DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Anarcho-syndicalist organization?

184 posts / 0 new
Last post
Uncle Aunty
Offline
Joined: 18-09-11
Mar 26 2014 04:21

I will too from here on out.

Pennoid's picture
Pennoid
Offline
Joined: 18-02-12
Mar 26 2014 04:51

I think that the narrowly focused single demand, means they have a clear enough goal to evaluate their possibilty of success and carry it out, but that they also proscribe goals that are more lofty or avoid them altogether. I think that part of carrying on a protracted fight against bosses is seeing that it is possible to win (solnets show this!), but so is a specific longterm vision regarding the specific activity of union organizing, or whatever you want to call it (party building? I'm looking at YOU Bordiga!) Solnets give a great vision for a particular type of activity, identifying a demand and planning to win. I think that's a part of their success, is that it's very clear why it works. But what is "the demand" of a union campaign? Recognition? I hope not! It seems like we have to find the halfway point, in terms of what our goals are, between I want my stolen wages, and I want the wages system supplanted by anarchist/communist social relations.

Qualifications: I know Seasol has been doing reading groups, but I haven't been following it very closely. Success? Also, any other movement toward developing their politics?

Final: I might be in the minority here, but I think Solnet activity is what the IWW or whatever revolutionary grouping (the organic leadership of the class that is the defacto vanguard, lawl) should be doing as a project to interact with and build bonds amongst other working class bozoes in their areas. I don't think they should be front groups, I think that an IWW GMB or whatever could have like a Local Solidarity Committee which would focus on this activity, or it could be the incubator for training new organizers who are convinced by the OT-101: Hands on Experience!

I hope this clarifies my position, Nate!

EDIT: @UncleAunty

Yeah, I think that would be a great discussion. It's hard to try and pull scattered people together to do effective work. I know in my town, we're a group of like 8-15, scattered, georgraphically and politically. We've been doing a reading group pretty steady, and we've all worked on solnet activity in the past, but our time for dealing with that (or mine personally) has been eviscerated. Hopefully this summer we can get back to doing solnet work, we will see.

s.nappalos
Offline
Joined: 29-01-10
Mar 26 2014 18:40

On study, the problem is that the small group dynamics involved makes study shove people towards stagnation and nasty small group personality issues. Study is crucial, but in my experience when it's not linked to lived activity in people's lives it goes south.

I would de-reify solnets. I think they do great work, but don't think they're different than what a revolutionary union does. If an IWW GMB gets a contact from a fired worker they're doing solnet activity. If a solnet gets a contact from workers in a shop they too are doing that work. In previous years in the IWW I helped create a restaurant organizing initiative where our goal was explicitly not to try and "hold territory", but only struggle around issues and recruit members. We wanted to build networks that could fight around broader issues than the immediate shop. That work continues in Portland and has done a lot to create glimpses of that. That is explicitly happening city-wide and without any attempt to gain recognition, while imposing conditions on capital through networks created outside individuals and shops. That's just one example.

I would broaden it personally. I think anarchosyndicalist initiatives should tackle collective grievances of life against capitalism (housing, neighborhood, transit, workplace, immigration, police/prisons, etc) through direct action & tied to overt anti-systemic aims and objectives that are incorporated into the day-to-day work. Solnets, the IWW, some of the transit strikes, immigration actions trying to block deportations, and anti-eviction organizing all have things to offer there. Mostly its important when there's so few of us not to become depressed or isolated, and to consistently attempt to get our politics to aspects of people's immediate lives. Today is perhaps the best time in ages we've had for that.

redsdisease
Offline
Joined: 31-12-10
Mar 27 2014 08:08

I agree a lot with s.nappolos. I don't totally see why there needs to be a division of labor between say solidarity networks and revolutionary unions like the IWW. For example, in Portland, to use that city again, there is a relatively large and active IWW branch and a fairly new, but really active solidarity network. The Portland IWW has experience running successful solnet style actions in the recent past and there seems to be a lot of cross-membership. Now, there could be totally excellent reason for PDXSol and the Portland IWW to be separate organizations; perhaps the IWW wasn't interested in focusing on solnet type stuff, or maybe there was worry about lawsuits targeting an organization with more resources like the IWW. However, part of me feels that it may have just been sort of a "that works well in Seattle, lets transpose it over here" mindset, which perhaps doesn't consider ways that the solnet form could build on preexisting organizational structures and create something that is greater than the sum of its parts.

I'm not trying to shit on people's organizing, I really think both organizations are tremendous and engaging in really interesting organizing. I just wonder if the model of each city having a solidarity network and a revolutionary union which both do different, but related, work is really ideal or is just done out of habit in a sort of radical organization bingo.

On a related note: of interest might be Brighton SolFed's Hospitality Workers, which strikes me as extremely similar to what Scott Nappolos was just talking about in Portland. I don't know any more than what's on their site, but they're apparently a network of hospitality workers that engage in solnet style actions but are part of a revolutionary union (or union initiative, I guess).
http://www.solfed.org.uk/brighton/brighton-hospitality-workers-growing-a...

klas batalo's picture
klas batalo
Offline
Joined: 5-07-09
Mar 27 2014 08:20

i live in a city where the same people were trying to do the iww, a solnet, and a political group...no it was a dumb idea. at least with the so few people type situation. (not that we didn't learn anything from such experiences)

on the other hand places like the bay, pdx, seattle, tc with large anarchist/left scenes i can see why either for legit practical reasons (time and energy) or why perhaps ideological or personal reasons people would want things separate.

also the debate goes sorta two ways in the solnet world of if they should be pro anarcho-/revolutionary syndicalist or more apolitical than the people in the IWW who want it to be "no politics in the union" so that could be another factor. also solnets for some are possibly a fresh start, whereas some feel the IWW or other groups have baggage.

my position on this is way more like nate's though...i think you should focus on one unitary group until there deserves to be a split in the division of labor (that is of course provided everyone is on the same page politically more or less)

s.nappalos
Offline
Joined: 29-01-10
Mar 27 2014 13:41

Klas, I personally have come to believe those of us in non-left activist or college towns vastly overestimate the context in those others. In the end usually there's the same amount of people willing to do the nitty gritty in NYC, the Bay, Portland, wherever. So unitary org ftw!

R. Spourgitis
Offline
Joined: 27-03-12
Mar 27 2014 15:02

Just wanted to address something OliverTwister said a few posts back which I don't really agree with. This business of the platformist political organization pushing for "apolitical mass movements" is not something I have ever seen in the US. I don't think it's "central" to the idea of having a political organization at all, unless you can cite specifics that's a weird reading into it. If anything, a lot of our activity and discussion in movement work has been about instilling more revolutionary politics in existing mass things, not less or not at all.

I can see the point that has been occassionally made by having something separate that's specifically political you draw out and away more needed expressly political militants and discussions from the mass work, I think that's fair. But I don't think IWWs engaged in movement-type work are exempt from that either then. In general, I find the discussions around the political org vs. IWW and/or Solnets to be really reductive and supposing these huge gulfs of activity and approach that on the ground are much muddier.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Mar 27 2014 17:17
Errico Malatesta wrote:
Syndicalism (by which I mean the practical variety and not the theoretical sort, which everyone tailors to their own shape) is by nature reformist. All that can be expected of it is that the reforms it fights for and achieves are of a kind and obtained in such a way that they serve revolutionary education and propaganda and leave the way open for the making of ever greater demands. Any fusion or confusion between the anarchist and revolutionary movement and the syndicalist movement ends either by rendering the union helpless as regards its specific aims or with toning down, falsifying and extinguishing the anarchist spirit.

...In my opinion the anarchists should not want the unions to be anarchist. The anarchists must work among themselves for anarchist ends, as individuals, groups and federations of groups. In the same way as there are, or should be, study and discussion groups, groups for written or spoken propaganda in public, cooperative groups, groups working within factories and workshops, fields, barracks, schools, etc., so they should form groups within the various organisations that wage class war. Naturally the ideal would be for everyone to be anarchist and for all organisations to work anarchically. But it is clear that if that were the case, there would be no need to organise for the struggle against the bosses, because the bosses would no longer exist.

Malatesta's theory of Organizational Dualism is one of the precursors of modern platformist/especifista ideas of separation of mass and political organizations. It is very clear that Malatesta was arguing for anarchists to de-politicize the unions where they had influence. This idea is certainly upheld by Alternative Libertaire, FdCA in Italy, and I believe some of the latin Especifistas. US platformists are more eclectic so I wouldn't paint them all with the same brush.

jolasmo
Offline
Joined: 25-12-11
Mar 27 2014 17:22
Quote:
Just wanted to address something OliverTwister said a few posts back which I don't really agree with. This business of the platformist political organization pushing for "apolitical mass movements" is not something I have ever seen in the US. I don't think it's "central" to the idea of having a political organization at all, unless you can cite specifics that's a weird reading into it. If anything, a lot of our activity and discussion in movement work has been about instilling more revolutionary politics in existing mass things, not less or not at all.

Yeah I was somewhat baffled by that as well, I'm glad I'm not the only one. I feel like there's a lot of strawmanning goes on in these types of discussions whilst attempting to define anarcho syndicalism against the platformist "other". Here's what the actual platform actually says:

Quote:
A degree of anarchist organization of the masses is also required. If this is to be accomplished, we have to operate along two lines: on the one hand, by the selection and grouping of revolutionary worker and peasant forces on the basis of anarchist theory (explicity anarchist organizations) and on the other, on the level of grouping revolutionary workers and peasants on the basis of production and consumption (revolutionary workers' and peasants' production organizations, free workers' and peasants' cooperatives, etc.).

Quote:
is our opinion that the task of anarchists in the ranks of [the syndicalist] movement consists of developing anarchist ideas within it and of steering it in an anarchist direction, so as to turn it into an active army of the social revolution. It is important to remember that if syndicalism is not given the support of anarchist theory in good time, it will be forced to rely on the ideology of some statist political party.

So going by the platform itself, platformism a) advocates political economic organisations and b) sees the role of Platformist political organisations as one of politicising non-political syndicalist unions. This doesn't seem at all dissimilar from what some posters on here have taken as the role of anarcho-syndicalist political groups i.e. "to develop a political-economic org, to develop its political character". It's certainly a far cry from wanting to empty out our "fighting organisations" of any political aspect.

~J.

jolasmo
Offline
Joined: 25-12-11
Mar 27 2014 17:49
OliverTwister wrote:
It is very clear that Malatesta was arguing for anarchists to de-politicize the unions where they had influence. This idea is certainly upheld by Alternative Libertaire, FdCA in Italy, and I believe some of the latin Especifistas. US platformists are more eclectic so I wouldn't paint them all with the same brush.

Except a) Malatesta wasn't a platformist, and was vocally critical of the platform and it's authors, and b) that's not clear at all: what Malatesta says is that we shouldn't try to politicise unions, which isn't the same thing as wanting to actively depoliticise them.

Also, what possible reading of specifism means striving for the depoliticisation of workers organisations? Everything I've read about specifism and every conversation I've had with specifists suggests precisely the opposite!

~J.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Mar 27 2014 20:36
FdCA wrote:
The feature which best distinguishes Anarchist Communists from all other schools of thought within Anarchism is what we call "organizational dualism". This means that apart from the general organization of the entire proletariat (as outlined in Chapter 1.2, dedicated to Fabbri), there is also the political organization of Anarchist Communists, or, to use the usual terms adopted in the movement's debates, beside the Mass Organization there must also be the Specific Organization.

...

Then there are those Anarchists who deny the need for a Specific Organization. Anarcho-Syndicalists of various types and Revolutionary Syndicalists lay their trust in the spontaneous evolution of the proletarian masses and that accordingly if the labour unions are left alone, sooner or later they will arrive at the decisive clash with the boss class. Malatesta already opposed this idea, held by Monatte, in 1907 at the International Congress of Amsterdam. He clarified how the proletariat's associations for resistance would inevitably slide into reformism, thus blurring sight of the goals. This was the economicism which Lenin pointed out, though he wanted to fight it by instilling class consciousness into the masses from without, but which Anarchist Communists fight by acting as a critical conscience from within. The historically proven decline of all unions which were born revolutionary (starting with Monatte's own CGT), has led some Anarcho-Syndicalists to seek the answer not in political organization, but in the creation of unions which are based on a pre-determined revolutionary idea. In other words, to create unions which are exclusively composed of conscious, revolutionary elements. The result is a strange mix of mass organization and political organization which is basically an organization of anarchists who set themselves up to do union work.

...

For Anarchist Communists these theoretical problems are resolved with organizational dualism, assigning precise tasks and separate functions to the two organizations.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Mar 27 2014 20:48

What the organizational dualists always conveniently ignore even while creating strawmen versions of syndicalism (that they "lay their trust in the spontaneous evolution of the proletarian masses and that accordingly if the labour unions are left alone, sooner or later they will arrive at the decisive clash with the boss class") and claiming that there is a "historically proven decline of all unions which were born revolutionary", is the question of who led the charge for CNT integration with the state and disarming of the workers? It wasn't the die-hard syndicalists, it was the leading lights of the FAI.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 27 2014 21:48

By "syndicalist", it is used to simply mean unionist. Does not mean a revolutionary body as we tend to use it.

I dunno, I think alot of this is straw man arguments. And not really sure of the purpose.

s.nappalos
Offline
Joined: 29-01-10
Mar 27 2014 23:53

To be fair back in the early 2000s the whole platformist pure and simple unionism was much more popular, and still is dominant in Europe. Olivertwister's info is likely from back then? I don't hear those arguments much anymore thankfully.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 28 2014 00:19
s.nappalos wrote:
To be fair back in the early 2000s the whole platformist pure and simple unionism was much more popular, and still is dominant in Europe. Olivertwister's info is likely from back then? I don't hear those arguments much anymore thankfully.

Here's where the "broad stroke" doesn't work. In the US, there are numbers of "platformists" "especifists", "dual organizationalists" who,more then once said to me something like: " a/s as a tacic with libcom as the goal"

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Mar 28 2014 01:17
OliverTwister wrote:
Often times when the default idea is that there can and should be only revolutionary propaganda groups and non-revolutionary fighting organizations, this leads to attempting to pull the revolutionary politics out of the fighting organizations. This was certainly one of the main ideas leading to the CGT split, we've also seen it with current platformists supporting Red & Black coordination groups (and encouraging them to have even less explicit politics) for the same reason.

I've seen this type of ideas with some platformists in Europe (including within the UK IWW), but I don't quite see how it's relevant to the CNT - CGT split. As far as I know, there weren't much Platformist ideas involved on either side of that.

jolasmo
Offline
Joined: 25-12-11
Mar 28 2014 12:48
OliverTwister wrote:
What the organizational dualists always conveniently ignore even while creating strawmen versions of syndicalism (that they "lay their trust in the spontaneous evolution of the proletarian masses and that accordingly if the labour unions are left alone, sooner or later they will arrive at the decisive clash with the boss class") and claiming that there is a "historically proven decline of all unions which were born revolutionary", is the question of who led the charge for CNT integration with the state and disarming of the workers? It wasn't the die-hard syndicalists, it was the leading lights of the FAI.

The FAI isn't a platformist organisation, so not sure what the relevant of this is really, but in any case, it's not as though the non-FAI syndicalists were any less enthusiastic in pushing the CNT towards collaboration. Arguably the only force in the Spanish anarchist movement at the time to argue a consistently revolutionary line was the FoD. And yeah, platformists of paint a distorted picture of syndicalism as well, for similar reasons: I don't think this excuses the sweeping generalisations and bizarre arguments made about platformism here. I mean, assuming our goal here is to theorise the world as it exists and try to change it, as opposed to point scoring off of rival libertarian tendencies.

~J.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Mar 28 2014 13:23

@FelixFrost:

If you have a chance and can read Spanish I'd recommend Relanzamiento de la CNT. It is a pretty in-depth examination of all of the debates in and around the CNT from the death of Franco to the splits in 79 and 84.

Unfortunately I seem to have lost my copy so I'm going on memory. However in some of the "critical" reviews such as Bicicleta there was a noticable tendency of people arguing for organizational dualism, that the CNT should accept the workplace elections and government funding in order to reach the workers while specifically anarchist organizations could carry on revolutionary anarchist propaganda work.

klas batalo's picture
klas batalo
Offline
Joined: 5-07-09
Mar 28 2014 16:41
R. Spourgitis wrote:
Just wanted to address something OliverTwister said a few posts back which I don't really agree with. This business of the platformist political organization pushing for "apolitical mass movements" is not something I have ever seen in the US. I don't think it's "central" to the idea of having a political organization at all, unless you can cite specifics that's a weird reading into it. If anything, a lot of our activity and discussion in movement work has been about instilling more revolutionary politics in existing mass things, not less or not at all.

TBH I don't know comrade. I think there is a definitely varying opinions on this. Sure some want a political organization to anarchize the mass movements. Some see the political organization to just make more anarchists and it's role in mass movements as just building them, because they should be apolitical/pluralistic.

klas batalo's picture
klas batalo
Offline
Joined: 5-07-09
Mar 28 2014 16:45
jolasmo wrote:
Quote:
Just wanted to address something OliverTwister said a few posts back which I don't really agree with. This business of the platformist political organization pushing for "apolitical mass movements" is not something I have ever seen in the US. I don't think it's "central" to the idea of having a political organization at all, unless you can cite specifics that's a weird reading into it. If anything, a lot of our activity and discussion in movement work has been about instilling more revolutionary politics in existing mass things, not less or not at all.

Yeah I was somewhat baffled by that as well, I'm glad I'm not the only one. I feel like there's a lot of strawmanning goes on in these types of discussions whilst attempting to define anarcho syndicalism against the platformist "other". Here's what the actual platform actually says:

Quote:
A degree of anarchist organization of the masses is also required. If this is to be accomplished, we have to operate along two lines: on the one hand, by the selection and grouping of revolutionary worker and peasant forces on the basis of anarchist theory (explicity anarchist organizations) and on the other, on the level of grouping revolutionary workers and peasants on the basis of production and consumption (revolutionary workers' and peasants' production organizations, free workers' and peasants' cooperatives, etc.).

Quote:
is our opinion that the task of anarchists in the ranks of [the syndicalist] movement consists of developing anarchist ideas within it and of steering it in an anarchist direction, so as to turn it into an active army of the social revolution. It is important to remember that if syndicalism is not given the support of anarchist theory in good time, it will be forced to rely on the ideology of some statist political party.

So going by the platform itself, platformism a) advocates political economic organisations and b) sees the role of Platformist political organisations as one of politicising non-political syndicalist unions. This doesn't seem at all dissimilar from what some posters on here have taken as the role of anarcho-syndicalist political groups i.e. "to develop a political-economic org, to develop its political character". It's certainly a far cry from wanting to empty out our "fighting organisations" of any political aspect.

~J.

I agree here, and actually wrote an article about the Anarchism and Syndicalism section of the platform recently. http://libcom.org/library/nestor-makhno-theoretician-anarcho-syndicalism

I think Makhno would have disagreed with Malatesta, Fabbri, and the Especifistas on this point. I think there may be something to this too (but don't want to speculate) in why many times Especifistas in South America distinguish themselves from the few explicit platformist groups in South America.

klas batalo's picture
klas batalo
Offline
Joined: 5-07-09
Mar 28 2014 16:49
s.nappalos wrote:
To be fair back in the early 2000s the whole platformist pure and simple unionism was much more popular, and still is dominant in Europe. Olivertwister's info is likely from back then? I don't hear those arguments much anymore thankfully.

I think they are actually starting to become on the minority, though who knows with such things, old habits die hard. Also there is a difference between internal opinion and outward political line that may be behind the leading ideas in the milieu.

R. Spourgitis
Offline
Joined: 27-03-12
Mar 28 2014 17:45
klas batalo wrote:
R. Spourgitis wrote:
Just wanted to address something OliverTwister said a few posts back which I don't really agree with. This business of the platformist political organization pushing for "apolitical mass movements" is not something I have ever seen in the US. I don't think it's "central" to the idea of having a political organization at all, unless you can cite specifics that's a weird reading into it. If anything, a lot of our activity and discussion in movement work has been about instilling more revolutionary politics in existing mass things, not less or not at all.

TBH I don't know comrade. I think there is a definitely varying opinions on this. Sure some want a political organization to anarchize the mass movements. Some see the political organization to just make more anarchists and it's role in mass movements as just building them, because they should be apolitical/pluralistic.

Sources, klas? I'm not saying it's never been said anywhere, ever. And I'm certainly not familiar with the discussions and debates from platformists in the US in the early 2000s. I just have yet to see this argument about "de-politicizing" or apolitical mass movements be explicitly made, honestly I can't think of a single example where that position was laid out. Willing to be corrected though.

Other than that, I agree with Jolasmo that pulling quotes and positions from Malatesta and referencing the FAI just doesn't fit with the assertion. And regarding Especifismo, one of its core tenants is to build revolutionary mass movements from within them.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Mar 28 2014 18:25

How about the quote from one of the FdCA's primary documents that references Malatesta's theory of organizational dualism as an antecedent of their own?

How about Liberty and Solidarity, who actively argued as IWW members for the IWW to become less explicitly political, and whose leading light even argued that the CGT in Spain was being held back by it's attachment to its anarchist heritage?

I'm not saying that this is omnipresent with everyone who advocates specific political organizations. What I am saying is that there is a discernable trend for this with anarchists who advocate organizational dualism and strict separation of political and economic organizations.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 28 2014 22:07

Olivertwister....... well, we can always cherry pick anything. I mean, there are "reformist" "non-political "trade unionists in the IWW and long time have been. But does that make "the iww" such?
Hardly, but they exist.

For sure, I'm not a platformist or an especifist, though I will take the good from them. As I do from my long held anarcho-syndicalist beliefs. But I at least try and parse things. Even when looking at other groups or unions. Even within organizations locals may reflect different things from their larger organizations. For me, it makes for a more balanced and whole view of what and who I'm looking at. And within the north american context, a whole lot of "assumptions" about platformism, especifism and even anarcho-syndicalism can sort of be put to the side.

I think its just best to raise specific criticisms of whichever organizations and their practices.

klas batalo's picture
klas batalo
Offline
Joined: 5-07-09
Mar 31 2014 15:47
R. Spourgitis wrote:
klas batalo wrote:
R. Spourgitis wrote:
Just wanted to address something OliverTwister said a few posts back which I don't really agree with. This business of the platformist political organization pushing for "apolitical mass movements" is not something I have ever seen in the US. I don't think it's "central" to the idea of having a political organization at all, unless you can cite specifics that's a weird reading into it. If anything, a lot of our activity and discussion in movement work has been about instilling more revolutionary politics in existing mass things, not less or not at all.

TBH I don't know comrade. I think there is a definitely varying opinions on this. Sure some want a political organization to anarchize the mass movements. Some see the political organization to just make more anarchists and it's role in mass movements as just building them, because they should be apolitical/pluralistic.

Sources, klas? I'm not saying it's never been said anywhere, ever. And I'm certainly not familiar with the discussions and debates from platformists in the US in the early 2000s. I just have yet to see this argument about "de-politicizing" or apolitical mass movements be explicitly made, honestly I can't think of a single example where that position was laid out. Willing to be corrected though.

Other than that, I agree with Jolasmo that pulling quotes and positions from Malatesta and referencing the FAI just doesn't fit with the assertion. And regarding Especifismo, one of its core tenants is to build revolutionary mass movements from within them.

Also I think it is important to go to the source stuff, so OliverTwister is really sorta on target. If you read the stuff on organizational dualism, and then see how that got translated to the world of Especifismo and not just the americanized reductive version of we should have revolutionaries intervene in social movements (either to build or politicize them), then we can actually talk about the real arguments being made. I think that is how we end up with all this variance, cause some folks take the original texts 100% to heart, and also some of the critics of dual organizationalism are probably more read up on the specifics than the actual practitioners in the US context at least.

R. Spourgitis
Offline
Joined: 27-03-12
Mar 31 2014 16:47
klas batalo wrote:
R. Spourgitis wrote:
klas batalo wrote:
R. Spourgitis wrote:
Just wanted to address something OliverTwister said a few posts back which I don't really agree with. This business of the platformist political organization pushing for "apolitical mass movements" is not something I have ever seen in the US. I don't think it's "central" to the idea of having a political organization at all, unless you can cite specifics that's a weird reading into it. If anything, a lot of our activity and discussion in movement work has been about instilling more revolutionary politics in existing mass things, not less or not at all.

TBH I don't know comrade. I think there is a definitely varying opinions on this. Sure some want a political organization to anarchize the mass movements. Some see the political organization to just make more anarchists and it's role in mass movements as just building them, because they should be apolitical/pluralistic.

Sources, klas? I'm not saying it's never been said anywhere, ever. And I'm certainly not familiar with the discussions and debates from platformists in the US in the early 2000s. I just have yet to see this argument about "de-politicizing" or apolitical mass movements be explicitly made, honestly I can't think of a single example where that position was laid out. Willing to be corrected though.

Other than that, I agree with Jolasmo that pulling quotes and positions from Malatesta and referencing the FAI just doesn't fit with the assertion. And regarding Especifismo, one of its core tenants is to build revolutionary mass movements from within them.

Also I think it is important to go to the source stuff, so OliverTwister is really sorta on target. If you read the stuff on organizational dualism, and then see how that got translated to the world of Especifismo and not just the americanized reductive version of we should have revolutionaries intervene in social movements (either to build or politicize them), then we can actually talk about the real arguments being made. I think that is how we end up with all this variance, cause some folks take the original texts 100% to heart, and also some of the critics of dual organizationalism are probably more read up on the specifics than the actual practitioners in the US context at least.

It's been a while now since I've read my source texts on especifismo (although tbh, I'd like to revisit some of that because I don't recall anything close to advocating depoliticization of mass level), and even longer than that on the dual organizationalism of Malatesta. But even without going back to look stuff up it seems like a funny argument to make that because US platformist/especfista influenced groups don't follow an exact historical line, yours and OliverTwister's statements are accurate because if they/we did, we would have these positions which you are citing are incorrect in the first place.

As far as euro variants of platformism, sure I see what you're both saying. Also, not a scene I follow but having heard and seen enough on here and the old Anarchist Black Cat forum regarding L&S I don't doubt it. But klas, you still haven't cited a single example of contemporary US groups or individuals who are repping said position.

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Mar 31 2014 20:59

To characterise Liberty and Solidarity as with their sordid litle manouevrings inside the British IWW as typical of platformism in general really is the act of a ninny and I say that as someone who has a critical (though far from totally unfriendly) approach to platformism. To say that Platformists/especifists/ or indeed anarchists who argue for an anarchist political organisation like Malatesta seek to actively depoliticise syndicalist unions really -either wilfully or not- misunderstands the whole nature of the anarchist political organisation in relation to mass organisations. Strawmanning indeed.

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Apr 1 2014 01:34
OliverTwister wrote:
However in some of the "critical" reviews such as Bicicleta there was a noticable tendency of people arguing for organizational dualism, that the CNT should accept the workplace elections and government funding in order to reach the workers while specifically anarchist organizations could carry on revolutionary anarchist propaganda work.

Well I'm sure there were plenty of people that argued for both these things, but I don't really see them as that closely related. I mean, the reason the CNT rejects workplace elections and government funding isn't that this would hamper their anarchist propaganda work.

In general, I think it's good when syndicalist organisations focus more on workplace struggles and less on spreading abstract anarchist propaganda.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Apr 1 2014 12:13

Actually the reason why the CNT rejects workplace elections and State funding is precisely because it goes against their anarchism. And the anarchist approach to workplace organizing

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Apr 1 2014 12:59
Felix Frost wrote:
OliverTwister wrote:
However in some of the "critical" reviews such as Bicicleta there was a noticable tendency of people arguing for organizational dualism, that the CNT should accept the workplace elections and government funding in order to reach the workers while specifically anarchist organizations could carry on revolutionary anarchist propaganda work.

Well I'm sure there were plenty of people that argued for both these things, but I don't really see them as that closely related. I mean, the reason the CNT rejects workplace elections and government funding isn't that this would hamper their anarchist propaganda work.

In general, I think it's good when syndicalist organisations focus more on workplace struggles and less on spreading abstract anarchist propaganda.

Yes but the debate was about what the relationship of revolutionary anarchists to the working class should be. Some argued that it should be direct, that anarchists should act as such within a revolutionary union, while others argued that the union should "go to the workers" through the workplace elections, and that anyways anarchists should be in a specifically anarchist organization which could intervene.