A-Infos (en) France, Le Plateforme - Alternative Libertaire Dossier: The Platform's 100th Anniversary (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

We have read with interest and attention the dossier published by UCL on 
the 100th anniversary of the "  Platform for the Organization of 
Libertarian Communists  ." This dossier prompts a number of comments 
from us, which we intend to offer without any desire to be polemical. 
This text is therefore our contribution to the debate. ---- Let's say it 
right away: we found this dossier well-constructed and, for the most 
part, honest. However, it does raise some questions for us. For example, 
in the article "  The Place of the Platform in Organized Anarchism  ," 
we learn that the UCL claims a "  Platform legacy[which]seems to occupy 
a primarily symbolic place  ," while noting that "  Malatesta's 
political legacy[now]plays a more prominent role in the organizational 
methods of our movement  ." The article rightly points out that " 
Malatesta advocates an organization based on the autonomy and individual 
responsibility of its members, particularly in the implementation of its 
program  ." Thus, Malatesta defends an antithesis to the Platform.

It would therefore seem that there are some contradictions in all of 
this. Moreover, the file includes a sub-folder entitled "  Debates  " 
which shows that major disagreements exist within UCL regarding the very 
concept of the organization.

But to remain concise, in our present contribution to the debate, we 
will focus on the essentials. And let us state immediately that we agree 
with the assertion made in the previously cited article that " 
positioning oneself within the legacy of the Platform does not appear to 
be the same as adopting the text as the statutes or central text of the 
organization  ." The Platform is a dated text. It is not a bible. To 
claim to be a proponent of Platformism today is not to take such a text 
at face value, but to adhere to a political logic. And it is to 
constantly update this text to adapt it to the political and social 
realities of the time and the country where one is active.

For, as the dossier rightly points out, the "  Organizational Platform 
of Libertarian Communists  ," known as the Archinov Platform , was 
written in a particular context, that of a decisive failure of the 
anarchist movement within the 1917 revolution. It proved incapable of 
preventing the progressive crushing of the workers' and peasants' 
councils by the Bolshevik Party after the latter had seized political 
power in Russia.

The Platform was written by major actors and actresses of the Russian 
and Ukrainian libertarian communist movement and is therefore heavily 
influenced by their social, political and including military experience.

The political logic of platformism is very well explained in its " 
Introduction  ," which, in our opinion, hardly needs updating. The 
anarchist movement at the beginning of the 21st century suffers from the 
same deficiencies as in 1926. The Platform points to the " contradiction 
between the positive and undeniable foundation of libertarian ideas and 
the miserable state in which the anarchist movement languishes." It 
asserts that the main cause of this situation "is the absence of 
organizational principles and practices within the anarchist world  ."

To change this reality, the Platform first asserts that "  anarchism is 
not a beautiful fantasy, nor an abstract philosophical idea: it is the 
social movement of the working masses  ." This is something the 
Alternative Libertaire dossier does not deny, since in its article " 
1926: The Platform, at the origins of organized anarchism ,  " it 
states: "  individualists are situated outside the workers' movement, 
therefore outside anarchism  ."

The introduction summarizes the Platform's project as follows: "  The 
only method leading to the solution of the general organization problem 
is, in our opinion, the rallying of active anarchist militants on the 
basis of precise positions: theoretical, tactical and organizational, 
that is to say on the more or less completed basis of a homogeneous 
program  ."

In its organizational section, the Platform details its conception of 
organization based on theoretical unity, tactical unity, collective 
responsibility, and federalism. Finally, the General Section begins by 
recalling that the intervention of libertarian communists is organized 
within the class struggle.

Curiously, most criticisms of the Platform boil down to two points: 
firstly, the accusation that the Platform Bolshevizes anarchism, and 
secondly, the expression of a rejection of Tactical Unity. It is these 
two points that we will develop here.

The Platform, a Bolshevik-ized anarchism?

What is Bolshevism? The article in the dossier "  Materialist Analysis: 
The Platform, Bolshevized Anarchism?  " attempts a definition that 
greatly surprised us: "  Leninism is defined above all by a specific 
conception of revolutionary organization  ," based on "  the principle 
of democratic centralism, which attempts to reconcile internal debate 
and unity of action  ." "  The party then aims to resemble the class 
that supports it, the proletariat, and to enable action-which is no 
small thing in a period of intense repression  ."

Such a presentation of Leninism leaves us wondering. First, it must be 
remembered that in Russia, as in Ukraine, revolutionary action did not 
wait for Bolshevik directives. The Bolsheviks did not play a major role 
in the collapse of the Tsarist regime in February 1917. It was the 
massive demonstrations, the call for a general strike, and the defection 
of the Moscow garrison to the side of the insurrection that brought down 
this authoritarian and corrupt regime. Similarly, the worker and peasant 
self-management that developed with the movement of workers' and 
peasants' soviets was not part of the Bolshevik program.

According to an article by Pierre Znamensky, a member of the CGT 
Institute of Social History, published in 2017 in Cahier N°143 of this 
organization, "  Economic power was wrested from the hands of the 
bourgeoisie by the factory committees during 1917 and 1918. The 
aspiration for factory self-government was profound among the workers: 
it was a response to the demand for a real political democracy and 
infected almost all companies  ."

In October 1917, a situation of dual power existed. Faced with a 
provisional government that had lost all legitimacy, the soviets 
organized large segments of the population. The official history of the 
USSR glorified the storming of the Winter Palace on October 26, 1917, 
which secured Bolshevik control of Petrograd. This founding act allowed 
the Bolshevik party to seize the reins of power and then gradually 
stripped workers' and peasants' self-management of all substance, in 
order to better deny the role of the Workers' and Peasants' Councils.

We prefer to recall the words of Rosa Luxemburg, who, as early as 
September 1918, denounced the Leninist conception of the party in a text 
entitled "  The Russian Revolution  ." In it, she described the 
Bolshevik power as "  a dictatorship, it is true, not that of the 
proletariat, but that of a handful of politicians, that is to say, a 
dictatorship in the bourgeois sense  ."

For what characterized Bolshevism above all was a particular type of 
relationship with the proletariat and the peasantry. Lenin developed a 
biased interpretation of Marx's thought, an interpretation already 
formulated by Karl Kautsky in 1908 in The Three Sources of Marxism: " 
Today's socialist consciousness can only arise on the basis of profound 
scientific knowledge (...). Thus, socialist consciousness is an element 
imported from outside into the class struggle of the proletariat and not 
something that arises spontaneously from it  ."

Lenin, in his work What Is to Be Done?, judged this idea "  profoundly 
correct  " and drew the necessary conclusions. Such logic could only 
lead to the affirmation of the party's leading role, supposedly the sole 
possessor of truth. Through successive shifts, this logic led the 
Bolsheviks to conflate class consciousness with obedience to the Party.

This logic became the common ground for parties adhering to the 
Communist International. Disagreement with the Party-whether a state 
party like in the USSR or an opposition party like in France-led to 
placing oneself "  outside the working class  ." Thus, the complexity of 
a social class, its diversity, and the necessity of genuine democracy in 
struggles were denied in favor of the party's leading role.

In their political struggle in Russia and Ukraine, the editors of the 
Platform implemented theoretical unity, tactical unity, collective 
responsibility, and federalism to defend workers' and peasants' 
self-management. They fought the hegemonic ambitions of the Bolshevik 
party at the risk of their lives. Their desire to build an organization 
acting collectively in service of self-management distances them far 
more from Bolshevism than it brings them closer to it.

The accusation of Bolshevizing anarchism leveled against the Platform is 
therefore a complete historical misinterpretation. Yet the article " 
From the Platform to the CNT: On the Origins of Libertarian Communism " 
repeats this absurdity in passing: "  If the Synthetists often accuse 
the Platformists of Bolshevik deviations, it is perhaps because they 
were not entirely wrong  ." This deeply offends us.

Criticism of tactical unity

Let us now turn to the heart of the controversy sparked by the 
publication of the Platform 100 years ago: The question of tactical 
unity within the libertarian communist revolutionary organization.

Let's be clear from the outset: this entire controversy stems 
fundamentally from a misunderstanding, a superficial interpretation of " 
 Tactical Unity  ," which is not based on the definition provided by 
its authors. For example, the article in the dossier " 
Platform/Synthesis: An Opposition That Still Makes Sense  " asserts that 
"the Platform takes on a quasi-military organizational form, inspired by 
the Makhnovshchina, with the aim of being ready to defend the coming 
revolution  ."

This interpretation, at best, leads to the assertion of a necessary move 
beyond platformism and a shift towards strategic unity rather than 
tactical unity, which ultimately changes very little. But generally, 
criticism of the tactical unity presented as the core of the platform 
results in a return to organizational confusion.

Let us first examine the form this controversy has taken. It is worth 
remembering that the paragraph dealing with tactical unity comprises 89 
words within a text of over 10,000, representing less than 1% of the 
total text. Focusing on such a relatively minor section speaks volumes 
about the shallowness of the synthesizers' critique.

Let us quote these 89 words in full: "  The tactical methods employed by 
the separate members or groups of the Union must also be unitary, that 
is to say, be in strict agreement both with each other and with the 
theory and general tactics of the Union.

A common tactical line within the movement is of decisive importance for 
the existence of the organization and the entire movement: it frees it 
from the harmful effect of several mutually neutralizing tactics, it 
concentrates all the forces of the movement, and makes them take a 
common direction leading to a determined objective  .

Obviously, this short passage on the Tactical Unit could probably have 
been written differently to avoid all the misconceptions it may have 
sparked. Therefore, a textual analysis is necessary.

The first sentence defining Tactical Unity calls for a rigorous 
alignment between "  the tactical methods employed  " (in the plural, it 
should be noted) and "  the theory and general tactics of the Union  ." 
The wording of this sentence demonstrates that Tactical Unity is not 
uniformity of tactics, but a convergence of tactics. In other words, we 
must ensure consistency between what we say-the theory-and what we do. 
Similarly, the actions of the organization's activists must be 
consistent with one another. Otherwise, what is the point of activism 
together in the same organization? The fact that this needs to be 
specified speaks volumes about the chronic disorganization of the 
anarchist movement.

The second sentence derives its meaning from its ending: to make "  all 
the forces of the organization take a common direction leading to a 
specific objective  ." It rejects "  the harmful effect of several 
tactics neutralizing each other  ."

The words "  a common tactical line  " remain, fueling all sorts of 
fantasies. Some have seen in this formulation a desire to regiment 
anarchism, in which activists must obey leaders. Certainly, these words 
are ambiguous. They can be interpreted as homogenizing. Or not!

The beginning of the first paragraph refers to a pluralism of " tactical 
methods employed  ." The "  common tactical line  " is thus defined by 
its contrast with "  the detrimental effect of several tactics 
neutralizing each other  ." Reading these two paragraphs leads us to a 
pragmatic understanding of the Tactical Unit, which aims to coordinate 
converging tactics.

These words cannot seriously be interpreted as an attempt to regiment 
anarchism, given the background of the Platform's writers. For the 
Makhnovists, it was never a question of all activists blindly following 
the rules. Members of the movement debated together and ultimately 
adopted "  a common direction leading to a specific objective  ." They 
amply demonstrated in their actions their commitment to self-management 
methods and direct democracy. For them, tactical unity had this 
pragmatic dimension from the outset and cannot have any other meaning.

We see tactical unity as simply the consequence of our own decisions. We 
know that our struggle for libertarian communism is meaningless without 
a collective dimension, which implies that the organization's collective 
action is dictated by majority decisions. Acting as a member of the 
organization can only mean implementing collective decisions.

A milder version of this critique is presented in the article "  Beyond 
the Platform: Tactical Unity in Question  " in the Alternative 
Libertaire journal's special issue . Tactical unity, they argue, 
distances us from the complexity of social struggles and local dynamics. 
It conflicts with "  the necessary flexibility required for nuanced 
analysis and appropriate and tailored intervention in these struggles  ."

Such a presentation of tactical unity also surprises us. First, because 
a collective decision doesn't just fall from the sky. It wasn't a leader 
who decided. It's the result of debates, which themselves were 
necessarily preceded by individual experimentation within the social 
movement. Moreover, a tactic can be more or less flexible, just as an 
organization can be more or less dogmatic or pragmatic.

The example of the union movement is relevant to illustrate this. Our 
struggle is first and foremost organized within the broader class 
struggle. Our tactic is participation in unionism. But this doesn't 
necessarily mean that all activists must join the CGT. The tactic within 
the UTCL was to join the union in one's professional sector best suited 
to implement our collective strategy, rooted in our political theory.

Within a non-dogmatic organization, tactical unity is first and foremost 
a principle for acting together in the same direction. Thus, in our 
view, and contrary to what this article claims, the UTCL did not rapidly 
evolve "  towards transcending the Platform, whose spirit it retained 
more fully  ." The UTCL simply applied tactical unity in a non-dogmatic way.

So why this recurring criticism of tactical unity? We believe we can 
answer this question in light of the example highlighted in the article 
"  Beyond the Platform: Tactical Unity in Question  ," namely, the " 
struggles surrounding undocumented people between 2007 and 2012.  " What 
concerns us is not the diversity of possible activist approaches, but 
rather the absence of reference to the theoretical framework of 
libertarian communism in this reflection, and in particular, the lack of 
consideration for the necessity of acting within the class and mass 
struggle.

All actions supporting undocumented immigrants are presented a priori as 
equivalent. This includes those justified by apolitical humanism, as 
well as those clearly rooted in class struggle. This observation sheds 
light on understanding the motivations behind the criticisms leveled 
against tactical unity. These criticisms seem to stem from a conception 
of organization where theoretical unity remains... very approximate, and 
where, as Malatesta envisioned, the organization would be based on the 
autonomy and individual responsibility of its members.

Finally, what troubles us most in this text is the specious way in which 
the opposition between "  the policies of the Bolsheviks and the 
libertarians toward the peasantry  " is presented. Tactical unity has 
nothing to do with it. The divergence lies at the level of political 
theory, with the Bolsheviks defending the leading role of the party, 
while all the anarchists supported worker and peasant self-management.

In conclusion

A major organizational principle runs through the Platform: collective 
responsibility, a concept that has been relatively little discussed in 
the numerous controversies surrounding it. According to this text, " the 
domains of revolutionary, social, and political life are first and 
foremost profoundly collective by their nature. Revolutionary social 
activity in these domains cannot be based on the personal responsibility 
of isolated activists  ."

In concrete terms, "  the entire Union will be responsible for the 
revolutionary and political activity of each member; likewise, each 
member will be responsible for the revolutionary and political activity 
of the entire Union  ." This means that joining a revolutionary 
organization is not like joining an association where you only take what 
interests you.

It is an act of commitment to the social struggle. It means 
participating regularly in democratic debates within the organization; 
it means taking seriously the tasks assigned; and it also means 
participating assiduously in actions decided democratically. This 
concept is obviously inseparable from tactical unity. Without it, there 
can be no revolutionary struggle. Without it, anarchists will forever 
remain the dupes of history.

After some of us had been active in UTCL , and all of us in Alternative 
Libertaire , we decided to collectively leave UCL after its first 
congress. One point played a significant role in our decision. We had 
submitted an amendment to the general policy motion in an attempt to 
salvage what we could. We quote it here in full:

"  Our young organization faces several pitfalls: the network-based 
organization where groups, activists, and militants pick and choose what 
interests them, and the fragmented organization that prioritizes all 
interventions without a guiding principle. In either case, weakness and 
discouragement prevail, and our strategic unity fades. To avoid these 
two pitfalls, we need to bring the organization together by 
strengthening its structures for coordination and collective 
deliberation. Because our libertarian communism is not an individual 
endeavor but a collective commitment, this strengthening will come from 
prioritizing our activist efforts in the struggles of the working 
classes , based on an analysis of the issues of the period and on a 
solid class foundation, which forms the backbone of the UCL groups' 
actions  ."

This amendment was rejected by a clear majority of UCL, which for us 
signifies not only a break with platformism, but also with the simple 
objective of acting together in a coordinated manner, by placing our 
action within the class struggle.

Today we are witnessing the beginnings of a major crisis of capitalism, 
with its economic, social, democratic, and environmental ramifications. 
Fascism, capitalism's lifeline, is gaining momentum. The only emerging 
perspective on the left is found within La France Insoumise (LFI), with 
its flawed democratic practices, its structure around the "  Lider 
Maximo  ," its difficulty in criticizing Hamas, and its inflammatory 
rhetoric in supporting the Palestinian people.

However, we will have to position ourselves in the face of a very 
uncomfortable electoral situation. How can we reconcile the fight 
against fascism, including its electoral aspects-and in this context, 
only LFI (La France Insoumise) is capable of representing a "  left-wing 
 " alternative-with a self-management perspective? The answer to this 
question requires extensive debate and cannot be resolved here.

Beyond this issue, the anti-capitalist struggle needs a libertarian 
communist organization that popularizes its societal project and, above 
all, defends, in a coordinated manner, self-management practices within 
the class struggle. We have observed that the UCL (Union Communiste 
Libérale) has formalized its break with platformism far beyond what the 
UTCL presented as transcending platformism and prioritizing strategic 
unity. Let us recall that this "  transcendence  " was, in our view, 
merely a pragmatic application of platformism.

We hope that the disappearance of the platformist movement as an 
organized force in France is not definitive and that a new generation of 
activists will take up its torch.

We can only hope that an organization like UCL will be able to find its 
place in such a process and in this case the members of our network will 
be delighted to coordinate with the activists of UCL.

https://plateformecl.org/dossier-dalternative-libertaire-les-100-ans-de-la-plateforme/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en