Platformism

Platformism is a form of anarchist organization that seeks unity from its participants, having as a defining characteristic the idea that each platformist organization should include only people that are fully in agreement with core group ideas, rejecting people who disagree. It stresses the need for tightly organized anarchist organizations that are able to influence working class and peasant movements.

Platformist groups reject the model of Leninist vanguardism, instead aiming to "make anarchist ideas the leading ideas within the class struggle". According to platformism, the four main principles by which an anarchist organisation should operate are ideological unity, tactical unity, collective responsibility and federalism.

Overview

In general, platformist groups aim to win the widest possible influence for anarchist ideas and methods in the working class and peasantry—like especifismo groups, platformists orient towards the working class, rather than to the rest of the far left. This usually entails a willingness to work in single-issue campaigns, and towards trade unions and community groups; and to fight for immediate reforms while linking this to a project of building popular consciousness and organisation. Since platformism grew from the lack of structure during an insurrection, they reject approaches that they believe will prevent this, such as insurrectionary anarchism, as well as "views that dismiss activity in the unions" or that dismiss anti-imperialist movements.

The name derives from the 1926 Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft), published by the Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad, in their journal Dielo Truda ("Workers' Cause"). The group, which consisted of exiled Russian anarchist veterans of the 1917 October Revolution (notably Ukrainian Nestor Makhno who played a leading role in the Makhnovshchina of 1918–1921), based the Platform on their experiences of the revolution and the eventual victory of the Bolsheviks over the anarchists and other groups during the left-wing uprisings against them. The Platform attempted to address and explain the anarchist movement's failures during the Russian Revolution outside Ukraine. The document drew praise and criticism from anarchists worldwide and sparked a major debate within the anarchist movement.

Organisational ideas

The Platform describes four key organisational features which distinguish platformism:

• Tactical unity — "A common tactical line in the movement is of decisive importance for the existence of the organisation and the whole movement: it avoids the disastrous effect of several tactics opposing each other; it concentrates the forces of the movement; and gives them a common direction leading to a fixed objective".
• Theoretical unity — "Theory represents the force which directs the activity of persons and organisations along a defined path towards a determined goal. Naturally it should be common to all the persons and organisations adhering to the General Union. All activity by the General Union, both overall and in its details, should be in perfect concord with the theoretical principles professed by the union".
• Collective responsibility — "The practice of acting on one's personal responsibility should be decisively condemned and rejected in the ranks of the anarchist movement. The areas of revolutionary life, social and political, are above all profoundly collective by nature. Social revolutionary activity in these areas cannot be based on the personal responsibility of individual militants".
• Federalism — "Against centralism, anarchism has always professed and defended the principle of federalism, which reconciles the independence and initiative of individuals and the organisation with service to the common cause".

The Platform argues that "[w]e have vital need of an organisation which, having attracted most of the participants in the anarchist movement, would establish a common tactical and political line for anarchism and thereby serve as a guide for the whole movement". In short, unity means unity of ideas and actions as opposed to unity on the basis of the anarchist label.

History

The Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft) was written in 1926 by the Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad, a group of exiled Russian and Ukrainian anarchists in France who published the Dielo Truda journal. The pamphlet is an analysis of basic anarchist beliefs, a vision of an anarchist society and recommendations as to how an anarchist organisation should be structured.

Antecedents of the Platform

The authors of the Platform insisted that its basic ideas were not new, but had a long anarchist pedigree. Platformism is not therefore a revision away from classical anarchism, or a new approach, but a "restatement" of existing positions.

They cited Peter Kropotkin arguing that "the formation of an anarchist organisation in Russia, far from being prejudicial to the common revolutionary task, on the contrary it is desirable and useful to the very greatest degree" and argued that Mikhail Bakunin's "aspirations concerning organisations, as well as his activity" in the First International, "give us every right to view him as an active partisan of just such an organisation". Indeed, "practically all active anarchist militants fought against all dispersed activity, and desired an anarchist movement welded by unity of ends and means".

Problems caused by poor translations

In his book Facing the Enemy, Alexandre Skirda attributes much of the controversy about the Platform to the original 1926 French translation made by its opponent Volin. Later translations to French have corrected some of the mistranslations and the latest English translation, made directly from the Russian original, reflects this.

Other terms

Some platformist organisations today are unhappy with the designation, often preferring to use descriptions such as "anarchist communist", "social anarchist", "libertarian communist/socialist" or even especifist. Most agree that the 1926 Platform was sorely lacking in certain areas and point out that it was a draft document, never intended to be adopted in its original form. The Italian Federation of Anarchist Communists (FdCA), for example, do not insist on the principle of "tactical unity", which according to them is impossible to achieve over a large area, preferring instead "tactical homogeneity".

Especifismo

Especifismo (Portuguese: [eʃpesiˈfiʒmu], "specifism") is one of the two main forms of activism championed by Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (FARJ) and other South American anarchist organizations, the other being social insertion. Especifismo emerged as a result of Anarchist experiences in South America over the latter half of the 20th century starting with the Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU), which was founded in 1956 by Anarchists who saw the need for an organization which was specifically Anarchist. Especifismo has been summarized as:

• The need for a specifically Anarchist organization built around a unity of ideas and praxis.
• The use of the specifically Anarchist organization to theorize and develop strategic political and organizing work.
• Active involvement in and building of autonomous and popular social movements via social insertion.

Criticism

The Platform attracted strong criticism from some sectors on the anarchist movement of the time, including some of the most influential anarchists such as Volin, Errico Malatesta, Luigi Fabbri, Camillo Berneri, Max Nettlau, and Alexander Berkman, Emma Goldman and Grigorii Maksimov.

Synthesist alternative

As an alternative to platformism Volin and Sébastien Faure proposed synthesist anarchist federations. In place of the Platform's stress on tight political and organisational unity, the "synthesist" approach argued for a far looser organization that would maximise numbers i.e. a big tent approach. Platformists view such organisations as weak despite their numbers as the lack of common views means an inability to undertake common actions—defeating the purpose of a common organisation.

Errico Malatesta's views

While such criticisms indicated a direct rejection of the Platform's proposals, others seem to have arisen from misunderstandings.

Notably, Malatesta initially believed that the Platform was "typically authoritarian" and "far from helping to bring about the victory of anarchist communism, to which they aspire, could only falsify the anarchist spirit and lead to consequences that go against their intentions".

However, after further correspondence with Makhno—and after seeing a platformist group in formation—Malatesta concluded that he was actually in agreement with the positions of the Platform, but had been confused by the language they had used:

But all this is perhaps only a question of words.

In my reply to Makhno I already said: "It may be that, by the term collective responsibility, you mean the agreement and solidarity that must exist among the members of an association. And if that is so, your expression would, in my opinion, amount to an improper use of language, and therefore, being only a question of words, we would be closer to understanding each other."

And now, reading what the comrades of the 18e say, I find myself more or less in agreement with their way of conceiving the anarchist organisation (being very far from the authoritarian spirit which the "Platform" seemed to reveal) and I confirm my belief that behind the linguistic differences really lie identical positions.

See also

• Especifismo
• Federalism
• Synthesis anarchism, Volin's and Sébastien Faure´s response to platformism

Bibliography

• Avrich, Paul (1971) [1967]. The Russian Anarchists. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 241–244. ISBN 0-691-00766-7. OCLC 1154930946.
• Darch, Colin (2020). Nestor Makhno and Rural Anarchism in Ukraine, 1917-1921. London: Pluto Press. pp. 75, 140–145. ISBN 9781786805263. OCLC 1225942343.
• Malet, Michael (1982). Nestor Makhno in the Russian Civil War. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 163–164, 190–192. ISBN 978-0-333-25969-6. OCLC 8514426.
• Schmidt, Michael (2013) [2012]. Cartography of Revolutionary Anarchism. Edinburgh: AK Press. pp. 60–66, 80–85, 94–119. ISBN 978-1849351386. OCLC 881111188.
• Skirda, Alexandre (2002). Facing the enemy: A history of anarchist organisation. Translated by Sharkey, Paul. Oakland: AK Press. ISBN 1902593197. OCLC 490977034.
• Skirda, Alexandre (2004) [1982]. Nestor Makhno–Anarchy's Cossack: The Struggle for Free Soviets in the Ukraine 1917–1921. Translated by Sharkey, Paul. Oakland: AK Press. pp. 274–290. ISBN 978-1-902593-68-5. OCLC 60602979.
• van der Walt, Lucien; Schmidt, Michael (2009). "Militant Minority: The Question of Anarchist Political Organisation". Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. Edinburgh: AK Press. pp. 239–270. ISBN 978-1-904859-16-1. LCCN 2006933558. OCLC 1100238201.

Further reading

• Arshinov, Peter; Makhno, Nestor; Mett, Ida; et al. (2006) [1926]. The Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists. Translated by McNab, Nestor. Delo Truda – via The Nestor Makhno Archive.
• Balius, Jaime (1978) [1938]. Towards a Fresh Revolution. Friends of Durruti Group – via The Anarchist Library.
• Fontenis, Georges (1953). Manifesto of Libertarian Communism. Libertarian Communist Federation – via The Anarchist Library.
• Makhno, Nestor; Malatesta, Errico (1927–1930). About the Platform. Translated by McNab, Nestor – via The Anarchist Library.

External links

• Anarkismo.net - Multilingual anarchist news site run by over 30 platformist and especifist organisations on five continents