While a century later the debate between the Platform and the Synthesis may seem old and outdated, it continues to reveal profound divisions in the very nature of anarchism, divisions that still shape the organizational landscape of the entire anarchist movement today. --- The historical situation of 1926 is quite different from our own: we no longer experience the hope of an imminent world revolution; we are neither in the aftermath of the First World War and the traumas it engendered, nor in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution and the experiment of a libertarian society in Ukraine, with its hopes and failures... All these points might suggest that, given their specific contexts of drafting, the elements of both the Platform and the Synthesis are now obsolete, as they respond to the needs of a bygone era. Thus, it may be legitimate to ask whether the debate between the Platform and the Synthesis is still relevant today.
Quite clearly, the question of anarchist organization is no longer posed as it was a century ago. The Platform takes on a quasi-military organizational form, inspired by the Makhnovshchina, with the aim of being ready to defend the coming revolution. Thus, today, so-called platformist organizations do not seek to reproduce the text verbatim; they adapt it to our times and our contexts, while retaining its basic spirit. This modernization leads, for example, French libertarian communists, since the time of the Union of Libertarian Communist Workers (UTCL), to prioritize strategic unity over tactical unity[1]. Meanwhile, other libertarian communist organizational models have also emerged, such as specificism, which today influences (in addition to the Platform) social and organized anarchists worldwide.
From the Synthesis perspective, the basic thesis that divides anarchism into three currents (libertarian communism, anarchist individualism, and anarcho-syndicalism) is outdated. Its context is the outcome of the 1907 International Anarchist Congress in Amsterdam, which crystallized the opposition between libertarian communists advocating an anarchist "party"[2](Malatesta) and anarcho-syndicalists calling for anarchists to concentrate their efforts in trade unions (Monatte). This thesis is now entirely obsolete: organized anarchists (including the UCL) have fully embraced the strategy of organizational dualism, which combines trade union involvement with the construction of a specific libertarian communist organization.
However, some elements remain timeless. The anarchist movement remains permeated by anti-organizational principles: from the valorization of local affinity groups (loosely organized and, due to a lack of structure, reproducing social oppressions), to the rejection of anarchist coordination in the construction of counter-powers, which is perceived as authoritarian.
Beyond the debate between Platform and Synthesis, libertarian communists of the Platformist tendency have reconciled the best of revolutionary Marxism and the best of anarchism to make anarchist organization a means to serve the emancipation of the working masses.
Niya (UCL Paris Nord-Est)
The Definition of Anarchism
And yet, there is one point in the Platform/Synthesis debate that still fractures the anarchist movement today between the heirs of these two major tendencies: the question of the origin of anarchism, of its very nature. The Platform, in its time, sought to give anarchism a definitive form, a form in which all organized anarchists and class strugglers find common ground, regardless of the period.
Whereas the Synthesis defines anarchism as a "philosophical and social movement"[3], the Platform excludes moral and philosophical aspects from its definition. On the contrary, for us, Platformists, anarchism is "not a beautiful fantasy, nor an abstract philosophical idea: it is the social movement of the working masses"[4]. Anarchism was born in the workers' movement of the First International; its great ideas-self-management, socialization, federalism, communalism, etc.-are spontaneous creations of workers struggling against capitalism and the State, seeking to build a new, egalitarian, and anti-authoritarian society. The thinkers described as "precursors" or "founders" invented nothing; their role was to transcribe the emancipatory aspirations of the masses.
Our legacy
This rupture leads to another. The automatic exclusion of individualists from the conception of anarchism is in total contradiction with the Synthetists' desire to unify anarchism. We, the Platformists, acknowledge the inability of libertarian communists to organize effectively with individualists, who have historically been proponents of disorganization. The division between these two conceptions of anarchism is so great that it can only lead to constant quarrels, contradictory militant strategies and practices that neutralize each other... These differences could only lead to the stagnation and ineffectiveness of our organizations, which is why it is important to remain within the Platform, to preserve its legacy while remaining grounded in our present in order to adapt it as best as possible.
Voline (1882-1945) is one of the theorists of the Anarchist Synthesis.
The Charbinoise Paper
Consequently, the four pillars of platformism-tactical and strategic unity, theoretical unity, collective and individual responsibility, and federalism-remain major references for all anarchist organizations worldwide that seek to become a significant political force, to have effective revolutionary activity, and a real base among the masses. For an organized class-struggle anarchism!
Arkann (UCL Amiens)
EXCERPTS FROM VOLINE'S ANARCHIST SYNTHESIS
The term "anarchist synthesis" refers to a trend currently emerging within the libertarian movement, seeking to reconcile and then "synthesize" the different currents of thought that divide this movement into several factions, some more hostile to one another than others. Essentially, it aims to unify, to a certain extent, anarchist theory and also the anarchist movement into a harmonious, ordered, and complete whole.[...]
The three main ideas that, according to the Declaration, should be accepted by all serious anarchists in order to unify the movement are as follows:
1. Definitive acceptance of the syndicalist principle, which indicates the true method of social revolution;
2. Definitive acceptance of the communist (libertarian) principle, which establishes the organizational basis of the new society in formation;
3. Definitive acceptance of the individualist principle, the total emancipation and happiness of the individual being the true goal of the social revolution and the new society.
While developing these ideas, the Declaration attempts to clearly define the notion of "social revolution" and to counter the tendency of some libertarians to adapt anarchism to the so-called "transitional period." That said, instead of reiterating the arguments of the Declaration, we prefer to develop the theoretical argument of the synthesis ourselves.
Validate
[1]See the article in the same issue, "Beyond the Platform: Tactical Unity in Question."
[2]"By anarchist party, we mean all those who want to contribute to achieving anarchy, and who, consequently, need to set themselves a goal to reach and a path to follow." Malatesta, "The Organization," L'Agitazione, 1897.
[3]Sébastien Faure, The Anarchist Synthesis, 1928.
[4]Archinov, Nestor Makhno, Ida Mett, Valesvsky, Linsky, Platform for the Organization of Libertarian Communists, 1926.
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Plateforme-Synthese-Une-opposition-qui-fait-toujours-sens
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten