Splitters! The New Org in Glasgow
Dec 22 2006
Hey everyone, wanted to weigh in on the new "platformist" organisation in Glasgow that Dundee United was talking about, since I'll be a founder member. The old thread turned into a shitstorm (revol's still not banned?? Huh???), so here's a new one where we can hear ourselves think. I'm happy to discuss things but anyone flaming and trolling really should just go have their fun on alt.christian.teen or something.
As ever, Dundee, though very smart, has trouble getting what he means across. He's the same in real life. Always using a jargon word (ie platformist) where a simpler phrase might do, and getting defensive rather than defending the idea properly. On the other hand he works harder and has is a better practical organisational thinker than anyone else I know.
As a counterpoint, here's my thoughts (not necessarily Dundee's or anyone else's):
I think a lot of posters missed the point, not that it's their fault. This isn't about creating a miniature sect with appropriate purity because we have something against SolFed or AFed or Class War or the IWW or the Wombles or the Anarchist Tea Party or your gran. It's not about one or two people trying to rally everyone else to a specific position on the miner's strike or something either.
Instead, there's a few of us in Glasgow who are libertarian lefties who are or have been involved in the broader class struggle (mainly around housing issues / the GHA at the minute). There's no more chalkboard or we'd still be coordinating through that, but lessons have been learned from the chalkboard. We have broad agreement about what we want to do and how we want to do it, so we're creating an organisation to coordinate our activities. If other people agree with what we want to do and how we want to do it, they're welcome to join.
This isn't a recipe for an organisation with hundreds of members. Nor is it in conflict with the other feds. If there was an active AFed or SolFed around here I'd probably be in it. A member of this organisation could easily be a member of others as well. This is also not an organisation, at this stage, designed to have much overhead- it's all about our involvement in other struggles, as individuals. If we find ourselves meeting success and recruiting more members, then we'd look into expanding more aggressively, pushing the org, etc. It would be lovely if that happened but maybe it won't.
I hope this clarifies some of the worries expressed.
Dundee and I knocked up a wee statement that reflects our thinking. It hasn't been passed by anyone else though, so it's not necessarily a policy statement, just a simple-language wording of what we're about:
Quote:
We will coordinate our involvement in existing class struggles with the dual aim of improving people's lives and building truly democratic social movements and institutions of and for the working class. We hope that these can become the basis of a new, classless, society. We want a serious approach to combining theory and practise where we set targets and assess ourselves against those targets, and build new theory based on what we learn. No bullshit - let's just see what we can actually do to help, and work towards more working class power.Our strategy and tactics will be based on what works, not on an abstract theory. The community and workplace are both sites of struggle against the ruling class, and struggles in both must be fought. In some workplaces a "red" union such as the IWW may be the best option, in others a democratic network of trade union members may be the better option. These are tactical decisions, not points of rigid principle.
We will settle strategic and tactical disagreements by vote, and act in unity once the issue is settled.
We are very interested in involving anyone who agrees with these principles and is serious about the struggle.
Dec 22 2006
#2
Neither!
Right now, it's a small, tightly-nit, group of left-libertarian militants with quite close agreement on strategy. This strategy focuses on community action. So far there's no defined structure other than "voting".
If we get significantly bigger in future we'll need to do proper work on the theoretical & tactical unity end of things, and adopt federalism. That's a bit far off though.
Dec 22 2006
#3
Quote:
I'm a little unclear as to exactly what you're talking about here. Is this a broad libertarian left political organisation with strongly defined structures or more of a loose network of millitants with a strong focus on democracy and community action?
"We will settle strategic and tactical disagreements by vote, and act in unity once the issue is settled."
Comrade the fact that we wrote the above, and have made clear a number of times that we are trying to form a platformist organisation I think spells out our position; we want a tight knit group to co-ordinate our activities. Comrade Mo was just stressing that we didn't see our efforts in any way in opposition to any of the existing political groups and that it was unfortunate that it has been perceived that way.
Dec 22 2006
#4
Also that acting with unity doesn't mean thinking in unity, or not being involved in other organisations and doing stuff with them too.
Dec 22 2006
#5
Moh Kohn wrote:
Neither!Right now, it's a small, tightly-nit, group of left-libertarian militants with quite close agreement on strategy. This strategy focuses on community action. So far there's no defined structure other than "voting".
If we get significantly bigger in future we'll need to do proper work on the theoretical & tactical unity end of things, and adopt federalism. That's a bit far off though.
Fair dos. Good luck with it.
Dec 22 2006
#6
Quote:
We will settle strategic and tactical disagreements by vote, and act in unity once the issue is settled."Comrade the fact that we wrote the above, and have made clear a number of times that we are trying to form a platformist organisation
How does quote above = platformism? It's just the basics of any organisation.
Dec 22 2006
#7
revol68 wrote:
How does quote above = platformism? It's just the basics of any organisation.
They've said what they mean by "platformism" - that they will get involved in struggles/campaigns as an organisation; and that's where they'll differ from the AF and SolFed, though the AF do that in Defy-ID anyway.
Dec 22 2006
#8
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
We will settle strategic and tactical disagreements by vote, and act in unity once the issue is settled."Comrade the fact that we wrote the above, and have made clear a number of times that we are trying to form a platformist organisation
How does quote above = platformism? It's just the basics of any organisation.
It's not supposed to = platformism, it's a response to the part of the question which asked if they intended to be a 'loose network of militants'. So the relevance of the statement was; No, obviously not, because we're going to vote on things then act in unity. Which isn't what a loose network does.
Dec 22 2006
#9
John. wrote:
revol68 wrote:
How does quote above = platformism? It's just the basics of any organisation.They've said what they mean by "platformism" - that they will get involved in struggles/campaigns as an organisation; and that's where they'll differ from the AF and SolFed, though the AF do that in Defy-ID anyway.
well considering they don't seek to be a mass revolutionary organisation but rather just a small group of anarchists co ordinating their activity around campaigns they are in, I don't see how that equals Platformism, unless of coutse you think that five solfed members from the one industry meeting up and deciding how to move forward as Platformism.
Anyway I'm off to take a shite, in accordance with the principles of the platform, of course.
Dec 22 2006
#10
Quote:
This isn't a recipe for an organisation with hundreds of members. Nor is it in conflict with the other feds. If there was an active AFed or SolFed around here I'd probably be in it. A member of this organisation could easily be a member of others as well. This is also not an organisation, at this stage, designed to have much overhead- it's all about our involvement in other struggles, as individuals.
That is pretty far from the Platform
Fuck me it's like every time some people get together and decide on something by voting they are possessed by the spirit of Makhno.
Dec 22 2006
#11
gangster wrote:
every time some people get together and decide on something by voting they are possessed by the spirit of Makhno.
Dec 22 2006
#12
Quote:
The old thread turned into a shitstorm (revol's still not banned?? Huh???),
Dec 22 2006
#13
Meh, I've never used the word platformism to describe this; I read the platform once, ages ago. Don't really remember much except that it was a bit vague.
Can we talk ideas and practicalities instead of semantics please? Admins, if a big "Is this really platformism?" discussion invades this thread could you split it please?
Dec 22 2006
#14
Quote:
Neither!Right now, it's a small, tightly-nit, group of left-libertarian militants with quite close agreement on strategy. This strategy focuses on community action. So far there's no defined structure other than "voting".
If we get significantly bigger in future we'll need to do proper work on the theoretical & tactical unity end of things, and adopt federalism. That's a bit far off though.
I've gotta tell you that it sounds like an affinity group more than an org. Is it possible for you to be an affinity group of a larger org?
Quote:
Comrade the fact that we wrote the above, and have made clear a number of times that we are trying to form a platformist organisation
Well, then you have my support with your endeavor! Fight for communism, death to the facists and all that good stuff!
Quote:
Also that acting with unity doesn't mean thinking in unity, or not being involved in other organisations and doing stuff with them too.
Which would illustrate the platformism of your organization. Theoritical unity and tactical unity internally, so as to be able to coordinate larger activities with whoever is available, yet the ability to work on your own. Sounds good so far.
Quote:
Can we talk ideas and practicalities instead of semantics please? Admins, if a big "Is this really platformism?" discussion invades this thread could you split it please?
Fair enough. I like the way that you guys are thinking. I understand it as a tightly coordinated affinity group. Then, tightly coordinated affinity groups loosely and collecively working together wherever possible.
Dec 22 2006
#15
Comrade Wangwei,
Thanks for your supportive comments. At the moment yes it is clear we are at the affinity group stage, and so we are hardly a general union of anarchists. We would love to see something like that grow but we have to be realistic. Did you get a chance to read our opening document: Is There A Need For A New Glasgow/Scotland-wide Anarchist Group ?
I think current thinking would be to see a larger Scottish/UK-wide platformist organisation develop as well as see some kind of national co-ordinating body of all the libertarian socialists (similar, perhaps, to what the Other Campaign has been trying to do in Mexico).
Dec 22 2006
#16
Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
The old thread turned into a shitstorm (revol's still not banned?? Huh???),
look scrot, i've no problem with your wee group, i'm just pointing out it's not platformist.
Seriously what is it with anarchists being ignorant of their own suppoused politics, we have IWW members saying it isn't syndicalist and pointing out Solfed as a specifically syndicalist organisation and now we have people claiming their group is platformist when it clearly is no such thing.
Dec 22 2006
#17
I was just wondering why form another organisation? Why not form a new branch of the AF???
Dec 22 2006
#18
WeTheYouth wrote:
I was just wondering why form another organisation? Why not form a new branch of the AF???
because as your other sensible person (not Dundee United) said they aren't looking to be such an organisation, they are just trying to co ordinate their activities within the various campaigns they are involved in as individuals.
Dec 23 2006
#19
Revol should be banned permanently. He has nothing to contribute beyond vitriol.
Quote:
look scrot, i've no problem with your wee group, i'm just pointing out it's not platformist.
Excuse me but who the fuck are you to judge - we've called it a platformist organisation. As far as I can see you're a nasty little tosser whose organisational activities consist of posting on web forums extensively to slag others off. Your opinions simply don't count and the sooner you're permanantly banned the better and more populous the libcom boards will be.
Dec 23 2006
#20
Quote:
Why not form a new branch of the AF?
Because we would like to do something different to what the AF does. We have no problem with the AF and what it does. We just want to do something that the AF doesn't, and probably won't ever, want to do.
Dec 29 2006
#21
I was thinking about this organization that you guys are working to form, and I remember reading the FdCA's most recent document from their recent party congress. They said that they are looking to help found organizations and support them.
I think that you guys should contact them, as they are, in my opinion, the vanguard Anarchist Communist organization in the world today. Getting propoganda and advice from those guys would help out a ton. Also, why not work closer with the WSM? Have you looked into the PLP? Maybe you can work closely with them as well.
I guess what I'm saying, is to understand the dialectic of federalism in relation to being a platformist organization.
Dec 29 2006
#22
Quote:
I guess what I'm saying, is to understand the dialectic of federalism in relation to being a platformist organization.
You did what in platform shoes now?
Dec 29 2006
#23
Wangwei - are you talking about the "progressive labor party" in America?
DU - my memory is not always perfect. However, are you the same as the old tagname of "Nick xxxx"? You would seem to be, seeing as your are a scottish platformist and you recently signed "Nick" to one of your messages.
If you are the same poster, I remember you saying something akin to "Anarchists should practice social insertion into the SSP". Did you say something like that?
Admin - name edited for privacy
Dec 29 2006
#24
Haha, probably!
Dec 30 2006
#25
Quote:
We just want to do something that the AF doesn't, and probably won't ever, want to do.
Like what?
Dec 30 2006
#26
Quote:
If you are the same poster, I remember you saying something akin to "Anarchists should practice social insertion into the SSP". Did you say something like that?
I very much doubt it. I don't think that would be a valid thing to do. There are better reasons to be involved with the SSP than that.
Dec 30 2006
#27
OliverTwister wrote:
DU - my memory is not always perfect. However, are you the same as the old tagname of...
If people stop using a name, that is probably because they don't want it to be linked with what they're saying on an internet message board. The question was fair enough, but how about editing the post to remove the name?
Dec 30 2006
#28
Quote:
Like what?
Intervening as an organisation on a programmatic, planned and strategic basis into organisations and struggles as essentially the sole point of the group's political activity.
Dec 30 2006
#29
posi wrote:
OliverTwister wrote:
DU - my memory is not always perfect. However, are you the same as the old tagname of...If people stop using a name, that is probably because they don't want it to be linked with what they're saying on an internet message board. The question was fair enough, but how about editing the post to remove the name?
I did it.
Dec 30 2006
#30
Thanks guys!
I'm a little unclear as to exactly what you're talking about here. Is this a broad libertarian left political organisation with strongly defined structures or more of a loose network of millitants with a strong focus on democracy and community action?