anchorage anarchy Issue #7 December 2005 $1.00 Anarcholeninism? A Critical Look at the Platform I have been an anarchist for over 25 years. disagree, realizing that being an anarchist does During this time I have encountered many not require us to share the same ideas about other anarchists who have ideas about the everything. world and anarchy that are quite different from However, this appreciation of dissent is mine. This variety of opinions and preferences not universal among anarchists. There are has always been one of the appeals of the those libertarians who believe this traditional libertarian movement for me. I enjoy the range of opinions is, in fact, detrimental to the discussion and debate such differences movement and imperils our prospects for encourage and produce. success. They talk of the If we all agreed with need for unity among each other, life, anarchists, but not in the especially life in sense of the unity of oppositional movements, people in opposition to would be incredibly dull. the state who work Throughout the together against history of the anarchist authority despite their movement there have differences. Their been frictions between vision, instead, is one of those who advocate a federation of different forms of disciplined hierarchical economic and social organizations, based on relations. But there have ideological and tactical also been friendships and unity, that excludes those working relationships anarchists whom they that have transcended consider beyond the these differences. Individualists and pale, primarily anyone they believe to be communists have managed to engage in joint individualist. While many of these same efforts around specific campaigns and issues, anarchists never miss a chance to declare their and writings that have come out of both of passion for ethnic, sexual, and whatever other these camps have dealt sympathetically and kind of group-based “diversity” is currently tolerantly with the anarchists with whom they popular in progressive circles, they reject the Page 2 anchorage anarchy #7 December 2005 most important kind of diversity: diversity of forward again as guides for achieving a free ideas. world. As it did to its contemporary critics, the Anarchists of this persuasion commonly approach of the platformists, both in 1926 and trace the origins of their point of view to a now, reminds me of nothing so much as document called the Organizational Platform leninism, with its talk of party lines, and of the Libertarian Communists (available at “revolutionary” armies, individuals’ service to www.zabalaza.net/pdfs/varpams/platform.pdf), society, obligations with respect to production, published in June 1926, along with a guiding the “masses,” and so on. supplement (available at www.nestormakhno. No army or party or masses, “anarchist” or info/english/supporg.htm), put out later the otherwise, will ever produce a free society. same year. These documents were written by Only freedom-loving individuals, working the Dielo Truda organization, which included together voluntarily, can do that. among its members Nestor Makhno, Piotr While I do not expect that Concerning the Arshinov, and Ida Mett. Not only did these Platform will change the mind of any “platformists” advocate a decidedly committed platformist, I hope that those new unlibertarian form of anarchist organization, to anarchist ideas and movements will consider they also argued in favor of hierarchical the following critique when reading or “revolutionary” armed forces and “temporary” listening to someone from the platformist suppression of press freedom as acceptable tradition. forms of anarchist practice. Although their (Another critical assessment of the Platform, which attempts to set up an international movement includes an exchange of letters between Makhno and Malatesta, is How Anarchist is the Platform?, available based on the Platform during the 1920s failed, from Venomous Butterfly Publications, 818 SW 3rd there was a resurgence of platformism in Avenue, PMB 12237, Portland, OR 97204). europe in the 1950s, and there are now platformist organizations around the world, including in the united states. Besides the platform, these groups often look to Makhno’s “anarchist” army in ukraine and the Friends of Durruti in spain for inspiration as well. At the time of its publication, the Platform was sharply criticized by a number of other anchorage anarchy anarchists, including Errico Malatesta, Mollie is an occasional publication of Bad Press, Steimer, Camillo Berneri, and Max Nettlau. In an anti-government anarchist project. this issue of anchorage anarchy, I am It is edited by Joe Peacott. reprinting a critique of the Platform that was Subscriptions are available for $1 per issue. co-written by Steimer. Though this critique You can reach Bad Press at: and the Platform itself are nearly 80 years old, PO Box 230332 what motivated me to publish Concerning the Anchorage, AK 99523-0332 USA Platform, and what makes it worth reading still, is that some of the most authoritarian email: [email protected] website: world.std.com/~bbrigade strains within anarchist history are being put December 2005 anchorage anarchy #7 Page 3 Concerning the Platform for an Organization of Anarchists Response of Some Russian Anarchists (Sobol, Schwartz, Steimer, Voline, Lia, Roman, Ervantian, Fleshin) Reasons for the Weakness of the Anarchist 3. Repression. Movement The Anarchist Synthesis We do not agree with the position of the We also disagree with the idea of a Platform “that the most important reason for “synthesis,” as stated in the Platform. The the weakness of the anarchist movement is the authors proclaim that anarchist-communism is absence of organizational principles.” We the only valid theory, and they take a critical, believe that this issue is very important more or less, negative position toward because the Platform seeks to establish a individualist anarchists and anarcho- centralized organization (a party) that would syndicalists. create “a political and tactical line for the anarchist movement.” This overemphasizes the importance and role of organization. We are not against an anarchist organization; we understand the harmful consequences of a lack of organization in the anarchist movement; we consider the creation of an anarchist organization to be one of our most urgent tasks…But we do not believe that organization, as such, can be a cure-all. We do not exaggerate its importance, and we see no benefit or need to sacrifice anarchist principles and ideas for the sake of organization. We see the following reasons for the We repeat what we declared when we weakness of the anarchist movement: organized Nabat (organization of Ukrainian anarchists in 1917-1921): “There is validity in 1. The confusion in our ideas about a series of fundamental issues, such as the all anarchist schools of thought. We must conception of the social revolution, of consider all diverse tendencies and accept them.” To unite all militants we must seek a violence, of the period of transition, of common base for all, seeing what is just in organization. each conception. This should be included in a 2. The difficulty of getting a large part of Platform for the entire movement. There are the population to accept our ideas. We several examples of such a Platform, such as must take into account existing the declaration of the Nabat Conference in prejudices, customs, education, the fact Kursk, as well as the resolutions of other that the great mass of people will look anarchist conferences of that period. Here are for an accommodation rather than some extracts of the resolution adopted at the radical change. First Congress of the Confederation of Page 4 anchorage anarchy #7 December 2005 Anarchist Organizations in the Ukraine, Nabat, conception of anarchism. To maintain that that took place April 2, 1919, in Elizabethgrad, anarchism is only a theory of classes is to limit Ukraine: it to a single viewpoint. Anarchism is more “…our organization does not represent a complex and pluralistic, like life itself. Its class mechanical alliance of different element is above all its means of fighting for tendencies, each holding only to its own liberation; its humanitarian character is its point of view and, therefore, unable to ethical aspect, the foundation of society; its offer ideological guidance to the working individualism is the goal of mankind. population; it is a union of comrades The Role of the Masses and Anarchism in joined together on a number of basic the Social Struggle and the Social positions and with an awareness of the Revolution need for planned, organized collective effort on the basis of federation.” The thesis of the Platform on this question can be summarized as follows: the masses Anarchism as a Theory of Classes must be directed. The contrary viewpoint was Synthesis is needed in this area also. We the prevailing one in our movement until now: cannot affirm that anarchism is a theory of individuals and conscious minority, including classes and reject those who try to give it a their ideological organizations, cannot “direct human character. And we cannot declare, like the masses.” We must learn from the masses some do, that anarchism is a humanitarian constantly if we do not want to lead them into ideal for all people and accuse those who hold a blind alley. to a class base of Marxist deviation. Nor, This is how the problem should be seen. finally, can we maintain that anarchism is Their solution is very superficial and false solely an individualist conception having because the central problem is not resolved: nothing to do with humanity as a whole or with the revolutionary masses and the conscious a “class.” We must create a synthesis and state minority or their ideological organization. that anarchism contains class elements as well The political parties have an advantage in as humanism and individualist principles. this area: it is not a problem for them.