The dialogue around the positions of the "Platform" has in fact never
ceased within the anarchist movement. From time to time, it appears more
and more dynamically in the movement's foreground and triggers a series
of issues that concern anarchists, even before the publication of this
emblematic text. The reasons, we believe, are obvious to the naked eye.
The "illnesses" that the members of Delo Truda diagnosed as the factors
of the defeat and disorganization of the anarchist movement, have never
ceased to decimate it and degrade it to "a small episode in the history
of the struggles of the working class". The disputes between the
supporters of the "cure" and those who perceive the elements that the
"Platform" identified as "illness" as normal and not at all harmful
symptoms have also never ceased. This debate rages with particular
intensity today, and its outcome will not be decided by a bet on moral
or philological justification. The stakes are much higher: it concerns
the historical perspective of anarchism in the 21st century.
Those who have only a superficial connection with the text of the
"Platform" tend to identify the controversy that accompanies it
exclusively as a confrontation over the structure that a specific
anarchist organization should have and whether it should be
characterized by ideological and tactical unity and its members should
be governed by collective responsibility. This impression is incorrect.
The "yellow fever" that needs treatment according to the authors of the
"Platform" does not concern the dialogue about the adoption of one or
another organizational form of the anarchist political body and the
disagreements among anarchists about how it should be structured, as
many believe. The question of whether or not the organizational
proposals made public by the authors of the "Platform" help to realize
the goals of anarchism and whether these proposals show us the way to
the most correct organizational form is crucial, but not the main one.
What the "Platform" deals with and seeks first of all to "cure" is the
distancing of anarchists from these goals.
Arshinov's counterargument in the text of his response to Malatesta,
which we referred to and commented on earlier in our introduction to the
publication, was that he was wrong, precisely because he set aside the
entire theoretical and programmatic background of the proposal. The
bewilderment that the intervention of allied comrades such as Malatesta
caused in the members of Delo Truda shows that these exiled anarchist
revolutionaries themselves did not see enemies within the anarchists of
the class struggle and the anarchist communist tendency. The members of
Delo Truda, in fact, perceived even the anarcho-syndicalists as allies,
although they considered it impossible to unite with them within the
same organization. It is obvious, therefore, that they would never
characterize those who disagree with their proposal as "sick", nor would
they perceive collective dialogue and revolutionary reflection on the
search for the most suitable organizational vehicle as a "sample of
illness".
The "Platform" was not made public to divide through the supposedly
"rigid" positions it put forward, but to unite. To unite the forces that
are fighting for the revolution and the triumph of anarchist proposals
and not for their personal satisfaction as "lovers of the assertion of
the "I" who cling to the chaotic state of the anarchist movement." It
proposed, therefore, the union of the forces that are working for the
realization of the goals of the cause and not unity with the carriers of
the degeneration of the goals. They knew, after all, that they would not
find receptive ears among the latter and they stated it emphatically:
"We know that the individualist and chaotic elements understand and
perceive the word "anarchist principles" as political indifference,
negligence and the absence of any responsibility, something that has
caused almost incurable divisions in our movement, against which we are
fighting with all our energy and passion. That is why we can calmly
ignore the attacks from this side." The problem that the authors of the
"Platform" identified was that the cause of the disorganization of the
anarchists, the one that condemned them to organizational and strategic
weakness and prevented their decisive contribution to the class and
revolutionary struggle, was centered on the distorted view of the
"principle of individuality." For many - and not only the declared
individualists - organization and collectivity were concepts
incompatible with the "freedom of the individual". The individual was
perceived as "cut off" and "unbound" from collective and social ties and
his struggle, an individual "rebellion" against everyone, without a
visionary horizon of another society. A "struggle" without
responsibilities and elaborated goals, in which cooperation is
identified with coercion of the individual, organization with hierarchy
and collectivity with centralism. Views, intact preserved to this day,
identical of course not with anarchism, the root of which is social -
socialist, but with liberalism and its views on the isolated individual,
who trades and competes with other individuals in a Hobbesian society -
arena, in which coercion, hierarchy and centralism inevitably arise, to
"restrain" the individualists - gladiators.
The paradox in what has to do with international anarchism is that the
factors of "revisionism", that is, the advocates of its deviation from
its fundamental ideological roots, those who react to the "return" to
"outdated" - in their opinion - revolutionary principles and are
inspired by individualistic sophisms such as the above, are not based on
a differentiated interpretation of classical theory, on "other" readings
and approaches to it, as traditionally happens in other currents of
thought. On the contrary, the counter-arguments against the theoretical
principles of anarchism come from outside. They come from currents,
philosophies and thinkers that are not related to the anarchist
movement. This reality is not a recent phenomenon, nor does it originate
from anarchists' preoccupation with every Foucault, every Butler, every
academic defender of individual identities or divisions that see
privileged people at the bottom of the working class, or theories that
ideologize physical and social traits and arbitrarily and class-wise
categorize people based on them, instead of fighting the divisions based
on them, recognizing them as artificial. The members of Delo Truda also
focus on this contradiction, already from the introduction of the
"Platform", and wonder how the liberal apotheosis of the individual, the
denial of all responsibility and organization, can have any relevance to
anarchism and even appear as its fundamental characteristic by invoking
some invented "principles", when the "teachers" (Bakunin and Kropotkin
are specifically mentioned) say the exact opposite?
Nevertheless, the "Platform" was attacked not only by the
individualists, but also by a section of anarchists who considered it
possible to connect with the individualist-liberal approach. The
so-called "synthesizers". The "synthesizers" did nothing more than
defend themselves in favor of maintaining the movement "as is", going so
far as to equate the authors of the "Platform" with the Bolsheviks and
accuse them of their "anti-synthetic" line. The treatment of the
"Platform" as a "divisive" and "dogmatic" proposal is not an unknown
condition in revolutionary history. Movements that lose their
orientation, that waver ideologically and turn into microcosms of
self-referential self-sufficiency, always perceive as "hostile" and
"anti-movement" interventions that aim to return to their primary
purpose. The slogan for a "return" to principles and goals is usually
denounced as "ankylosis" and "ideological purity". Is it not the same in
the present time? We will answer this later.
At the center of the polemic of the "synthesizers" (with Volin as the
leader) was actually the questioning of the class character of anarchism
- that is, of anarchism itself as it appeared and developed historically
- the apotheosis of the individual over the collectivity, but also the
attempt to dissolve anarchism as a revolutionary ideology. Its
proclamation of a "spiritual" philosophy outside the material world and
beyond living society. It was not, in other words, a criticism
exclusively limited to the "organizational sector" of the "Platform" or
a well-intentioned, albeit naive, "synthetic" disposition of views that
wanted to repel the "rigor" of Delo Truda and spread the idea of
organization to wider sections of anarchists.
Moreover, the "Platforma" speaks little about issues of organizational
structure, regardless of whether these points are what attracted the
interest of Malatesta or other important anarchists such as Maria
Isidine, but also that it has been customary over time to be the most
prominent and much discussed. The essence of the polemic in the
"Platforma" by the "synthesizers" crystallizes a confrontation about the
nature and orientation of anarchists and not a dispute regarding
anarchist organization and the refutation of the "theoretical unity" of
Delo Truda with an incomprehensible and ideologically impossible
"synthesis of tendencies". Even with a certain amount of arbitrariness
and taking into account the different historical context, it would not
be unreasonable to compare the "synthesizers" with the "post-anarchists"
and "postmodern anarchists" of today. Both the former and the latter
de-ideologize anarchism, demanding a subjective anarchism that differs
from individual to individual, whose background is no longer class and
materialistic, whose purpose of existence does not consist in
revolutionary overthrow, but in a superficial and idealistic personal
satisfaction of "unconventional individuals" within the existing
exploitative and oppressive society. How such a conformist individualist
anarchism expresses itself and what guises transform it from era to era,
could indeed be the subject of entire volumes.
The most representative position of the "synthesizers" is the one that
claims that "there is value in all anarchist views/schools of thought".
But who were the "synthesizers" and from what ideological basis does
this belief arise? Were they anarcho-communists who supported joint
organization with anarcho-individualists, recognizing the "value of all
schools of thought", or was it the other way around? The answer is
extremely simple. The "synthesizers" may have had one or the other
ideological origin, but they expressed the prospect of creating a new
worldview - loosely, with fragments detached from all anarchist
tendencies. They were not anarcho-communists or anarcho-individualists,
supporters of the "synthesis of tendencies" in the sense of the
coexistence of different worldviews under the same organizational roof,
as they themselves believed or as is commonly believed. In reality, they
wanted to create a "new anarchy" de-ideologized, a new worldview, within
which heterogeneous elements would be connected that would supposedly be
in an indivisible unity. A new worldview in the form of a dogma that the
anarchist movement would have to accept as a new faith, in the name of a
false "unity" and under the claim of universal acceptance of "the value
of all schools of thought." A "unity" that would have as its sole
(self)purpose the satisfaction of the members within the organization,
being completely disconnected from the class and revolutionary struggle,
outside of society and outside of any practical political goal.
Like any political theory that appears as "ideologically neutral" and on
the altar of an eclectic reconciliation, "anti-dogmatic", so too that of
the "synthesizers" was anything but "neutral" and non-dogmatic. The
conciliatory "neutrality" of the "synthesizers" was laden with specific
ideological claims and its "anti-dogmaticity" was the mask of the
expected imposition of a confused ideological slog on anarchism. It is
of particular interest to see only some of the positions of the
"synthesizers" in order to enlighten ourselves. According to them, "we
cannot consider anarchism a class view and at the same time reject those
who go to give it a more human character". In other words, the
"synthesizers" attack the class background of anarchism, which according
to them should constitute only one "element" of it among others. But let
Arshinov answer and get us out of the predicament: "This is a view held
in common with the liberals, through which they are afraid to rely on
the truths of the world of labor, forever swinging ideologically between
the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, searching for common humanistic
values to use as a link between the competing classes. But we know well
that there is no one and indivisible humanity, that the goals of
anarchist communism will be satisfied only through the
self-determination of the working class, and that the activity of
humanity as a whole, including the bourgeoisie, will not achieve even this."
In replying to the above passage, Arshinov simultaneously responds to
the position of the "synthesizers", on the basis of which "we must
create a synthesis and declare that anarchism includes class elements as
well as humanistic and individualistic principles". A position that is
particularly declarative and sufficient in itself to justify the view
that the "synthesizers" did not seek the "unification of tendencies" but
the abolition of tendencies and their anti-dialectical fusion both at
the worldview and organizational level. Solemnly confirming that as a
rule in the history of revolutionary movements, the invocation of a
unity without principles or under vague principles, so open as to
embrace all kinds of heterogeneous elements, is always accompanied by
revisionism, dogmatism, ultimately a departure from principles and,
ultimately, a retreat from the goal of the Revolution. Such a worldview
as that of the "synthesizers", individualistic and "class" at the same
time, philosophically grounded in idealism and the metaphysical
perception of history as the history of "humanity" in general and
indeterminately, remote from any practical political struggle and
revolutionary aim, founded on absolute emptiness, bears no resemblance
to the anarchist revolutionary worldview. Arshinov rightly coined the
"synthesizers" with the most apt title that could be given to them, that
of "confused anarchists"!
Throughout revolutionary history, the final blow of the - supposedly -
ideologically distanced and "super-unifying" revisionism has always come
in the form of a "reminder" of principles. Of those principles, which it
has first fought to eradicate. The "synthesizers" did not escape this
rule either. While they first targeted the class, social and materialist
core of anarchism, they later resorted to this familiar tactic, pointing
out, now as late "defenders" of anarchism, the alleged "inconsistencies"
of the "Platform" in terms of theory: a theory that they only wanted to
abolish.
The "synthesizers" therefore argue that: "(The platformists) are only
one step away from Bolshevism, a single step which the authors of the
platform do not dare to take. The similarity between the Bolsheviks and
the "platformist anarchists" is frightening for the Russian comrades..."
But what is it that the theorists of the "synthesis" characterize as "a
step away from Bolshevism"? In fact, nothing other than anarchism
itself. The "Platform" picks up the thread exactly where Bakunin left
off, discussing the relationship between socialist instinct and
revolutionary idea, that is, the relationship between the organized
political subject and spontaneous popular action. It is inspired by
classical texts and constitutes itself, a classical document of the
anarchist tradition, which elaborates the fundamental ideas and
proposals of the anarchists and wants to give them a programmatic and
applicable character without deviating anywhere from the means and goals
of the anarchist worldview. One cannot detect any discontinuities or
ideological deviations in the text of the "Platforma" even if one
encounters disagreements with points or certain of its proposals. The
"synthesizers" mobilized this reproach with political intent and
indulging in an immoral tactic of disorientation from the issues it
raises. Their problem with the "Platforma" is not organizational but
ideological and is a problem with anarchism itself, which they wanted to
mutate.
To connect "then" with "now", when ideological confusions are greater
and bourgeois influences on anarchism have invaded all sides and
expansively the entire contemporary anarchist movement, we would say
that just like the contemporary continuers of the "synthesizers", the
current critics of "-isms", of organization and ideology, the
contemporary individualists of "postmodern" anarchy, so too the
"synthesizers", what they were attempting to convince
anti-dialectically, is that anarchism "is not anarchism", that its
pioneers and representatives are wrong. Thus, emboldened by the beliefs
of their own invented "anarchy", they took the attack one step further:
they characterized as "Bolshevism" and "Marxism" the class, socialist
and materialist core of anarchism, "Bolshevism" and "Marxism", that is,
the theory of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, the "platformists" and
others, they baptized "Bolsheviks" and "Marxists" all those who do not
accept the liberal and bourgeois influences on anarchism.
The central question of the "Platform", to which the "synthesizers" gave
their own answer, brings to light, in our opinion, the central point of
the dispute among anarchists, which has been ongoing since the
foundation of our movement: is anarchism a revolutionary class ideology
that should take on a leading role in social upheaval, or is it an
individual philosophy that can be subjectively adopted by everyone and
as such constitute a personal "survival guide" within the existing
socio-political system? This, then, is, in our opinion, the content of
the dispute, the outcome of which will determine the role, position and
perspective of international anarchism in the 21st century. This is the
central anxiety of the editors of the "Platform", who, having
experienced firsthand the double defeat of the anarchist forces during
the years of the Bolshevik dictatorship over the proletariat - political
and military - are seeking a way out and a solution in the creation of a
"General Union of Anarchists" that would be formed around a common
program and around the ideological and tactical unity of its members.
The lessons from the "Platform" and the arguments of its authors against
theoretical distortions, the liberal apotheosis of the individual and
the exposure of the class and revolutionary roots of anarchism are
extremely useful today in the struggle for the political and
revolutionary reconstruction of the domestic and international anarchist
movement. The challenge of organization remains, as do the ideological
and strategic pathologies that plague the anarchist movement. The
dilemmas are here: do we want an anarchist movement that will play a
catalytic political role in the dramatic developments of our days, to
inspire and fight for the triumph and victory of its projects, or an
anarchist space without class and social foundations, increasingly
de-massified, which will simply constitute a noisy "follower" of
developments? If we want the latter, simply to "move" and "act" and
"whatever comes of it," then nothing needs to change. If we want the
former, we will need to organize and develop a strategy and
revolutionary program.
Anarchism is a movement of class struggle. It is the revolutionary
worldview of the working class, its libertarian expanse. It is the only
solution to the problems of the times, for class and social emancipation
and the reconstruction of a society without state and power, with wealth
in the hands of those who produce it. This strategic orientation
presupposes organization and an applicable revolutionary program that
will penetrate into the heart of the class struggle and will manage to
win over the vast majority of those who will be called upon to embody
it: the vast majority of workers, the unemployed, the small and
medium-sized enterprises that do not employ a workforce, the poor
farmers, the class-defined youth. For this goal, we must join forces and
form a modern anarchist political organization, a modern revolutionary
political force that will systematically overturn the existing political
landscape and the existing power relations, paving the way for the
Social Revolution. Which will act locally and aim globally, reviving the
Black and Red International of Anarchists in an era of imperialist wars
and geopolitical rearrangements brought about by the global structural
crisis of the capitalist system.
Anarchism cannot be reduced to an individual philosophy or an
entertaining hobby of supposedly "unconventionalism" for a few and
chosen ones. It is not a marginal subculture but a revolutionary
worldview with its principles, historical stagnations, the dead and its
lessons. For anarchism to have historical continuity and new
revolutionary stagnations, it must also have historical continuers:
politically organized and collectively responsible for the defense of
its ideas and projects. With a solid knowledge of history and theory,
with a forged revolutionary and ideological political identity. These
claims are not "anachronistic" nor do they refer to a religious model of
anarchist "believers" as the extreme dogmatists of the postmodern attack
will respond to us, those who deny the possibility of revolutionary
change, seeing societies as static and capitalism and bourgeois
democracy as their terminal station, like other Fukuyamas. The rupture
of the collective bonds of society, its fragmentation into thousands of
constructed individual "identities", the replacement of central
revolutionary projects by individual philosophies of alternative
coexistence with barbarity do not signal the "new": they are the crudest
crystallization of the bourgeois decadence of societies, of the doctrine
of "each for his own part".
Committed to the goal of defending, promoting and practically
establishing anarchist proposals, we must make transcendences, both
political and strategic, as well as organizational and militant. To
leave the easy solutions of individual paths, of non-organization, of
irresponsible and unstable politicization that trivializes it and turns
it into leisure entertainment. To uproot individualism once and for all
in every form, from life, theory, our political existence. To realize
that this is not part of the anarchist tradition as Marx-Engels once
slanderously classified it in the "German reaction", but an integral
part of the rotten bourgeois society that we collectively want to
overthrow. In the same way, we should confront the postmodern
individualism of the politics of "identities", of subjective idealism,
the individualism that waits for the moment in ephemeral mobilization
and sees struggles in terms of consumer spectacle, which when it wanes,
then returning to the couch appears as the only way to escape from our
social and political responsibility. This is the reception of the
lessons of the "Platform" and with them it arms us against the current
dystopia of the individualistic plague that haunts, like yellow fever,
our movement.
So, if we want an anarchist movement that is strong, militant,
constantly active, and present in people's everyday lives, then we must
strive to make it a reality. Here, directly, now, in the world we live in.
Anarchist Initiative of Saints Anargyroi - Kamaterou
https://protaanka.espivblogs.net/2024/12/24/epimetro-tis-protovoylias-anarchikon-agion-anargyron-kamateroy-stin-ekdosi-i-platforma-tis-genikis-enosis-anarchikon-kai-o-dialogos-pano-se-ayti/
_________________________________________
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
ceased within the anarchist movement. From time to time, it appears more
and more dynamically in the movement's foreground and triggers a series
of issues that concern anarchists, even before the publication of this
emblematic text. The reasons, we believe, are obvious to the naked eye.
The "illnesses" that the members of Delo Truda diagnosed as the factors
of the defeat and disorganization of the anarchist movement, have never
ceased to decimate it and degrade it to "a small episode in the history
of the struggles of the working class". The disputes between the
supporters of the "cure" and those who perceive the elements that the
"Platform" identified as "illness" as normal and not at all harmful
symptoms have also never ceased. This debate rages with particular
intensity today, and its outcome will not be decided by a bet on moral
or philological justification. The stakes are much higher: it concerns
the historical perspective of anarchism in the 21st century.
Those who have only a superficial connection with the text of the
"Platform" tend to identify the controversy that accompanies it
exclusively as a confrontation over the structure that a specific
anarchist organization should have and whether it should be
characterized by ideological and tactical unity and its members should
be governed by collective responsibility. This impression is incorrect.
The "yellow fever" that needs treatment according to the authors of the
"Platform" does not concern the dialogue about the adoption of one or
another organizational form of the anarchist political body and the
disagreements among anarchists about how it should be structured, as
many believe. The question of whether or not the organizational
proposals made public by the authors of the "Platform" help to realize
the goals of anarchism and whether these proposals show us the way to
the most correct organizational form is crucial, but not the main one.
What the "Platform" deals with and seeks first of all to "cure" is the
distancing of anarchists from these goals.
Arshinov's counterargument in the text of his response to Malatesta,
which we referred to and commented on earlier in our introduction to the
publication, was that he was wrong, precisely because he set aside the
entire theoretical and programmatic background of the proposal. The
bewilderment that the intervention of allied comrades such as Malatesta
caused in the members of Delo Truda shows that these exiled anarchist
revolutionaries themselves did not see enemies within the anarchists of
the class struggle and the anarchist communist tendency. The members of
Delo Truda, in fact, perceived even the anarcho-syndicalists as allies,
although they considered it impossible to unite with them within the
same organization. It is obvious, therefore, that they would never
characterize those who disagree with their proposal as "sick", nor would
they perceive collective dialogue and revolutionary reflection on the
search for the most suitable organizational vehicle as a "sample of
illness".
The "Platform" was not made public to divide through the supposedly
"rigid" positions it put forward, but to unite. To unite the forces that
are fighting for the revolution and the triumph of anarchist proposals
and not for their personal satisfaction as "lovers of the assertion of
the "I" who cling to the chaotic state of the anarchist movement." It
proposed, therefore, the union of the forces that are working for the
realization of the goals of the cause and not unity with the carriers of
the degeneration of the goals. They knew, after all, that they would not
find receptive ears among the latter and they stated it emphatically:
"We know that the individualist and chaotic elements understand and
perceive the word "anarchist principles" as political indifference,
negligence and the absence of any responsibility, something that has
caused almost incurable divisions in our movement, against which we are
fighting with all our energy and passion. That is why we can calmly
ignore the attacks from this side." The problem that the authors of the
"Platform" identified was that the cause of the disorganization of the
anarchists, the one that condemned them to organizational and strategic
weakness and prevented their decisive contribution to the class and
revolutionary struggle, was centered on the distorted view of the
"principle of individuality." For many - and not only the declared
individualists - organization and collectivity were concepts
incompatible with the "freedom of the individual". The individual was
perceived as "cut off" and "unbound" from collective and social ties and
his struggle, an individual "rebellion" against everyone, without a
visionary horizon of another society. A "struggle" without
responsibilities and elaborated goals, in which cooperation is
identified with coercion of the individual, organization with hierarchy
and collectivity with centralism. Views, intact preserved to this day,
identical of course not with anarchism, the root of which is social -
socialist, but with liberalism and its views on the isolated individual,
who trades and competes with other individuals in a Hobbesian society -
arena, in which coercion, hierarchy and centralism inevitably arise, to
"restrain" the individualists - gladiators.
The paradox in what has to do with international anarchism is that the
factors of "revisionism", that is, the advocates of its deviation from
its fundamental ideological roots, those who react to the "return" to
"outdated" - in their opinion - revolutionary principles and are
inspired by individualistic sophisms such as the above, are not based on
a differentiated interpretation of classical theory, on "other" readings
and approaches to it, as traditionally happens in other currents of
thought. On the contrary, the counter-arguments against the theoretical
principles of anarchism come from outside. They come from currents,
philosophies and thinkers that are not related to the anarchist
movement. This reality is not a recent phenomenon, nor does it originate
from anarchists' preoccupation with every Foucault, every Butler, every
academic defender of individual identities or divisions that see
privileged people at the bottom of the working class, or theories that
ideologize physical and social traits and arbitrarily and class-wise
categorize people based on them, instead of fighting the divisions based
on them, recognizing them as artificial. The members of Delo Truda also
focus on this contradiction, already from the introduction of the
"Platform", and wonder how the liberal apotheosis of the individual, the
denial of all responsibility and organization, can have any relevance to
anarchism and even appear as its fundamental characteristic by invoking
some invented "principles", when the "teachers" (Bakunin and Kropotkin
are specifically mentioned) say the exact opposite?
Nevertheless, the "Platform" was attacked not only by the
individualists, but also by a section of anarchists who considered it
possible to connect with the individualist-liberal approach. The
so-called "synthesizers". The "synthesizers" did nothing more than
defend themselves in favor of maintaining the movement "as is", going so
far as to equate the authors of the "Platform" with the Bolsheviks and
accuse them of their "anti-synthetic" line. The treatment of the
"Platform" as a "divisive" and "dogmatic" proposal is not an unknown
condition in revolutionary history. Movements that lose their
orientation, that waver ideologically and turn into microcosms of
self-referential self-sufficiency, always perceive as "hostile" and
"anti-movement" interventions that aim to return to their primary
purpose. The slogan for a "return" to principles and goals is usually
denounced as "ankylosis" and "ideological purity". Is it not the same in
the present time? We will answer this later.
At the center of the polemic of the "synthesizers" (with Volin as the
leader) was actually the questioning of the class character of anarchism
- that is, of anarchism itself as it appeared and developed historically
- the apotheosis of the individual over the collectivity, but also the
attempt to dissolve anarchism as a revolutionary ideology. Its
proclamation of a "spiritual" philosophy outside the material world and
beyond living society. It was not, in other words, a criticism
exclusively limited to the "organizational sector" of the "Platform" or
a well-intentioned, albeit naive, "synthetic" disposition of views that
wanted to repel the "rigor" of Delo Truda and spread the idea of
organization to wider sections of anarchists.
Moreover, the "Platforma" speaks little about issues of organizational
structure, regardless of whether these points are what attracted the
interest of Malatesta or other important anarchists such as Maria
Isidine, but also that it has been customary over time to be the most
prominent and much discussed. The essence of the polemic in the
"Platforma" by the "synthesizers" crystallizes a confrontation about the
nature and orientation of anarchists and not a dispute regarding
anarchist organization and the refutation of the "theoretical unity" of
Delo Truda with an incomprehensible and ideologically impossible
"synthesis of tendencies". Even with a certain amount of arbitrariness
and taking into account the different historical context, it would not
be unreasonable to compare the "synthesizers" with the "post-anarchists"
and "postmodern anarchists" of today. Both the former and the latter
de-ideologize anarchism, demanding a subjective anarchism that differs
from individual to individual, whose background is no longer class and
materialistic, whose purpose of existence does not consist in
revolutionary overthrow, but in a superficial and idealistic personal
satisfaction of "unconventional individuals" within the existing
exploitative and oppressive society. How such a conformist individualist
anarchism expresses itself and what guises transform it from era to era,
could indeed be the subject of entire volumes.
The most representative position of the "synthesizers" is the one that
claims that "there is value in all anarchist views/schools of thought".
But who were the "synthesizers" and from what ideological basis does
this belief arise? Were they anarcho-communists who supported joint
organization with anarcho-individualists, recognizing the "value of all
schools of thought", or was it the other way around? The answer is
extremely simple. The "synthesizers" may have had one or the other
ideological origin, but they expressed the prospect of creating a new
worldview - loosely, with fragments detached from all anarchist
tendencies. They were not anarcho-communists or anarcho-individualists,
supporters of the "synthesis of tendencies" in the sense of the
coexistence of different worldviews under the same organizational roof,
as they themselves believed or as is commonly believed. In reality, they
wanted to create a "new anarchy" de-ideologized, a new worldview, within
which heterogeneous elements would be connected that would supposedly be
in an indivisible unity. A new worldview in the form of a dogma that the
anarchist movement would have to accept as a new faith, in the name of a
false "unity" and under the claim of universal acceptance of "the value
of all schools of thought." A "unity" that would have as its sole
(self)purpose the satisfaction of the members within the organization,
being completely disconnected from the class and revolutionary struggle,
outside of society and outside of any practical political goal.
Like any political theory that appears as "ideologically neutral" and on
the altar of an eclectic reconciliation, "anti-dogmatic", so too that of
the "synthesizers" was anything but "neutral" and non-dogmatic. The
conciliatory "neutrality" of the "synthesizers" was laden with specific
ideological claims and its "anti-dogmaticity" was the mask of the
expected imposition of a confused ideological slog on anarchism. It is
of particular interest to see only some of the positions of the
"synthesizers" in order to enlighten ourselves. According to them, "we
cannot consider anarchism a class view and at the same time reject those
who go to give it a more human character". In other words, the
"synthesizers" attack the class background of anarchism, which according
to them should constitute only one "element" of it among others. But let
Arshinov answer and get us out of the predicament: "This is a view held
in common with the liberals, through which they are afraid to rely on
the truths of the world of labor, forever swinging ideologically between
the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, searching for common humanistic
values to use as a link between the competing classes. But we know well
that there is no one and indivisible humanity, that the goals of
anarchist communism will be satisfied only through the
self-determination of the working class, and that the activity of
humanity as a whole, including the bourgeoisie, will not achieve even this."
In replying to the above passage, Arshinov simultaneously responds to
the position of the "synthesizers", on the basis of which "we must
create a synthesis and declare that anarchism includes class elements as
well as humanistic and individualistic principles". A position that is
particularly declarative and sufficient in itself to justify the view
that the "synthesizers" did not seek the "unification of tendencies" but
the abolition of tendencies and their anti-dialectical fusion both at
the worldview and organizational level. Solemnly confirming that as a
rule in the history of revolutionary movements, the invocation of a
unity without principles or under vague principles, so open as to
embrace all kinds of heterogeneous elements, is always accompanied by
revisionism, dogmatism, ultimately a departure from principles and,
ultimately, a retreat from the goal of the Revolution. Such a worldview
as that of the "synthesizers", individualistic and "class" at the same
time, philosophically grounded in idealism and the metaphysical
perception of history as the history of "humanity" in general and
indeterminately, remote from any practical political struggle and
revolutionary aim, founded on absolute emptiness, bears no resemblance
to the anarchist revolutionary worldview. Arshinov rightly coined the
"synthesizers" with the most apt title that could be given to them, that
of "confused anarchists"!
Throughout revolutionary history, the final blow of the - supposedly -
ideologically distanced and "super-unifying" revisionism has always come
in the form of a "reminder" of principles. Of those principles, which it
has first fought to eradicate. The "synthesizers" did not escape this
rule either. While they first targeted the class, social and materialist
core of anarchism, they later resorted to this familiar tactic, pointing
out, now as late "defenders" of anarchism, the alleged "inconsistencies"
of the "Platform" in terms of theory: a theory that they only wanted to
abolish.
The "synthesizers" therefore argue that: "(The platformists) are only
one step away from Bolshevism, a single step which the authors of the
platform do not dare to take. The similarity between the Bolsheviks and
the "platformist anarchists" is frightening for the Russian comrades..."
But what is it that the theorists of the "synthesis" characterize as "a
step away from Bolshevism"? In fact, nothing other than anarchism
itself. The "Platform" picks up the thread exactly where Bakunin left
off, discussing the relationship between socialist instinct and
revolutionary idea, that is, the relationship between the organized
political subject and spontaneous popular action. It is inspired by
classical texts and constitutes itself, a classical document of the
anarchist tradition, which elaborates the fundamental ideas and
proposals of the anarchists and wants to give them a programmatic and
applicable character without deviating anywhere from the means and goals
of the anarchist worldview. One cannot detect any discontinuities or
ideological deviations in the text of the "Platforma" even if one
encounters disagreements with points or certain of its proposals. The
"synthesizers" mobilized this reproach with political intent and
indulging in an immoral tactic of disorientation from the issues it
raises. Their problem with the "Platforma" is not organizational but
ideological and is a problem with anarchism itself, which they wanted to
mutate.
To connect "then" with "now", when ideological confusions are greater
and bourgeois influences on anarchism have invaded all sides and
expansively the entire contemporary anarchist movement, we would say
that just like the contemporary continuers of the "synthesizers", the
current critics of "-isms", of organization and ideology, the
contemporary individualists of "postmodern" anarchy, so too the
"synthesizers", what they were attempting to convince
anti-dialectically, is that anarchism "is not anarchism", that its
pioneers and representatives are wrong. Thus, emboldened by the beliefs
of their own invented "anarchy", they took the attack one step further:
they characterized as "Bolshevism" and "Marxism" the class, socialist
and materialist core of anarchism, "Bolshevism" and "Marxism", that is,
the theory of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, the "platformists" and
others, they baptized "Bolsheviks" and "Marxists" all those who do not
accept the liberal and bourgeois influences on anarchism.
The central question of the "Platform", to which the "synthesizers" gave
their own answer, brings to light, in our opinion, the central point of
the dispute among anarchists, which has been ongoing since the
foundation of our movement: is anarchism a revolutionary class ideology
that should take on a leading role in social upheaval, or is it an
individual philosophy that can be subjectively adopted by everyone and
as such constitute a personal "survival guide" within the existing
socio-political system? This, then, is, in our opinion, the content of
the dispute, the outcome of which will determine the role, position and
perspective of international anarchism in the 21st century. This is the
central anxiety of the editors of the "Platform", who, having
experienced firsthand the double defeat of the anarchist forces during
the years of the Bolshevik dictatorship over the proletariat - political
and military - are seeking a way out and a solution in the creation of a
"General Union of Anarchists" that would be formed around a common
program and around the ideological and tactical unity of its members.
The lessons from the "Platform" and the arguments of its authors against
theoretical distortions, the liberal apotheosis of the individual and
the exposure of the class and revolutionary roots of anarchism are
extremely useful today in the struggle for the political and
revolutionary reconstruction of the domestic and international anarchist
movement. The challenge of organization remains, as do the ideological
and strategic pathologies that plague the anarchist movement. The
dilemmas are here: do we want an anarchist movement that will play a
catalytic political role in the dramatic developments of our days, to
inspire and fight for the triumph and victory of its projects, or an
anarchist space without class and social foundations, increasingly
de-massified, which will simply constitute a noisy "follower" of
developments? If we want the latter, simply to "move" and "act" and
"whatever comes of it," then nothing needs to change. If we want the
former, we will need to organize and develop a strategy and
revolutionary program.
Anarchism is a movement of class struggle. It is the revolutionary
worldview of the working class, its libertarian expanse. It is the only
solution to the problems of the times, for class and social emancipation
and the reconstruction of a society without state and power, with wealth
in the hands of those who produce it. This strategic orientation
presupposes organization and an applicable revolutionary program that
will penetrate into the heart of the class struggle and will manage to
win over the vast majority of those who will be called upon to embody
it: the vast majority of workers, the unemployed, the small and
medium-sized enterprises that do not employ a workforce, the poor
farmers, the class-defined youth. For this goal, we must join forces and
form a modern anarchist political organization, a modern revolutionary
political force that will systematically overturn the existing political
landscape and the existing power relations, paving the way for the
Social Revolution. Which will act locally and aim globally, reviving the
Black and Red International of Anarchists in an era of imperialist wars
and geopolitical rearrangements brought about by the global structural
crisis of the capitalist system.
Anarchism cannot be reduced to an individual philosophy or an
entertaining hobby of supposedly "unconventionalism" for a few and
chosen ones. It is not a marginal subculture but a revolutionary
worldview with its principles, historical stagnations, the dead and its
lessons. For anarchism to have historical continuity and new
revolutionary stagnations, it must also have historical continuers:
politically organized and collectively responsible for the defense of
its ideas and projects. With a solid knowledge of history and theory,
with a forged revolutionary and ideological political identity. These
claims are not "anachronistic" nor do they refer to a religious model of
anarchist "believers" as the extreme dogmatists of the postmodern attack
will respond to us, those who deny the possibility of revolutionary
change, seeing societies as static and capitalism and bourgeois
democracy as their terminal station, like other Fukuyamas. The rupture
of the collective bonds of society, its fragmentation into thousands of
constructed individual "identities", the replacement of central
revolutionary projects by individual philosophies of alternative
coexistence with barbarity do not signal the "new": they are the crudest
crystallization of the bourgeois decadence of societies, of the doctrine
of "each for his own part".
Committed to the goal of defending, promoting and practically
establishing anarchist proposals, we must make transcendences, both
political and strategic, as well as organizational and militant. To
leave the easy solutions of individual paths, of non-organization, of
irresponsible and unstable politicization that trivializes it and turns
it into leisure entertainment. To uproot individualism once and for all
in every form, from life, theory, our political existence. To realize
that this is not part of the anarchist tradition as Marx-Engels once
slanderously classified it in the "German reaction", but an integral
part of the rotten bourgeois society that we collectively want to
overthrow. In the same way, we should confront the postmodern
individualism of the politics of "identities", of subjective idealism,
the individualism that waits for the moment in ephemeral mobilization
and sees struggles in terms of consumer spectacle, which when it wanes,
then returning to the couch appears as the only way to escape from our
social and political responsibility. This is the reception of the
lessons of the "Platform" and with them it arms us against the current
dystopia of the individualistic plague that haunts, like yellow fever,
our movement.
So, if we want an anarchist movement that is strong, militant,
constantly active, and present in people's everyday lives, then we must
strive to make it a reality. Here, directly, now, in the world we live in.
Anarchist Initiative of Saints Anargyroi - Kamaterou
https://protaanka.espivblogs.net/2024/12/24/epimetro-tis-protovoylias-anarchikon-agion-anargyron-kamateroy-stin-ekdosi-i-platforma-tis-genikis-enosis-anarchikon-kai-o-dialogos-pano-se-ayti/
_________________________________________
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