Explenation of Platformist Anarchism

http://www.akpress.org/2003/items/constructiveanarchism

There is a reading group thread with a lot of platformist contributions over at http://www.anarchistblackcat.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=94

There is load of stuff links off that including the various historical debates

Of course, this always the Platform itself.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform/plat_preface.html

AnarkIsta, I should also note that the platform reads something to the effect (paraphrasing): 'Anarcho-syndicalism is the means, anarcho-communism is the end'

Aye, Platformism and Syndicalism are not neccesarily in conflict at all as far as i can see. I know quite few people who are both, in the UK and internationally...

Of course when I'm pressed for time this interesting topic comes up.

I think the links above give a good sense of the where the different viewpoints are at. It's a pity that the Maximoff "Constructive Anarchism" is still not available on line.

In 2008 what I think it instructive is not what are the differences. In basic, naked form, yes, there are differences. Some are subtle, some more distinct. The real heart of the matter, for those of us who are anarcho-syndicalists and anarchist-communists, is the need for an organized anarchism. An anarchism which is working class based, promotes class struggle views (on the job, in the community and in the schools).

What I would suggest is you not get caught up on the historical clash of personalities or blue prints that may have been proposed. What is most fundemental as you develop your thinking and views is how best can an organized anarchism be practiced. At times will be a cross over of ideas, of views and traditions.

I would say that anarcho-syndicalism is of great value when both the anarchism and the syndicalism are fused in a meaningful way. Neither by themselves will be able to move forward a construictive program for self-management.

Good luck!

good post!

It is a pity, and as I understand Boul wanted to scan it. Since I know some comrades from my union wanted to scan it too (we have a copy in our library for years), maybe we could share the work - us scanning it, while Boul and crew OCR-ing it (being native English speakers), than we could upload it to libcom library or something?

AnarkIsta, you might want to check out the following anarcho-syndicalist websites. These will give you the widest possible texts by anarcho-syndicalists.

I post these links not out of any political sympathy for some of the sites hosts, but to help a young comrade have full and free reign to documentation that was not available to me when I was a teenager.

Aside from the libcom library, I would then recommend

http://anarchosyndicalism.net/index.php

The other sites I would suggest would be from France, but have some decent stuff in english:

http://cnt-ait.info/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=8 (CNT-AIT)

http://www.fondation-besnard.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=39 (CNT-Vignoles)

http://www.pelloutier.net/welcome/index.php

Good reading to you!

In 2008 what is instructive is to realize that the vast majority of class struggle anarchists aren't from the working class and without being able to address that singular issue it will be impossible for anarchism to be relevant regardless of which fringe political sub-cult anyone espouses.

I bought this recently and read it. It would be really good to have it online.

syndicalist wrote:
In 2008 what I think it instructive is not what are the differences. In basic, naked form, yes, there are differences. Some are subtle, some more distinct. The real heart of the matter, for those of us who are anarcho-syndicalists and anarchist-communists, is the need for an organized anarchism. An anarchism which is working class based, promotes class struggle views (on the job, in the community and in the schools).

Where on earth did you get that one from? Speaking as a class-struggle anarchist meself, the majority of like-minded comrades who I know, past and present, are solidly working class. Granted, a few comrades may well not be working class

syndicalist wrote:
In 2008 what I think it instructive is not what are the differences. In basic, naked form, yes, there are differences. Some are subtle, some more distinct. The real heart of the matter, for those of us who are anarcho-syndicalists and anarchist-communists, is the need for an organized anarchism. An anarchism which is working class based, promotes class struggle views (on the job, in the community and in the schools).

Where on earth did you get that one from? Speaking as a class-struggle anarchist meself, the majority of like-minded comrades who I know, past and present, are solidly working class. Granted, a few comrades may well not be working class

Post continued...... (sent in error!)

but these comrades are certainly not "the vast majority".

You don't live in the U.S. where everything is stupid.

Yeah, there may not be that many class struggle anarchists in the wee north of Ireland but they are all working class. Based on anecdotal evidence and the fact that thug lives there I'll take his word on the good ol US of A.

Most 'anarchists' I've met from the US have problems even grasping the reality of class division preferring to focus on ethnicity, race and gender to the exclusion of class. Their politics usually end up coming across as some sorta 'middle-class' white guilt trip. There have been notable exceptions, namely blackstarbhoy and some comrades from NEFAC.

As for Constructive Anarchism - coming soon online.

Eh.... I'll throw the US (and perhaps soon be Canadian) Workers Solidarity Alliance (WSA) in the mix of class struggle anarchist organizations with a solid class bias ---- since 1984 WSA has its roots and traditions in the anarcho-syndicalist movement.

as far as I'm concerned the platform reflects a general (and understandable, but nevertheless unavoidable) impatience amongst those who wrote it.

the role of libertarian communists should surely be to advocate a certain type of analysis - according to which they hope the working class will organize. They can't expect to actually organize the working class directly (it's far too vast) and they can't hope to lead the working class towards its own emancipation (that would be Leninist essentially).

This means, therefore, that liberatarian communism is pretty destined to be a frustrating experience - advocating ideas that are unlikely to be adopted in their entirety (and very likely to be rejected in their entirety!), but nevertheless avoiding a more interventionist position (at least not beyond the community/workplace in which individual anarchists are located within) (for the reasons stated above).

It seems, therefore, that platformism arises from this understandable frustration which arises from the centre of libertarian communist ideas - but that in seeking to overcome that frustration, platformism merely acts to fool its advocates that it might be possible to overcome those frustrations (which it can't - at least not without ceasing to be libertarian communism).

that sounds super effective so it does.

This is a bit of a fluffing of terms. Organising and leading are exactly what you should be doing all the time, unless you simply exist in other people's campaigns or better yet - write about them to give them the benefit of your hands-off analysis. Its about caution when doing so and what kind of leadership you present; is it essentially a coordinating role that is empowering others to take the same intitiative, or are you creating a situation where people look to you to do it all for them or tell them what to think on every issue? There is a certain amount of hierarchy in any group; strive to minimalise it through proper checks and balances and by making it open. If someone has the expertise, lets all just admit it and make sure they devolve it as much as possible.

Everything from organising an anti-war demo, to a strike to a newsletter are organising and leading; if i popped a newsletter about school privatisation through someone's door and they called me to asm what to do or with some questions, i'd answer them on both counts. Bam. Leadership.

Next i'll be sticking them in gulags and and denouncing them in Pravda

I've been in anarchist outfits that actually centred aorund one single person. They'd complain about being asked what to do on every single little thing, and the reason it had got like that was cos they weren't creating different roles in the group but pretending they were all equally involved and aware. Which is patently nonsense, in any group, ever.

To continue on this - when was the problem with leninism ever that it lead? The problem with leninism is that it treated the class like mugs for a tiny band of elite revolutionaries who had license to do whatever the fuck they liked with them cos only the elite understand the 'lessons of history'.

So this can mean anything from selling people out for factional gain, to rounding them up and killing them.

This is a wee bit different from asking someone to join your campaign.

This is a classic anarchist fluff. For years i've heard we shouldn't recruit, we shouldn't organise, cos thats what the Leninists do. No. The Leninists leech your money and time to force you to do whatever they like. The problem with the Leninists is not that they take initiative or start campaigns. The problem with the Leninists is that they are Leninists.

um, wtf syndicalism?!

you couldnt of said it better boul

he could have sung it or done an animated .gif

I think that's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

If you want to be about empowering others to take initiative, then clearly you aren't going to be telling them how to act.

The problem with the platform is that it seeks to go one step further than advocating taking initiative; it wants to tell people how to act (or at least to centralize the process of deciding how to act).

But you didn't; you said both organising and leading were illegitimate. Which is quite something else.

what does 'how to act' mean here? You are going to be telling them why they should fight and how as well, and a lot of the time you are going to be asking for their time and money too

- no, thats not what i'm saying tho. You think i am still talking about just hoping people do it for themselves, thats not what i said; i said we should take initiative ourselves. This encourages others to do similar sure; but its not JUST encouragement, its the doing part as well.

... to an extent. Like i say, its about setting up ur org to combat any elitism from developing. It varies from group to group, but i would say there is nothing in the platformist constitution that prevents every decision from being democratic.

Unless you oppose a delegate system. In which case you oppose the vast majority of anarchist orgs.

You can of course say that every member can do what they like on any issue and say what they like and still be a representative of the group; you can say that every local branch can do what it likes; you can say you are just a group of ideas-men; this is all legitimate and fairly common.

I just don't think it works.

it took me a long time to get the Platform. Basically I think it's totally innane, and it's only a fluke of anarchism that it should matter. The essence of the platform is that to work together, you need to have some level of basic agreement. If you can't agree amongst yourselves about what you want to do and how to do it, your time will be consumed with infighting and minimizing the positives of working together with others.

Instead we should have groups with political aims that have some level of basic agreement. That's it. I mean there's other stuff in there of course, but that's the main idea. The only reason it matters is that historically there have been weird organizations filled with massive contradictions that parallized anarchist organizations. Today in North America the closest thing we have to that are the hazy anarchist networks.

Personally I don't call myself a platformist, and I'm hesitant to call myself a syndicalist as I have some critiques of syndicalist history (though some european syndicalists have moved past the mistakes say of Spain, France, Mexico, USA, etc). Still I draw from both ideas, and believe in the need for political organization amongst like minded comrades to make our impact as anarchists in our mass libertarian work more fruitful, and trying to build mass organizations on a libertarian basis that can be spaces for developing consciousness during the ebb and flow of disruptions. I tend to fall heavier on the mass work side of things, because I've seen activists and political scenes be too insulated (& consequently develop weird analyses) from the general state of affairs, but the more you do work in groups with lots of different ideas, the more the need becomes apparent to have a place for collective reflection and strategizing (specific organization).

Exactly.

Only difference is i would call myself a platformist, cos i think that its not just hazy anarchist networks but a lot of decent class struggle anarcjist groups that dodge the issue of 'basic agreement' and that many 'can't agree amongst themselves about what you want to do and how to do it'. With the Platform, its right there: get on or jog on.

Plus setting up secret central committees to make sure you don't get outvoted at conference sounds like a lark, and then setting up a secret group inside that one is like double plus fun.

I am Syrian activist , came to know more about anarcism and as a man who came from stalinist party it was so big change to embrace anarchism...I do think that the worldwide struggle means not only more freedom for all in the north or the south but a real sel-managed democratic world that is based on justaice and real equality for all...I think also that this is the right exit out of the national and religious hate and division in our area , the middle east..I am still new to anarchist ideas but i think i got the core , which is a good start

Welcome to Libcom, Mazen! Why don't you start a new thread introducing yourself, letting us know what's going on in Syria, and asking any questions you might have about anarchism / libertarian-communism? (Many people might miss your post in this thread.)

http://libcom.org/node/add/forum