Anarchist Black Cat

81 years ago a group of anarchists in Paris gathered from a number of countries including the Ukraine anarchist Nestor Makhno published the 'Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft)'

This proved to be an enormously controversal document in the anarchist movement at the time and continues to be today. Over the next weeks we will be reading (or in many cases re-reading) it, the various documents written in reply to it and writings about it by modern platformists.

Start reading now, the version we are using is here:
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1000

You can get a PDF pamphlet which includes this version and most of critiques of the platform as well as the replies from the authors at http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=5348

Timetable for discussion
Start posting comments Jan 14 for the translator's and general intro. During that week also read the General part.

January 21 start comments on General part. Start reading the Constructive part.

January 28 start comments on the Constructive part. Start reading the Organizational part. Start thinking about other stuff to read after that on the platform.

Feb 4 start comments on the Organizational part. Propose some thing or things that are on the platform.

Feb 11 start comments on next reading.


For the enthusastic reader here is lots of additional information at
The NEFAC page - http://www.nefac.net/node/544

Today being the 14th I think its time to start off this thread. Anyone else actually find it depressing how well the introduction continues to sum up the current state of the anarchist movement, 80+ years after it was written?



In terms of controversy I spot at least two segments of the introduction which modern 'platformists' may or may not agree with.

These are


Although I'm not so sure if there is disagreement on the question of the development of a program or a simple reality that some organizations may not yet have developed to the point where that can be meaningful

A little bit earlier the introduction read



I'm pretty sure at least some of the North American comrades argue a position close to the opposite of this, ie that until "much . be accomplished in the world of labour " there will be no emergance of a " general anarchist organization"

So because I got a day off work because of the snow storm here in Boston, I have some time to put some comments down. Sorry it got so long. I promise I won't be such an ass about writing so much next time I comment. I just had time today and it got long;and since it's written I figured I might as well post it.

So, again sorry about the length, here are some of my thoughts on these sections...

Regarding this...



and this...



I don't think we emphasize this enough or emphasize that this was intended to be a draft and a "starting point" as they say. This is really important because others often read the platform and think that it's the extent of our politics. I think we need to emphasize statements like this from our Anarkismo Editorial Statement:

(bold/ italics added)

Also, as an overarching theme that I think we all need to think more about is the issue of accountability:



If we believe in accountability as the solution to the disorganization that we see, then how are we being accountable (self-discipline) and holding others accountable (both personally and organizationally) for our commitments, principles and activities.

As far as the one organization:

(bold/italics added)

and this...
(bold/italics added)

I would say that we generally do and should reject this idea of gathering (even of anarchists communists specifically) all the anarchists into one organization in favor of what I think most of us believe in: revolutionary pluralism. That is, I think we should and seems like already do believe and do work with who we can attract to our groups and band together what groups we can and assume that our platformist/especifist tradition -inspired organizations are going to be a minority among many minority groups contributing as much as we can to the social movements (and ultimately social revolution) with our organizing and ideas; but in collaboration with a lot of other libertarian minority revolutionary groups and individuals who also have a lot to contribute.



I think that we need to be and generally are interpreting this as our specific preference for our organizations; but that we should still link up with organizational anarchist networks to collaborate where we can collaborate as we should link up with organizational libertarian left grouping for the same purpose and focus. I'm sure we can learn from each other and strengthen our contribution to social movement activity/ education, etc. the more we find ways to work together.



I agree with what Andrew says on this...



I feel like sometimes we try to force specifics on programs more than there is agreement on those specifics (especially because of different regional and local contexts) and then don't really follow through or manifest the views any way after they're described. That's why I like the general nature of the anarkismo editorial statement. And I appreciate what Manuel had to say about his experience in Portugal as a lesson for actually building a stronger consensus through our activities and collaboration before proclaiming a unity on issues that don't exist.

I think that this is especially important because of our context with numbers. Not only was Dielo Truda talking about a Russian Movement of 10,000 active anarchist militants (excluding the more numerous stronghold of the Eukraine). But they were also talking about these numbers in a less populous world. Sure we can come up with general principles and general statements of unity and we can always revise what we come up with. But I think we should avoid too much specificity with our limited numbers which I think sometimes serves to hinder our relationship building with other groups and recruitment of active militants (of course I'm only speaking from my experience, which I'm sure isn't necessarily like others experiences). Succinct and general aims and principles with the specifics always discussed through on going dialogue and publications seem a better way to develop a homogenous programme that is built out of experience and incorporating multiple people and views within that discussion.

On this line...
(bold/italics added)

I think that too often we get in heated arguments and insulting matches that don't really help with the individualist types. I think that it's more important and probably more useful to people paying attention to our arguments to do the best we can to - as they say- "calmly" parry any attacks and focus our energy on clarifying the basic differences in our opinions and assumptions on anarchism and organization and leave it at that.

There's one thing that I dont like with the way the Platform is usualy presented in the english world. While it is rightly presented in the context of the russian revolution, it usualy take out the general context of european anarchism. The authors of the platform where not the only one talking about those issue, the whole anarchist world was dealing with it.

At about the same time the authors where issuing the platform, the french Anarchist communist union was also issuing a libertarian communist manifesto (and actually, the position where close enough for the platform authors, at least Makhno and Arshinov, to join the UAC latter that year).

In Italy, where anarchist communists where struggling with the issue of organisation for a long time (Malatesta wrote a 3 piece serie on that in Agitazione in 1897; Fabbri wrote a booklet long report on the issue for the 1907 International Conference), the organisation was already in place and had adopted a Program in 1920 (written by Malatesta).

So, that was not in a vacuum. Actually, there was already functioning General union of anarchists in some of the most important national movements.

What's new with the platform is that it is straigth forward and harsh. An electrochoc. And that it made no concession to anarchist "sensibility".

I'll come back on the substantive points later in the discussion but 'for amusement only' the intro to the PDF was co-incidentally (?) posted to infoshop.org today and is coming under fire from the usual quarters including Chuck0 and fake Makhno. Chuck's post qualifies for two irony prizes although I'm sure pointing out why this is on infoshop would get your post deleted.
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.p ... 4084618219

My bad. In reading it over in preparation for the study group, I liked how all the articles were pulled together in one PDF and wondered if it had been posted to Infoshop (it hadn't) so I posted it. Probably wasn't the most productive idea; but whatever, there are so many folks who's intro to anarchism in the US is infoshop, so might as well have that there for interested folks. Guess I should register for the forum to defend and clarify a little bit since I posted it so people don't write it off immediately by reading the comments on there... ugh, bad idea

Oh not at all, the post is in the public section of this site so there is no issue there and the only thing worse than people talking about you is people not talking about you. (Oscar Wilde)

I'm in the process of translating this report by Fabbri for inclusion in a book of his writings that I'm preparing (though I may decide to include it in the forthcoming publication of the 1907 Amsterdam Congress book). Actually, the report was written for the Anarchist Congress in Rome in July 1907 but also presented at Amsterdam.

As Phebus says, "the organization [in Italy] was already in place". True. He is referring to the Unione Anarchica Italiana (Italian Anarchist Union), whose Program was indeed written by Malatesta... in order to include as many anarchists as possible in the organization, ie basically turning the Unione Comunista Anarchica Italiana (notice the name difference) into a synthesist federation. The UCAI was formed in 1919 and became the UAI with the adoption of Malatesta's programme in 1920. The "new", watered-down organization did not last long and indeed had already folded by the time the debate on the Platform emerged. Whether this was purely due to the effects of the new fascist regime in Italy is a matter of debate, though it was certainly a factor.

For more on this see http://nefac.net/node/1249 and http://www.fdca.it/fdcaen/press/pamphlets/sla-3/index.htm

I like the sound of this argument--lets be open minded rather self righteous and dogmatic--but I have to wonder if this was not the attitude of many Russian anarchists during the period of time when Bolsheviks were plotting, and beginning to execute, the hijacking of the revolution. So I would advocate as much revolutionary pluralism as possible, while realizing there may be instances when we find it necessary to call out other political groups--perhaps Leninists, or perhaps other groups, the nature of whom are as yet unforeseen-- in a seemingly "sectarian" manner.

Having said that, I too see problems with a unified program for all anarchists everywhere, simply on the grounds that conditions vary so greatly from one locale to another (and even between cities and the countryside in a small region) that this level of unity would hamper, rather than increase, our effectiveness. (Given that the authors elsewhere proclaim for federalism, they probably agreed. But I find the wording of this section bothersome.)

Moving on to my notes from the reading: I was struck by the reflection that the split in the anarchist movement continues to be between collectivists and individualists (rather than pro or anti organizationalist, or workerists vs primitivists, or whatever). The terms change, but the essence remains: for what (for example) is the origin of primitivism's call to end "mass" society, but a fundamentally individualist attitude? Most all the, ah, schools of thought within anarchism can still be classified as one or the other.

However, the document attributes the failure to form specifically anarchist organizations in Russia, entirely to a desire not to offend the sensibilities of individualists, and I'm not sure i buy that. I suspect there was also something of a attitude among class struggle anarchists, that anarchism should be simply another school of thought within the labor movement, with no need for its own organizations. In fact, soon after, the document refers to anarcho-syndicalism limiting itself to penetrating the world of labor, adding that even within the world of labor, little is to be accomplished without a specific organization. (Correct if i wrong, but i think many anarcho-syndicalists hold that view today, the WSA in the US being a notable exception.) Anyway, hard to lay that blame at the door of "worry over offending individualists".

Maybe in some section of the world, especialy in the anglo world, but at the same time, we must note that some things have changed in many countries, at least as far as organisation goes.



This have changed since 1926. Many national anarchist organisations, both from the "synthesist" and "platformist" tradition, have successfully established themselves and where able to last. In France, the synthesists reorganised in the Federation anarchiste in 1953. That's 55 years ago! Furthermore, the organisation is evolving away from classical, Faure'ist, synthetism and more and more toward a Voline "true" synthesist of "social anarchism". It's no longueur an organisation "with contradictory theory and tactics with no forward planning or continuity in their work". In the platformist tradition, there's a 40 years organisational continuity starting with the ORA. (ORA form as a tendency of the FA in 1967, become an independant organisation in 1970, split in two in 1976, the majority becoming the OCL wich continue to this day and the minority forming the UTCL wich, in 1991, merge with a youth federation to form AL wich continue to this day). I think the same can be said of the Italian movement. In the english world, we should also note that while still small both the WSM and AF have a continuity spaning over 3 decades.

So, I say that there's one thing that have changed: it was proven that anarchists can form lasting organisations.



I dont think an International program would make sense now. But organisation wide programs certainly make sense. I think that theoretical development should develop organicaly. NEFAC was certainly not ready to go beyond short A&P in the begining. And I'm not sure if it could go further even now since there's much difference between the US & Canada & Quebec. But... In Quebec, I think we would be ready now to work on a program / manifesto. This would certainly help ciment our theoretical & strategic unity.



I, for one, completely agree with that!

***********************************************************



There's no magic solution for that. We are volontary association, so it's always hard. But I think that part of the problem is organisational, at least in NEFAC. It's not enough to proclaim organisation, at one point you need to... organise! Centuries of volontary organisations, especialy in the social movements, have led to the adoption of a number of organisation practices that seriously help accountability. Having a good secretariat is an exemple. Every serious organisation keep minutes of their meetings and start a new meeting by reviewing the minutes of the last one... A good way to review decisions and what was done and not. Another feature of most organisations is a coordinating body that have the duty to follow on the decision and see that they are implemented. I really think that we need to rethink the balance between centralism and federalism. Here's a lesson that the UTCL draw from their experience when they formed AL, it really made me think:



My take is that there's so much you can ask of a volontary organisation. Comrades have lifes, they work, they are also generaly active in social movements, there's a limit to what they can do. At one point, you need means to carry on wich include office space and (oh scandal!) paid staff. But this require a critical mass. In the mean time, maybe we should consider electing a coordinating committee...



I both agree and disagree with this statement. Big tactical and strategic differences can paralyse an organisation. When we started NEFAC, uniting all of the libertarian communists would (was) a mistake because there was a great divide over our analysis of trade-unions and mainstream social movements (fucking ultra-leftism!). We should never let the drive to unity paralyse us. But we should always strive for the greatest unity possible, to surmount our contradictions by creating new synthesis, to win over as many comrades as possible. And down the road, our attachement to a specific organisation, should never prevent us from merging with groups close enough to us. For exemple, I see no reason why NEFAC, the WSA and the various anarcho-communists active in the IWW that see the need for a political organisation could not merge over time in the USA. (but then, we also need to be able to function as an organisation...)

****************************************************************



That was not my reading of the document. I did not understand they where specificaly talking about individualists but about individuals. This said, it is true that there was a great divide among class struggle anarchists in Russia, between anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists specificaly. If my memory serve me well, anarcho-syndicalists where in favor of involvement in the mass movements and specificaly of building a labor movement (wich was almost non-existent in Russia) while the anarcho-communists where more political and insurrectionalists (wich made a hell of a lot more sense in 1917 in Russia then say in 2008 in Vancouver...).

Recently, Manfredonia issued a book (Anarchisme et mouvement social) that say that the classical separation of anarchism currents in individualist, communist, syndicalist was artificial. Based on the actual praxis of militants, instead of their professed ideology, he came up with a new classification: insurrectionalist, syndicalist, educationist. He say that generaly --except for a few individuals-- it's the whole movement that adopt one or the other in phase, depending on the level of the class war.

«I too see problems with a unified program for all anarchists everywhere, simply on the grounds that conditions vary so greatly from one locale to another»

Dear Comrade,

we are talking of people with a vast field of common conceptions, we are talking about people who agree with each other, in theory, at least!

So, it is a common sense evidence that an international program can only be about very general features concerning:

A- What is - in terms of values - an anarchist communist society? How can we see that a society is a communist one? That is our ultimate goal, so we must be as clear as possible about it.

B- What are the methods we favour and the ones we disagree to reach such society, and why?

I think any one of you could answer these questions... it's a matter of putting it in some dept, as a collective endeavour.

The program issue? Why is it an issue?
This has to do with the «complex» I told before: «the disciple complex».
We just need to decide what are the contents to write it down in the respective parts.

Just to say the Adriana Dada's pamphlets is absolutely brilliant. One of the best things I've read this year. I don't suppose anyone is considering translating some of his/her L' anarchismo in Italia: fra movimento e partito is there? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

I don't think Manuel and I have any substantive disagreement. The difference is largely linguistic (hardly surprising under the circumstances). To me, the word "program" has connotations of something fairly detailed.

So we agree on the need for basic international agreement, with room left for regional autonomy to account for local variation (that does not conflict with the agreement).

Edit: in fact, our "program" could be far more concrete than it is currently, and still be loose enough to suit me!

I'll pass on your compliments to her.

As for Adriana's book, you know I don't need much nudge-nudging. In fact, I've actually already translated over half the text of the book (though the documentary appendix is actually longer than the text itself and I haven't got near that yet, and dreading doing so. If you've ever read 19th century Italian you'll know why...). However, for several reasons this is a long-term project:

a. the book is copyrighted by the (bourgeois) publisher, though this is not insurmountable
b. my priorities at the moment are finishing the Amsterdam Congress book and then the compendium of Fabbri, and
c. Adriana is intending to update the book during the next year or so (as it stands it "finishes" in the early '70s, ie just before the best bit...

Certainly a certain Norwegian comrade too. I don't have black n' white views on this though. It could be that a strong "general anarchist organization" will be able to establish itself first and take the initiative to revitalize the workers movement. However I think it's more likely that we won't grow much before a revitalized workers movement emerges. Hence I think the current medium-term strategic focus should be on mass work (i.e. devoting more much more time to pupil, student, worker, community organizations and so on, than on the anarchist organization). Obviously that's a minority view within the platformist currency. I see Phebus strongly disagrees with my views on this.

I want to clarify that my preference for mass organizations right now is very much connected to the current specific situation (where neither strong mass movements or anarchist organizations exist). I'm (of course) in favor of shifthing the focus back to the anarchist organization when a revitalized workers movement emerges. The right way to build such a movement - almost from scratch - is not through our anarchist organizations though, but through actually building the movement.

Also, Randys point on the fact that a lot of anarcho-syndicalists also thinks not much can be accomplished (...) without an anarchist organization, is spot on.

More from me later today..