Introduction of the Agioi Anargyro - Kamaterou Anarchist Initiative in
the book "The Platform of the General Union of Anarchists and thedialogue on it". ---- The publication of the plan of the organizational
platform by the members of the editorial team of Delo Truda, triggered a
lively dialogue that took place during the first years of its
appearance, from 1926 to 1930. The historicity and context within in
which this public debate was held, which in some cases took on the
character of a polemic, was sufficiently analyzed in the initial
introduction by Comrade D. Troaditis. We, in turn, would like to focus
more on the content and key issues concerning the organizational
perspective of the anarchist forces, as well as aspects of the anarchist
worldview that emerged through the correspondence, articles and
responses to the original text of " Platform". One thing is certain. The
text of the "Platform" was a turning point, a reference text that marked
the history of the anarchist movement and was a source of inspiration as
well as a source of conflicts within it, until today.
Undoubtedly, in the Greek anarchist space, the organizational,
ideological, theoretical and tactical points that were raised in the
"Platform", as well as those that arose through the dialogue on it, are
not widely and sufficiently disseminated and studied. With this edition,
we aspire for our part, to contribute to the wider reading and
reflection on these key issues that have emerged. The knowledge of the
history of the anarchist movement and the positions that have been
supported within its rich history, are necessary tools and knowledge
supplies for the living reality and the historical perspective of the
anarchist forces within it in the here and now. This knowledge is made
even more necessary by the fact that more and more in contemporary
anarchist movements the theoretical representatives, the historical
stations, the revolutionary and class characteristics of the anarchist
tradition are displaced and replaced by schools of thought that are
external, as a result, more and more too much for an "anarchism without
anarchists"[1]and an anarchism without identity and knowledge of its
very historical existence and continuity to take root.
Moving on to the topic, as can be seen from the structure we have made
in the contents of the publication, the dialogue that unfolded from 1926
to 1930 on the design of the organizational platform can be divided into
three parts: the confrontation with the composers, the correspondence
with Maria Isdin and the correspondence with Errico Malatesta.
Starting from the confrontation between the editors of the "Platform"
and the "synthesizers", who in this dialogue are represented by various
Russian anarchists who wrote the text "An answer to the Platform", it is
clear from examining the written submissions of both sides, that it is
for two completely conflicting positions and perceptions, for two
different worldview universes, we could say. These differences are found
both in the perception of the very concept of anarchist organization,
the way and method of its formation, but at the same time we identify
large ideological and theoretical gaps between the two sides, which we
consider to be not unrelated and in terms of the opposing conclusions
about the organizational principles and the conflicting organizational
propositions they present.
Regarding the organizational issue, the Delo Truda group had criticized
the organizational proposal of "synthesis" already before the
publication of the "Plan of the Platform" with its article "The Problem
of Organization and the Concept of Synthesis", which, if earlier, it is
the first article that we have included in this edition in the section
of the confrontation with the composers, recognizing its political
value, but also the relevance of its positions to those that three
months later were more precisely formulated in the text of the
"Platform". With this article, the authors of the "Platform" criticize
the organizational proposal of "synthesis" according to which anarchists
representing the three "classical trends of anarchism" - that is,
anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-individualism - will
they must (and can) merge into "one big family", into an organizational
scheme that will represent all three of these trends, achieving a
theoretical and philosophical synthesis between them.
Against this proposal, the editors of the "Platform" contrast the
organization of the trend, and specifically the organization of the
anarchist communist trend into a single organization with clearly
defined theoretical, tactical and strategic positions. The path they
propose for the formation of such an organization goes, as they
themselves state in their article, "hand-in-hand with the elaboration of
the theoretical and tactical positions that will constitute the basis,
the platform, for this organization." In particular, they initially
consider that a clear formulation should be given regarding these
theoretical and tactical positions of principle, then they should be
placed on an organizational platform which will form the basis for the
organic combination of groups and fighters in a common organization,
which will be able to attract a large part of the forces of the
anarchist movement. At this point it is important to clarify that the
editors of the "Platform" do not argue that the formation of these
theoretical and tactical positions should be done neither from scratch
nor in a vacuum of time. As they themselves write in their
aforementioned article: "It is not our intention to continue in this
case with a comprehensive review of the values or the processing of any
new positions. Our view is that everything necessary for the formation
of an organization founded on a given platform can be found in Anarchist
Communism, which marries the class struggle, the equality and freedom of
every worker, and is realized in the Anarchist Commune."
The above route was attempted to be followed by the group of Russian
exiles abroad (Delo Truda) with the filing of the "Organizational
Platform of the General Union of Anarchists", a draft for the formation
of the organization they were promoting, which was by no means limited
to a mechanistic formula for creating organization. The "Platform" may
be best known for its positions filed in its "Organizational Sector"
section, where it introduces the four basic organizational points on
which it proposes to establish the General Union of Anarchists:
theoretical unity, tactical unity, collective responsibility and
federalization. In addition, the dialogue that took place on the
"Platform", especially with Errico Malatesta, as we will see below,
focused on the positions and proposals presented in the "Organizational
Sector". Nevertheless, the bulk of the text of the "Platform" is taken
up by the "General Domain" and "Creative Domain" sections, in which the
authors record their ideological, strategic, tactical and programmatic
positions on a number of issues central to the anarchism, such as, among
other things, the ideological and historical foundation of anarchism,
the class struggle as the driving force of history, the relationship
between society and the individual, the revolutionary subject, criticism
of the socialist state of the Bolsheviks, post-revolutionary proposals
for a classless - radical society in terms of production and
distribution, as well as the catalytic role of the vanguard of the
organized forces of anarchism within unions and workers' organizations,
promoting the tactics of organizational dualism and social infiltration,
which was most adequately shaped by the current of specification in the
coming decades.
We consider that the positions recorded in the "Platform" regarding the
above, even if their analysis is limited due to the nature of the text
(it is an initial draft of a platform for organization), it is important
to study it equally with its organizational part, as beyond their
importance - which historically has been to some extent sidelined - is
in an organic connection with the basic organizational principles that
are supported as the spark of the theoretical and tactical discussion at
the end of the text. The organic connection between theory and
organization is also found in the causes attributed by the authors of
the "Platform" to the weakness of the anarchist movement. The main cause
they place is, as they characteristically write, "chronic
disorganization" which, however, they link and attribute to "some errors
in theory and mainly to a wrong assessment of the principle of
individuality in anarchism". And in this light, based on the historical
and theoretical foundation of anarchism as a clearly defined political
trend with a strategic goal of Social Revolution, the necessity of the
organization they propose is projected as the means, and not as a
panacea to all problems, such as the "synthesizers" blame them, for
achieving the strategic goal. We consider the following excerpt from the
introduction of the "Platform" to be enlightening in relation to the above:
"Anarchism is not a wonderful utopia, nor an abstract philosophical
idea. It is a social movement of the working people. For this reason, it
must concentrate its forces in an organization, constantly active, as
this is required by the reality and the strategy of the class struggle".
The text of the "Platform" became the recipient of criticism based on
the argument that it deviates from anarchist principles or even that it
leans towards Bolshevism. This criticism, as far as the individualists
are concerned but also in part, in the way it was filed by the
"synthesizers", whose reports are clearly influenced by the former, its
editors had already foreseen it from the filing of its original draft
"Platform", in which they write characteristically: "We predict that
several representatives of the so-called self-styled individualism as
well as chaotic anarchism, will attack us with foaming at the mouth and
accuse us of violating anarchist principles. However, we know that the
individualistic and chaotic elements understand and perceive the
"anarchist principles" as political indifference, negligence and the
absence of all responsibility, which has caused in our movement almost
incurable splits, against which we are fighting with all our energy and
passion».
Based on the above, the question arises of the basic ideological and
theoretical differences between the editors of the "Platform" and the
"synthesizers" we mentioned above. In this introduction we would like to
dwell specifically on one of them, which is the definition of
"individuality" and the reception of the individual within anarchist
theory. On this, we will come back to the Epimeter. The "synthesists",
attempting to synthesize anarcho-communism with individualism, try to
synthesize the class character of anarchism with the liberal conception
of the individual. This synthesis, which refers to an ideologically
conflicting patchwork, is especially noticeable in the text of the
"Critique of the 'Platform'" by the 'synthesizers', where criticizing
the position of the 'Platform' for the class character of anarchism as
the basis of its construction , support the necessity of synthesizing
the class character of anarchism with an abstractly humanistic
character, while at the same time throughout their analysis they defend
the principle of "individualism".
Faced with this criticism, the editors of "Platforma" pose two basic
questions, which we believe are particularly relevant even today and
should make us think about the liberal concepts that have infiltrated
the anarchist movement in our days: first, what is this "individuality"?
Is it individuality in general or the repressed and class-determined
objective "individuality" of the worker? And, secondly, what is this
humanity that anarchism refers to? Is there a single humanity? The
answer they give to both of these questions is based on the fundamental
principles of anarchism. Regarding 'individuality' they reply that
'there is no such thing as 'individuality in general', because in one
way or another, every individual is objectively or subjectively either
in the sphere of labor or else in the sphere of capital.' Regarding the
concept of humanity from the beginning of their "Organizing Platform"
they make a basic assumption: "There is no single humanity. There is the
humanity of classes. Slaves and masters". Against the "lovers of ego
assertion" the "platformists" contrast the real freedom of the
individual, seen from an anarchist point of view, which can find its
real reflection only in anarchist society, in a society of equals among
equals and free among free. They follow the basic Bacchusian position
that the freedom of the one is a condition for the freedom of the other,
and this freedom can only be extended within the framework of an
anarchist communist society, where social freedom and individual freedom
will find their complete harmony .
To close with our introductory discussion regarding the confrontation
with the "synthesizers", to which we will return in the Epimeter, the
texts that follow in the present edition on the dialogue between the
editors of the "Platform" and the "synthesizers" we judge that through
the conflicting positions they develop - which we have only partially
commented on in this introduction - deal with issues that are points of
concern, thought and controversy that still haunt the anarchist movement
internationally to this day. This is certainly for us, a key reason why
it is worth studying them and drawing conclusions on them.
The plan of the Organizational Platform of the General Union of
Anarchists was also criticized by Errico Malatesta. Triggered by
Malatesta's initial criticism with his text "A Plan of Anarchist
Organization", a correspondence unfolded over a period of three years,
with replies and counter-replies from Nestor Makhno and Piotr Arsinov as
members of Delo Truda, on the one hand, and of Errico Malatesta, on the
other hand. All five texts of this correspondence are set out in this
edition.
In the case of Malatesta's criticism of the "Platform" we are dealing
with a quite different example compared to that of the "synthesizers" we
analyzed above. And this, because Malatesta is an anarchist activist
who, based on his writings and actions, can be classified within the
same tendency represented by the editors of "Platform", that of
anarcho-communism. At the same time, Malatesta throughout his
campaigning life defended the necessity of organization, recognizing it
as an inherent element of both anarchism and society itself and
attempting, imperfectly or not, to formulate the most appropriate way in
which it can be achieved in order to serve the strategic goal of the
Social Revolution. Malatesta's well-known saying that "rather than
organizing on the wrong basis, it is better not to organize at all"
shows that he recognizes that there must be some common principles that
will form a basis for building an anarchist organization that can it is
effective. It is obvious that Malatesta's opinion is not at all close to
that of the "synthesizers".
Indeed, these convergences can be traced to the beginning of the first
aforementioned text that Malatesta submitted regarding the "Platform",
since in it he starts from his agreement on the main reason that
prevents the anarchist movement from playing a catalytic role in the
social reality, placing it "in the absence of a large, serious and
active organization". At the same time, he characterizes the intentions
of the authors of the "Platform" as exceptional and registers common
positions regarding the class character of anarchism, the importance of
trade unionism as a means of class struggle in which anarchists must
have an active role, but at the same time he puts and he too, his
limits, rightly pointing out the necessity for the formation of special
anarchist organizations as well organized as possible to fight in a
unified manner for the hegemony of ideas among the masses of workers on
the road to social liberation from the shackles of the state and the
ruler class.
Beyond these initial agreements, Malatesta's critique focuses on the
"Organizational Sector" section of the "Platform" and, specifically, on
three key points set forth therein that primarily concern the structure
and internal functioning and organization of the proposed organization.
These three points, which subsequently formed the main thematic center
of the correspondence between the two sides, are: collective
responsibility, the unitary nature of the organization and the role of
the Executive Committee. With his criticism of these, Malatesta argued
that the "Platform" essentially advocates an authoritarian and
centralized way and method of organization. Before moving on to the
analysis of the arguments and counter-arguments for the above, it is
important to say that Malatesta, by focusing his criticism only on the
"Organizational Sector" of the "Platform", seems as if he does not take
into account the positions presented in " General and Creative Sector",
ending up losing in his reasoning and conclusions the organic connection
that we explained above, that between the ideological, tactical
strategic and programmatic positions of the "Platform" and the
organizational positions in which he ends up as an interest of the
former. The above omission was also identified by P. Arsinov, writing
characteristically in his answer under the title "The old and the new in
anarchism":
"Let us attribute to him a most serious omission: he does not deal at
all with the theoretical basis or the constructive field of the
'Platform', but only with the plan of organization. Our text not only
refutes the idea of the Synthesis, like the idea of anarcho-syndicalism,
as unworkable and bankrupt; it further advances the plan of grouping
active anarchist fighters on the basis of a more or less homogeneous
program. Comrade Malatesta should have specifically insisted on this
method; nevertheless, he silently omitted it, as well as the
constructive sector, although his conclusions are clearly close to the
whole of the Platform. This gives his article a contradictory and
unstable character."
Moving on to the points of criticism, regarding the unified
organization, i.e. the proposal of the gathering of the anarchist forces
in a General Union, we consider that Malatesta initially succumbs to a
wrong interpretation of the concept of a strong organization put forward
by the editors of the "Platform". As we mentioned above, the authors of
the "Platform" propose the organization of the anarcho-communist
tendency based on a framework of accepted and commonly agreed
ideological principles and tactical, strategic and programmatic
objectives, a proposal which does not even refer to the coercion of the
participation of dissenters in this organization , nor in preventing
them from organizing in the way they choose. Arsinov clarifies this
point in his reply, writing that "it is obvious that by calling upon
anarchists to organize on the basis of an explicit program, we do not
take away the same right of other anarchist tendencies to organize as
they see fit. However, we are convinced that once the anarchists have
established a significant organization, the emptiness and futility of
traditional organizations will be revealed." The purpose, then, is not
the authoritative attempt to unify under a Union, a proposal that would
be more suited to the "synthesizers" who, with the mechanical
unification they attempt, actually lead to the trampling of the special
characteristics of each tendency, but the voluntary co-organization ,
which with the dynamism and solidity it will demonstrate in terms of
ideas and action, will be a pole that will attract a large part of the
anarchist forces on the basis of common ideological agreement and
tactical unity.
Another important argument presented by Arsinov in his text "The old and
the new in anarchism" regarding the necessity of forming a single
organization - based on the principle of federalization - is that it
will be able to be the competent body for the creation of a "general
homogeneous program", the absence of which as he states "has always been
a particularly notable failure in the anarchist movement". The Russian
anarchist attributes this weakness to a very familiar cause, which we
often observe in the current situation of the anarchist movement in
Greece: the existence of fragmented and autonomous groups that act
according to their own subjective priorities, producing disconnected , a
piecemeal and contradictory propaganda. This prevailing condition was,
according to Arsinov, one of the main causes of the defeat of the
anarchist movement during the Russian Revolution, as being organized in
this way, the anarchists could not go beyond the stage of declaring the,
although correct, of their precepts (e.g. the principle "from each
according to his ability to each according to his needs"), in the
practical application of these by submitting a structured program that
would ground, through a structured strategy, the anarchist proposals in
social reality and would at the same time convince the working masses
and the poor peasantry of their applicability. Finally, regarding the
above, we would like to make a note. The degree of autonomy over the
tactical action of each core of such a unified organization proposed in
the "Platform", we believe is indeed an important point for discussion
and investigation for any organizational effort that attempts to follow
this path. After all, in the recent past as far as we are concerned,
i.e. the anarchist space in Greece, the disagreement regarding the
degree of autonomy of the individual cores of an organization led to the
disintegration of the federal effort initiated in 2013 by four anarchist
collectives. Of course, in this example, due to the organizational model
chosen (federation of collectives) the question was actually twofold: on
the one hand, what will be the degree of autonomy of the local regions
from the central body of the organization and on the other hand, what
degree autonomy of each collective outside the organization.
The second main point on which Malatesta criticizes the "Platform" text
is related to the concept of "collective responsibility" which its
authors place as one of the constituent elements of the organization
they propose. For the authors of the "Platform" the concept of
"collective responsibility" transforms its meaning into the following
principle: "the entire Union (that is, the organization) will be
responsible for the political and revolutionary activity of each member
and in the same way, each member will be responsible for the political
and revolutionary activity of the Union". From the above perspective,
collective responsibility is presented as the antidote against the
"tactic of irresponsible individualism", while from Malatesta's point of
view it is presented as "the absolute denial of all individual
independence". What the great Comrade Malatesta overlooks or
misinterprets in this statement is the voluntary acceptance of the
ideological and tactical principles of the organization by each member,
as well as the common prerequisite precise definition of these
principles by the members themselves based on the free agreement. This
condition for the implementation of collective responsibility is clearly
supported by P. Arsinov in his reply to Malatesta, writing: "To the
extent that they accept it, this platform must become mandatory for all.
Those who do not recognize these basic principles cannot - and indeed
would not want to - become members of the organization". And he adds
below about what is the basis on which the concept of commitment is
founded: "At the same time, each member is absolutely responsible for
the entire Union, with the commitment that his activity will not
contradict the activity agreed by all members" . In conclusion, we
believe that the principle of collective responsibility is in absolute
relation with the very essence of anarchist organization, bringing to
the fore the dialectical relationship between individual and
organization, based on the fundamental relationship of social freedom
and individual, as a position of principle for the editors of the
"Platform", directly deduced from Bakunin, as we pointed out above.
Nothing authoritative and centralized can be found in collective
responsibility in the context of anarchist organization, just as nothing
authoritative and centralized can be found in the concepts of voluntary
commitment and militant duty introduced by the editors of the Platform.
On the contrary, faith and enlistment in the cause in the light of
responsibility and commitment to this cause, without external
impositions (hierarchy) and separated decision-making bodies, we
consider to be the quintessence of libertarianism and militant
enlistment, necessary ingredients for the triumph of anarchism.
In Malatesta's writings, beyond the part of misinterpretation, we can
also identify some contradictions in his reasoning. While he criticizes
the principle of collective responsibility, judging it as authoritative,
at the same time in his original text he recognizes the necessity of
this dialectical relationship between organization and members so that
the latter accept "the moral duties to fully understand the obligations
they undertake and not to do anything that may conflict with the
accepted program." Moreover, in the course of his correspondence with N.
Makhnos we observe a "movement" and a greater understanding in relation
to his initial criticism. Specifically, in his letter to N. Makhnos
under the title "Reply to regarding the Platform" he writes:
"I doubtless accept and support the opinion that every one who
associates and co-operates with others in a common cause must feel the
necessity of coordinating his actions with those of his associates, and
of doing nothing which may injure the work of others and, so , the
common purpose* and respects the agreements that have been made - except
when he wishes to abandon the cooperation when differences of opinion
arise or circumstances change or conflicts over preferred methods make
the cooperation impossible or ineffective. Just as I argue that those
who do not feel and practice this duty should be thrown out of partnership.
Perhaps, speaking of collective responsibility, you mean exactly that
harmony and solidarity that must exist between the members of a
partnership. And if that is all, your expression corresponds, in my
opinion, to a misuse of language, but basically it would only be a
trivial question of phraseology, and agreement will soon be reached.''
In addition to this, however, in relation to the interpretation of the
term, we consider P. Arsinov's critical remark in his article "The old
and the new in anarchism" to be valid, according to which the principle
of responsibility was understood by Malatesta in the sense "a moral
responsibility of individuals and groups". Indeed, Malatesta places the
concept of responsibility more in the part of the free expression of
opinions by the members of the organization and in the context of the
possibility of an autonomous abstract action not oriented towards a
clear goal. It does not examine collective responsibility in the light
of the collective method of action (tactical unity) of an organization
in the furnace of class and social struggle, where it is faced with the
achievement of defined tactical and strategic goals. As Arsinov also
writes: "This is why he simply ascribes to assemblies and their results
the role of a kind of discussion between friends, who ultimately express
only platonic desires."
The third main point of Malatesta's criticism focuses on the structure
of the Organization proposed by the editors of the "Platform",
specifically on the point of the existence of an Executive Committee. It
is a fact that the role, raison d'être and tasks of this particular
Committee are not analyzed with sufficient clarity and completeness in
the original draft of the Organizational Platform of the General
Anarchist Union, except in very rough lines in a paragraph in the fourth
point (on federalization). of the "Organizational Sector". At this
point, the Executive Committee is assigned the responsibility of
coordinating the activities of all the organizations - members of the
Union, as well as an executive responsibility based on the decisions
taken by the Union. It could be said that, to some extent, Malatesta's
criticism of the top-down nature of this Commission can be offset by his
support for federalization, as opposed to centralization, as the
principle position of the "Platform", as well as the conceptualization
of each organization that is a member of the Union as "a vital core of
this common organization". Nevertheless, the gaps and questions
regarding the existence of the Executive Committee remain, without
receiving the necessary answers in the correspondence that followed. The
continuation of the dialogue between the two sides, which was not
achieved, or even the practical implementation on a large scale of the
"Platform" proposal with the necessary clarifications and the more
complete planning it would require, might have provided the answers to
these questions. questions.
In closing, we should point out that this "dialogue" through articles
and correspondence between Malatesta on the one hand and Makhno and
Arsinov on the other, took place under adverse conditions and
limitations, in a period of repression against the anarchist movement.
Malatesta himself points out these difficulties by mentioning in his
first reply to Makhnos the regime of censorship that prevailed in
fascist Italy at the time, which prevented him from having free access
to his correspondence. Based on these objective limitations and
Malatesta's status of isolation from the Fascist regime, we cannot know
whether he ever read Arsinov's response to his original critique
entitled "The Old and the New in Anarchism." The assessment that
Arsinov's article never reached his hands can be strengthened by the
fact that despite the fact that Malatesta replied to Makhno's letter, he
did not reply or refer to any of his writings in Arsinov's text. In
addition to these conditions, the conversation between the two sides was
also hampered by the issue of translation from Russian to French, a fact
that Malatesta also raises, pointing out difficult-to-understand points
in the translation performance of the written texts.
It is certain that a lively dialogue between the two sides would be
clearer and would offer the possibility for greater penetration of their
analyzes and arguments. Nevertheless, we believe that even in its
present form it is definitely worth reading, having to offer important
points of reflection and conclusions regarding anarchist thought and
practice. This applies to all the documents included in this edition.
And to close, as we began our introduction to the publication, the
knowledge and critical overview of the reference texts of the anarchist
movement and its historical documents are important resources for the
current era and the perspective of anarchism in it. Because, "a movement
without memory is a movement without a perspective" and the more the
anarchist movement moves away from its revolutionary principles and
goals, the more it is stripped of the external schools of thought that
want to turn it either into a component of social democracy, or into a
movement of individual rights and "protest", the more it will lose its
historical continuity, its identity, the prospect of being a catalyst
for social and political developments in the coming decades.
Initiative of Anarchist Saints Anargyro - Kamaterou
[1]The phrase belongs to the anarchist speculator Fellipe Corea
https://protaanka.espivblogs.net/2024/10/25/i-eisagogi-mas-stin-prosfati-ekdosi-tis-quot-platformas-quot/
_________________________________________
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
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten