Nearly a century after the publication of Diélo Trouda's Organizational Platform, its debates continue to shape a portion of the organized anarchist movement. Contemporary libertarian organizations, from Brazil to Germany and the United States, claim all or part of this legacy, while adapting it to their political realities. Between platformism, specificism, and libertarian communism, let us revisit the relevance of these organizational concepts and what they can still contribute to today's struggles.
Organized anarchism in recent decades has seen the creation of new organizations and the renewal of others around the world. Organizations such as the Libertarian Socialist Organization (OSL, Brazil), Black Rose/Rosa Negra (BRRN, United States), Embat (Catalonia), the Anarchist Communist Group (ACG, United Kingdom), and Die Plattform (Germany) can be mentioned.
What is their legacy?
These organizations, while not necessarily claiming it as their own, position themselves within the legacy of the text by the Diélo Trouda group and the debate it sparked. This debate focused on the need for an anarchist organization outside of the trade union, founded on theoretical and tactical unity as well as the collective responsibility of its members. This legacy is evident in the OSL manifesto, which indicates that they are influenced by forms of activism that advocated a homogeneous and programmatic form of organization. More specifically, it draws on some of its historical expressions, such as the Federation of Anarchist Communists of Bulgaria (FAKB) from the 1920s to the 1940s and Georges Fontenis's Manifesto of Libertarian Communism (1953). The OSL takes a similar stance toward the specificist currents of the 1960s and 1970s with the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU) and Libertarian Resistance (RL, Argentina)[1]. In the UK, the ACG states in their text "In the Tradition" that they have never identified as platformists but that the Platform has allowed them to immunize themselves against the anti-organizational tendency of the anarchist current. In the US, BRRN expresses in their program "Turning the Tide" that organizational dualism is a central element of their strategy.
Libertarian communists need a revolutionary program to unify their analysis, coordinate their action, and give a clear direction to the struggle toward social and libertarian revolution.
Positioning oneself within the legacy of the Platform does not appear to be the adoption of the text as the organization's statutes or central text. It often involves a mobilization, sometimes critical, of certain of its elements, whether theoretical, strategic, or tactical. This mobilization sometimes occurs with the mobilization of one of its critics, Malatesta. In the introduction to the BRRN program, we read: "We share the opinion of Errico Malatesta, who stated in 1890 that 'the cornerstone and principal bond of an anarchist organization should be the program understood and adopted by all.'" This dual mobilization of the Platform and Malatesta stems from the connection to the specificist current, which claims to follow the organizational conceptions of Bakunin and Malatesta, while considering the Platform a minor contribution. The Platform's text is thus presented as a historical text, rooted in a revolutionary period, difficult for the organization to mobilize outside of such a context.
Our current-heir to the Platform, while not limited to it-develops within a specific historical context (post-war France, internal political struggle with synthesisist lines, the specific nature of the French trade union context, etc.). While referencing a political legacy of organized anarchism, the libertarian communist current also draws on a Marxist heritage, sometimes through a libertarian reinterpretation of Marx[2]or even a synthesis of Marxism and anarchism. This heritage has been built from several perspectives. The first is the search for alternatives to the bureaucratic degeneration of the USSR by former Marxists who turned to anarchism. A second is the hope among anarchists to find solutions-through historical materialism-to the problems of disorganization and stagnation. The relationship between our organizations and Trotskyist ones also played a role. It is therefore a legacy of rupture with an anti-Marxist anarchist sectarianism.
What place for the Platform?
The debate that erupted around Diélo Trouda's text restructured the anarchist movement, notably around an opposition between "synthetists" and "platformists," embodied in France by the separate existence of the Anarchist Federation (FA) and the Libertarian Communist Union (UCL). Even if the legacy of the Platform seems to occupy a primarily symbolic place, its mobilizations often serve to explain historical divergences within "anarchism" rather than for genuinely organizational objectives. The very understanding of the debate also appears caricatured, limiting it to the issues of the necessity of organization and theoretical and strategic unity. However, the debate touched on other equally important elements, such as the nature of militant discipline and the role of anarchists during the revolution. Today, it would seem that Malatesta's political legacy is playing a more prominent role in the organizational methods of our movement. There is thus a kind of synthesis between the Platform and Malatesta, but at the expense of the former. While the combination itself may not seem impossible, the nature and role assigned to the organization may be more difficult to reconcile.
Errico Malatesta (1853-1932) was an Italian revolutionary anarchist who spent much of his life in exile for his political activities. He occupies an important place in the international libertarian movement due to his critical and practical approach.
Malatesta advocated for an organization based on the autonomy and individual responsibility of its members, particularly in the implementation of its program. In contrast, the model advocated by Makhno, based on collective responsibility, aims to ensure unity and homogeneity in the organization's program and tactics. Furthermore, the Platform's organizational model seeks to break with an individualistic mode of organization that would limit coordination and collective action to a simple network of mutual aid among individuals or groups sharing values, in order to achieve a common goal. Collective responsibility would then serve to move beyond a certain "anarchist laissez-faire" (which can degenerate in the absence of control by members of the organization). One of the objectives of this model is to rouse the anarchist movement from a certain apathy and enable it to assume a role that allows it to influence the course of revolutionary events. In our current period, characterized by a rise of the far right and a rush toward war, numerous challenges confront our organizations. Re-examining the debate surrounding the Platform and its proposals can thus provide some answers.
Abel (UCL Paris Nord-Est)
Submit
[1]See the article "Comparative Analysis: Platformism and Specificism" in this issue.
[2]"Marx and the Libertarians: Marxism, a Force in the Service of Struggles," Alternative libertaire no. 357, February 2025.
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Heritage-politique-La-place-de-la-Plateforme-dans-l-anarchisme-organise
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten