[Maybe try to avoid watering down your class politics in the name of
inclusion as well.]---- https://forumvooranarchisme.nl || Initially, we
had no intention of making a statement or writing about the
circumstances surrounding the ban of our new organisation Organisatie v.
Vrij Socialisme (OVS) from Anarchist Book Fair Amsterdam 2025. However,
as people approached us for more information, we decided it would be
helpful to offer some clarification for other anarchists close to us and
to prevent misunderstanding.
This year, we applied early for a stand and a workshop titled "Organized
Anarchism": History, Theory, and Practice in the Netherlands. Last year,
after sending two emails, we did not hear anything back until the last
moment, where we received an email saying the ABFA Collective were sorry
but had missed our email and did not have any space left for us.
This year, they acknowledged our requests but stated that "the vision we
want to promote clashes with the one OVS promotes." We do not understand
how our "vision" clashes with theirs; all we have done so far is
announcing that we are building an especifist/platformist organisation.
We haven't launched yet, nor published our principles and positions.
After inquiry, they replied:
The Anarchist book fair Amsterdam wants to create an event where many
different tendencies and currents are present since we really believe in
the fundamental idea of diversity of tactics and diversity of
strategies. It is in this light that OvVS won't get a stand or workshop
in the program since it follows a tendency that among other things
rejects diversity of tactics and strategies.
First of all, we think it is important to host different tendencies;
every anarchist book fair worthy of the name has a duty to facilitate
this. We welcome a diversity of tactics within the anarchist movement;
it is through experimentation and critical reflection that our movement
can grow. Their rejection of us is therefore all the more peculiar.
We furthermore consider it hypocritical that the ABFA Collective has
decided to ban our organisation because of our alleged rejection of
"diversity of tactics and strategies" while they themselves, in their
own words, are upholding and only permitting a "specific range of
anarchist ideologies" based on their own conceptions. It is not us, but
the ABFA Collective which is rejecting a diversity of tactics and
strategies based on their own narrow conceptions. Our organisation
adheres to classical anarchist principles and positions that can be
historically traced back over 150 years to the roots of anarchism itself.
Upholding a "diversity of tactics and strategies" could be understood in
multiple ways:
1) Anarchists are not allowed to critique each other's strategies and
tactics.
2) Anarchists are not allowed to physically, materially, or violently
obstruct other anarchist strategies and tactics.
3) Anarchists should uphold a diversity of tactics and strategies within
their own organization.
We might be guilty on the first point, but let us consider the others.
Point 2: we are definitely not in favour of using violence, physical
force, or material obstruction to block other anarchists, and we cannot
imagine a situation in the future where this would be necessary. We
would do everything in our power to prevent something like this from
occuring.
Point 3: As we have pointed out to the organizers of the ABFA, within
platformism and especifismo the emphasis is on establishing collective
goals and developing appropriate strategies and tactics to achieve those
goals. In this sense, platformism and especifismo take a different
approach than loose "big tent" anarchist federations or independent
affinity groups. The idea is that when our combined social force is
concentrated on collectively agreed upon strategies, to be carried out
by the whole organization, there is a better chance of achieving real
social transformation.
This requires individuals to voluntarily make sacrifices for the
collectively established goal. Achieving this strategic and tactical
unity is an aim of our organisation, but it does not mean there can be
no differences in strategy or tactics, as Makhno himself describes:
"We reckon, first of all, that for the sake of unity of the Union, the
minority should, in such cases, make concessions to the majority. This
would be readily achievable, in cases of insignificant differences of
opinion between the minority and majority. If, though, the minority were
to consider sacrificing its viewpoint an impossibility, then there would
be the prospect of having two divergent opinions and tactics within the
Union; a majority view and tactic, and a minority view and tactic."
(Nestor Makhno, Supplement to the Organizational Platform)
The reason for this is to ensure that the practice of our organisation
is not contradictory and does not waste capacity unnecessarily. We
should have honest debates about what best serves our cause and which
strategies and tactics advance these aims. See footnote[1]regarding
minorities making concessions to the majority, understood as a voluntary
commitment to collective decisions rather than blind or coercive obedience.
This brings us to point 1 again. We believe that anarchists should
encourage constructive criticism and debate, because doing so allows us
to learn from each other and grow as a movement. Refusing to do so would
mean intellectual suicide for the movement and a free pass for
thoughtless action.
For criticism to be productive, we should uphold anarchist ethics and
expect the same from those who criticize us. For us, this means striving
rationally for truth and understanding.
The decision to ban our organisation is based on ideological
differences. To understand this conflict between ideologies, we think
it's necessary to provide some historical context as we see this as a
historical continuation of the same conflict between ideologies.
Dutch anarchist history, going back to 1892, is plagued with petty
infighting and sectarianism, seeking almost in a religious way to uphold
ideological purity at the expense of practical action, isolation from
the oppressed masses and organizing. Numerous attempts to organize
nationally were physically sabotaged and boycotted by this purist and
anti-organizational camp, for which Domela Nieuwenhuis was it's earliest
foremost spokesperson.
Albert de Jong, a Dutch anarchist, wrote in 1924 that any anarchist who
advocated organization was labelled a "Bolshevik", by this purist and
anti-organisational camp. Two years later, exiled Russian anarchists,
drawing hard lessons from the movement's experiences and failures,
especially those revealed by the Russian Revolution, put forward a
proposal for more coherent anarchist organisation. This text, published
in 1926, became known as the "Platform", and was immediately denounced
by the same Dutch circles as "anarcho-Bolshevik".
Zoe Baker explains in her book Means and Ends that the "The Platform
aroused a great deal of debate[...][but]these responses tended to be
based on misunderstanding or misrepresenting its ideas". There was
little intellectual honesty or serious debate about the ideas and
problems the "Platform" brought to light. To make matters worse,
Archinov, a co-founder of the "Platform," betrayed his old comrades by
promoting Bolshevism and discrediting anarchism in exchange for
returning to Soviet Russia. All this led to a lot of rumours,
misinterpretations, infighting, and false claims, and to the once
esteemed anarchist Nestor Makhno being cast off as an authoritarian.
Early organizational anarchists, including those who supported the
Platform, strongly criticized anti-organizationalists and anarchist
purism. However, they didn't boycott them or spread false rumors.
Instead, they adopted a "live and let live" approach and refused to work
against fellow anarchists or obstruct their activities.
In our opinion, the ABFA Collective now upholds this historical
tradition of boycotting fellow anarchists, and if they are serious about
upholding the pluralistic nature and anti-authoritarian principles of
anarchism, there would be no reason to block us. Instead, they are
upholding double standards, since it's not hard to find critiques of
other strategies and tactics in the pamphlets and books present at the
book fair. One example is found in the pamphlet against the Rojava
militia of the Kurdish liberation movement, stemming from the
insurrectionist camp. This is not a problem, should not be a problem,
nor should critical voices arbitrarily get banned.
Our sister organization in Brazil, Organização Socialista Libertária
(OSL), has been invited twice in a row to give a workshop at the
Anarchist Bookfair in New York. Our positions are similar to theirs, yet
there is no issue with their participation. When a public event like
this takes place, the organizers of the book fair should be held
accountable for not abusing their position to exclude other anarchists
whose views differ from their own.
*
[Ed: OVS is part of a contemporary wave of "organized anarchism" in the
Netherlands - following traditions of "especifismo/platformism" trend of
anarchist-communist. According to a 2025 post on "Forum voor
Anarchisme", OVS presents itself as "a new specifically organised
anarchist organisation" in the Netherlands.]
Organisation for Free Socialism - v. Vrij Socialisme (OVS)
https://classautonomy.info/now-stop-being-mean-to-the-platformists/
_________________________________________
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
inclusion as well.]---- https://forumvooranarchisme.nl || Initially, we
had no intention of making a statement or writing about the
circumstances surrounding the ban of our new organisation Organisatie v.
Vrij Socialisme (OVS) from Anarchist Book Fair Amsterdam 2025. However,
as people approached us for more information, we decided it would be
helpful to offer some clarification for other anarchists close to us and
to prevent misunderstanding.
This year, we applied early for a stand and a workshop titled "Organized
Anarchism": History, Theory, and Practice in the Netherlands. Last year,
after sending two emails, we did not hear anything back until the last
moment, where we received an email saying the ABFA Collective were sorry
but had missed our email and did not have any space left for us.
This year, they acknowledged our requests but stated that "the vision we
want to promote clashes with the one OVS promotes." We do not understand
how our "vision" clashes with theirs; all we have done so far is
announcing that we are building an especifist/platformist organisation.
We haven't launched yet, nor published our principles and positions.
After inquiry, they replied:
The Anarchist book fair Amsterdam wants to create an event where many
different tendencies and currents are present since we really believe in
the fundamental idea of diversity of tactics and diversity of
strategies. It is in this light that OvVS won't get a stand or workshop
in the program since it follows a tendency that among other things
rejects diversity of tactics and strategies.
First of all, we think it is important to host different tendencies;
every anarchist book fair worthy of the name has a duty to facilitate
this. We welcome a diversity of tactics within the anarchist movement;
it is through experimentation and critical reflection that our movement
can grow. Their rejection of us is therefore all the more peculiar.
We furthermore consider it hypocritical that the ABFA Collective has
decided to ban our organisation because of our alleged rejection of
"diversity of tactics and strategies" while they themselves, in their
own words, are upholding and only permitting a "specific range of
anarchist ideologies" based on their own conceptions. It is not us, but
the ABFA Collective which is rejecting a diversity of tactics and
strategies based on their own narrow conceptions. Our organisation
adheres to classical anarchist principles and positions that can be
historically traced back over 150 years to the roots of anarchism itself.
Upholding a "diversity of tactics and strategies" could be understood in
multiple ways:
1) Anarchists are not allowed to critique each other's strategies and
tactics.
2) Anarchists are not allowed to physically, materially, or violently
obstruct other anarchist strategies and tactics.
3) Anarchists should uphold a diversity of tactics and strategies within
their own organization.
We might be guilty on the first point, but let us consider the others.
Point 2: we are definitely not in favour of using violence, physical
force, or material obstruction to block other anarchists, and we cannot
imagine a situation in the future where this would be necessary. We
would do everything in our power to prevent something like this from
occuring.
Point 3: As we have pointed out to the organizers of the ABFA, within
platformism and especifismo the emphasis is on establishing collective
goals and developing appropriate strategies and tactics to achieve those
goals. In this sense, platformism and especifismo take a different
approach than loose "big tent" anarchist federations or independent
affinity groups. The idea is that when our combined social force is
concentrated on collectively agreed upon strategies, to be carried out
by the whole organization, there is a better chance of achieving real
social transformation.
This requires individuals to voluntarily make sacrifices for the
collectively established goal. Achieving this strategic and tactical
unity is an aim of our organisation, but it does not mean there can be
no differences in strategy or tactics, as Makhno himself describes:
"We reckon, first of all, that for the sake of unity of the Union, the
minority should, in such cases, make concessions to the majority. This
would be readily achievable, in cases of insignificant differences of
opinion between the minority and majority. If, though, the minority were
to consider sacrificing its viewpoint an impossibility, then there would
be the prospect of having two divergent opinions and tactics within the
Union; a majority view and tactic, and a minority view and tactic."
(Nestor Makhno, Supplement to the Organizational Platform)
The reason for this is to ensure that the practice of our organisation
is not contradictory and does not waste capacity unnecessarily. We
should have honest debates about what best serves our cause and which
strategies and tactics advance these aims. See footnote[1]regarding
minorities making concessions to the majority, understood as a voluntary
commitment to collective decisions rather than blind or coercive obedience.
This brings us to point 1 again. We believe that anarchists should
encourage constructive criticism and debate, because doing so allows us
to learn from each other and grow as a movement. Refusing to do so would
mean intellectual suicide for the movement and a free pass for
thoughtless action.
For criticism to be productive, we should uphold anarchist ethics and
expect the same from those who criticize us. For us, this means striving
rationally for truth and understanding.
The decision to ban our organisation is based on ideological
differences. To understand this conflict between ideologies, we think
it's necessary to provide some historical context as we see this as a
historical continuation of the same conflict between ideologies.
Dutch anarchist history, going back to 1892, is plagued with petty
infighting and sectarianism, seeking almost in a religious way to uphold
ideological purity at the expense of practical action, isolation from
the oppressed masses and organizing. Numerous attempts to organize
nationally were physically sabotaged and boycotted by this purist and
anti-organizational camp, for which Domela Nieuwenhuis was it's earliest
foremost spokesperson.
Albert de Jong, a Dutch anarchist, wrote in 1924 that any anarchist who
advocated organization was labelled a "Bolshevik", by this purist and
anti-organisational camp. Two years later, exiled Russian anarchists,
drawing hard lessons from the movement's experiences and failures,
especially those revealed by the Russian Revolution, put forward a
proposal for more coherent anarchist organisation. This text, published
in 1926, became known as the "Platform", and was immediately denounced
by the same Dutch circles as "anarcho-Bolshevik".
Zoe Baker explains in her book Means and Ends that the "The Platform
aroused a great deal of debate[...][but]these responses tended to be
based on misunderstanding or misrepresenting its ideas". There was
little intellectual honesty or serious debate about the ideas and
problems the "Platform" brought to light. To make matters worse,
Archinov, a co-founder of the "Platform," betrayed his old comrades by
promoting Bolshevism and discrediting anarchism in exchange for
returning to Soviet Russia. All this led to a lot of rumours,
misinterpretations, infighting, and false claims, and to the once
esteemed anarchist Nestor Makhno being cast off as an authoritarian.
Early organizational anarchists, including those who supported the
Platform, strongly criticized anti-organizationalists and anarchist
purism. However, they didn't boycott them or spread false rumors.
Instead, they adopted a "live and let live" approach and refused to work
against fellow anarchists or obstruct their activities.
In our opinion, the ABFA Collective now upholds this historical
tradition of boycotting fellow anarchists, and if they are serious about
upholding the pluralistic nature and anti-authoritarian principles of
anarchism, there would be no reason to block us. Instead, they are
upholding double standards, since it's not hard to find critiques of
other strategies and tactics in the pamphlets and books present at the
book fair. One example is found in the pamphlet against the Rojava
militia of the Kurdish liberation movement, stemming from the
insurrectionist camp. This is not a problem, should not be a problem,
nor should critical voices arbitrarily get banned.
Our sister organization in Brazil, Organização Socialista Libertária
(OSL), has been invited twice in a row to give a workshop at the
Anarchist Bookfair in New York. Our positions are similar to theirs, yet
there is no issue with their participation. When a public event like
this takes place, the organizers of the book fair should be held
accountable for not abusing their position to exclude other anarchists
whose views differ from their own.
*
[Ed: OVS is part of a contemporary wave of "organized anarchism" in the
Netherlands - following traditions of "especifismo/platformism" trend of
anarchist-communist. According to a 2025 post on "Forum voor
Anarchisme", OVS presents itself as "a new specifically organised
anarchist organisation" in the Netherlands.]
Organisation for Free Socialism - v. Vrij Socialisme (OVS)
https://classautonomy.info/now-stop-being-mean-to-the-platformists/
_________________________________________
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