldn’t be.

...which was why I made the distinction between a-syndicalist propaganda group and union. So, why isn't a member of Solfed platformist given their method of organisation? Ok, it's because of their long term objective of anarcho-syndicalist union. So, one particular political approach, but one shared by non-syndicalist anarcho-communists everywhere.

James wrote:

I suspect that groups like Nefac and ZACF identified with the platformist tradition because it was similar in approach and politics rather than first agreeing the Platform and logically deducing “correct” platformist politics.

malatested wrote:

Well, Jimmy, you said before that :

James wrote:

I’m not sure that Platformist anarchist groups do share exactly the same political analysis.

malatested wrote:

So, now I'm confused. In any case, what are these 'correct platformist politics'

Quote:
Well, it's a tentative hypothesis, I'm not sure! I haven't had many conversations with the other groups and am guessing a bit. I only “suspect” that is the case. But it seems plausible. “correct” platformist politics was in inverted commas because it is not something I think is unambiguously deduced from the couple of documents.Look at it as an organic, bottom-up approach to coming to common positions. That was the point of that paragraph. I would imagine that each platfomist group has its own particular analysis that is a bit different from the rest but that we have enough in common to use the term.

Yes, but what are these 'common positions'?

malatested wrote:

would I as a member of Organise have [platformist politics]? Or, don't I have them because I disagree with you eg. on the north? Is this why I'm not a 'platformist'?

Quote:
Sounds like you're very very close. I could easily and repeatedly ask you why Organise! don't call yourselves – it's your decision - platformist as it is so very close to the platformist approach, but it would be a wee bit odd.

'Approach' to organisation or certain political issues?

Quote:
I thought you didn't identify with the platformist tradition because you thought it unnecessary to do so in Ireland. Don't think you're views on the north are strictly relevant.

Well, I think they are. I mean you talk of platformist politics. I don't know yet what these are. I look at the main political difference between us -the north, and so assume that because this is an approach we don't have in 'common' that must be the reason we're not 'platformist'. If it's a question of organisation, yes, we are platformist -though the term is redundant here which is why we don't use it, -but you're talking about 'political' 'platformist' positions. Which are what exactly?

Quote:

Incidentally, re George's comment on your pamphlet, I'd say there was a wide reaction to it, not simply pissed off. Some were baffled, and thought it misinterpreted some things a lot (e.g. stagist strategy) that it made responding difficult. In the end, we thought it would be better to wait until you've got your own pamphlet/position paper published, which we understand is sometime this year, and then to resume the discussion, preferably in person.

Well, there's no reason why we can't arrange a meeting to discuss this.

Quote:
To Mort (The Logician!)

There are anarchists who have taken a different approach to organisation than platformists...the tradition really only makes sense when viewed in that context. If every group was outward looking or organised in that fashion I suppose it would be redundant. They don't. Even in Ireland, there would be anarchists who would have a different view of anarchism, in which case it's no harm, in my opinion, to be clear about our own approach.

Ok, lifestylists, individualists ...folk who don't like organisation. Point is, if your in an organisation, it's fairly obvious you support the idea of organisation anyways. These folk in Ireland aren't running around trying to set up a synthesist organisation either.

revol68 ""Identity is a dream pathetic in its absurdity. You dream of being yourself when you've nothing better to do""
Posts: 17788 Joined: 23-02-04 Location: Belfast
4 September, 2005 - 12:44

well the platform is really a more polite libertarian version of "What is to be Done". The proles through their day to day struggles are unable to develop revolutionary positions in themselves. Libetarian communism being a political programme developed by "anarchist intellectuals" must be ijected into the class from without by a dedicated anarcho cadre.

The one thing all the worlds tiny little platform groups are very silent about is the "national executive" that is called for in the Platform.

Jimmy
Posts: 58 Joined: 18-06-05
4 September, 2005 - 12:52
malatested wrote:
malatested wrote:

...which was why I made the distinction between a-syndicalist propaganda group and union. So, why isn't a member of Solfed platformist given their method of organisation? Ok, it's because of their long term objective of anarcho-syndicalist union. So, one particular political approach, but one shared by non-syndicalist anarcho-communists everywhere.

Ok, let's assume there's a big anarcho-syndicalist union in England. It has workers of many opinions getting involved cause they see how great it is. Still doesn't mean they all immediately turn to anarchism. Other left tendencies, say Trotskyism, make concerted attempts to steer the union away from its anarcho-syndicalist origins. SolFed, for the sake of an example, would be the explicitly anarchist group organising within the union combatting these factions. Not the only one, but an extremely useful one. I'd rather that there was an anarchist group doing that than none.

So if that were the case, then they would be quite close to a group like the WSM. The reason I don't call SolFed or Organise platformist is I don't want to be foisting terms upon groups which they don't wish to do themselves. But I don't have a problem with them if they do. Better ask them I guess.

--------------

malatested wrote:
malatested wrote:

Yes, but what are these 'common [platformist] positions'?

First off, I can do worse then quote George Stapelton (whoever he is) as to the kernal of it before answering (or not answering!)

George wrote:
Well platformism is a theory of organisation but there are two aspects of organisation

1) Internally

2) Externally

Internally, platformism is fairly clear, you need theoretical and tactical unity, collective discipline and action, and federal strutures.

Externally, platformism is also fairly clear, you need different levels of organisation, and you need to engage with struggles as they happen and not wait until a struggle occurs that you think should happen.

As anarchists I would reckon that 95% of our ideas are very similar. So we are bound to be more or less the same. If you mean very detailed postions which platfomists share but other communist-anarchists do not, then I'm not sure that there are such significant unique postions. The fact that we prefer to identify explicitly with the Friends of Durruti et al is for our own benefit rather than to distinguish ourselves from other anarchist-communist groups.

I suspect you know as much if not more than me about the political positions of other platformist groups. I can't really help you more than indicate that I think that any such positions are basically boringly anarchist and a consequence of organic development. There isn't any “platfomist central” deciding who is and who isn't in. The groups probably chose the label “platformist” because it's a convenient label which assists securing their theoretical position and practical intervention. In other words it's primarily a tool for ourselves. If other groups can do the same without taking on the label, then great. I feel you're looking for an idealised model of theoretical consistency which doesn't exist in a world where the platformist groups have been attracted to it by their own particular experiences.

A hasty aside:I'm not sure I would separate questions of organisation and politics too much. It's easy to maintain ultra pure anarchist politics and not get involved in on the ground campaigns. Being involved with other people means sometimes that one's dream of an anarchist campaign gets diluted. For example, with grassroots in Ireland, there are a lot, probably a majority, of non-anarchists. This means at times that they are going to articulate positions, say neutrality, that we're not gone on. Or fairly pacifist type publicity. So in practice the WSM's orientation to intense involvement in lots of campaigns may result in us being less than pure. In real life, there isn't a perfect black and white world of cool anarchists and everybody else. It's very messy.

--------------

Quote:
I thought you didn't identify with the platformist tradition because you thought it unnecessary to do so in Ireland. Don't think you're views on the north are strictly relevant.

malatested wrote:
malatested wrote:Well, I think they are. I mean you talk of platformist politics. I don't know yet what these are. I look at the main political difference between us -the north, and so assume that because this is an approach we don't have in 'common' that must be the reason we're not 'platformist'.

I never thought that myself. I just thought it was a different political analysis, which happens – some people just have different ideas.

-----------

malatested wrote:
malatested wrote:If it's a question of organisation, yes, we are platformist -though the term is redundant here which is why we don't use it,

That's really interesting, before this thread I didn't realise that Organise! were platformist in terms of organisation - maybe a reason to use the term? wink. Anyway, in the past I would have been less enthusiastic about merging, not because of the National Question or Trade Unions, but because I thought there were separate approaches to the role of the anarchist organisation. This not being so, I'd be much more interested.

Personally I think it would be worth discussing in person both of the main political issues. While Boul and Joe provide fascinating historical insight, I'd be reasonably hopeful that despite our different historical analysis, a common position _going_forward_ could be worked out. Fundamentally we share the same class based analysis and goals...

On the trade unions it would also be worth discussing I think. It sounds like Organise! do have an issue with supporting the campaign for general secretary (or whatever it was) in Siptu. I remember at the time there was a fairly intense debate within the WSM, so it's not as if it's monolithic opinion there. I initially opposed it, but was persuaded by those more involved with unions at the time. There were arguments that I hadn't thought off (and have forgotten!), but I reckon that nobody in the WSM sees running candidates for better officials as a remotely attractive strategy for radicalising workers. In short we may have quite a bit in common there as well. It would be worth discussing in person. Online discussions can get a bit bogged down in the nitty gritty (I plead guilty).

If we're meeting up for the EWN, perhaps it's something we could discuss further then?

Revol: WSM don't agree with the national executive bit. Some of us think it was badly written rather than intended, but in any case it's not something I'm aware that any platformist group goes for. Platformist anarchism isn't just the platform!

mort
Posts: 14 Joined: 31-07-05
4 September, 2005 - 16:17
Jimmy wrote:
Revol: WSM don't agree with the national executive bit. Some of us think it was badly written rather than intended, but in any case it's not something I'm aware that any platformist group goes for. Platformist anarchism isn't just the platform!

Your confusing me again

If platformist anarchism is not just the platform, what is it, and why even bother to use the term and run the risk of being thought of as 'pure platformist'?

Why dont youz seperate yourself from such a misunderstanding by abandoning the term?

Jimmy
Posts: 58 Joined: 18-06-05
4 September, 2005 - 17:42
mort wrote:
If platformist anarchism is not just the platform, what is it,

Maybe have a reread off George's and mine comments. Or see http://nefac.net/node/544.

mort wrote:

and why even bother to use the term and run the risk of being thought of as 'pure platformist'?

I'd prefer if we could just use “anarchist” as I see it as a fairly logical development of anti-authoritarian thought from Bakunin's time but that is just the way things have turned out. I guess other tendencies emerged in the anarchist movement after the First International. They use “especifista” to mean the same thing in South America. We're not dogmatic about it and mainly describe ourselves as plain anarchist, but if pressed clarify go for platformist and it's useful for ourselves as I said above.

mort wrote:

Why dont youz seperate yourself from such a misunderstanding by abandoning the term?

Not everybody is rigidly literal minded so it's not that much of a problem. See the Nefac link for more details or http://www.struggle.ws/anarchism/platform.html,

mort
Posts: 14 Joined: 31-07-05
4 September, 2005 - 20:44
Jimmy wrote:

Not everybody is rigidly literal minded so it's not that much of a problem.

But most peopple are, when people see a spade do they do call it a spade in my experiance, an anarcchist is an anarxhist and a platformist group is a group which derives its orgasizational authority from 'the platform' , which is what the artical at nefac helps enforce, which is what the various refeferences on the WSM site to 'platformism' & platformist, & the Platform also enforce.

As a pont of reference for yourselfs within the anarchist movment, If you need to find that kind of validity, are you all that sure of your convictions, but hey it was probably the first writting you all read that has that 'anarcxhist chic'.I dont know. I'm trying to see something positive to the 'platformist tradition' but i cant. I can see positive things about 'the Platform' its self, but not its tradition. Sorry

malatested
Posts: 50 Joined: 20-02-04
5 September, 2005 - 15:47
Quote:

Ok, let's assume there's a big anarcho-syndicalist union in England. It has workers of many opinions getting involved cause they see how great it is. Still doesn't mean they all immediately turn to anarchism. Other left tendencies, say Trotskyism, make concerted attempts to steer the union away from its anarcho-syndicalist origins. SolFed, for the sake of an example, would be the explicitly anarchist group organising within the union combatting these factions. Not the only one, but an extremely useful one. I'd rather that there was an anarchist group doing that than none.

So if that were the case, then they would be quite close to a group like the WSM. The reason I don't call SolFed or Organise platformist is I don't want to be foisting terms upon groups which they don't wish to do themselves. But I don't have a problem with them if they do. Better ask them I guess.

Ok, fair enough, but what you describe is anarchists arguing for anarchist ideas. Again then, the terminology is redundant: it's anarchism. Why you call it platformism I don't know. I mean what you describe pre-dates the Platform anyways.

--------------

malatested wrote:

malatested wrote:

Yes, but what are these 'common [platformist] positions'?

Quote:
First off, I can do worse then quote George Stapelton (whoever he is) as to the kernal of it before answering (or not answering!)

George wrote:

Well platformism is a theory of organisation but there are two aspects of organisation

1) Internally

2) Externally

Internally, platformism is fairly clear, you need theoretical and tactical unity, collective discipline and action, and federal strutures.

Externally, platformism is also fairly clear, you need different levels of organisation, and you need to engage with struggles as they happen and not wait until a struggle occurs that you think should happen.

Well, I've already commented on this. Most anarchist organisations do this. But industrial struggles where WSMers/Organise! do not have members in the particular industry/union necessitates to some degree the possibility that the struggle will kick off before we can get involve.

Quote:
As anarchists I would reckon that 95% of our ideas are very similar. So we are bound to be more or less the same. If you mean very detailed postions which platfomists share but other communist-anarchists do not, then I'm not sure that there are such significant unique postions. The fact that we prefer to identify explicitly with the Friends of Durruti et al is for our own benefit rather than to distinguish ourselves from other anarchist-communist groups.

Well, Jimmy, this is exactly what I mean. If there are not 'significant unique positions' then why the terminology which, at the very least, implies that there are.

Quote:
If other groups can do the same without taking on the label, then great. I feel you're looking for an idealised model of theoretical consistency which doesn't exist in a world where the platformist groups have been attracted to it by t