For a century, the Platform and those who claim to follow it have been accused of wanting to "Bolshevize" anarchism, meaning: to push it towards an authoritarian turn that would undermine the foundation of libertarian ideas. Yet the signatories of the Platform had a clear intention: to find a framework allowing the anarchist movement to overcome its past limitations, while preserving its anti-authoritarian ambitions and practices. --- From the very beginning of its publication, the Platform sparked a heated debate. For years, "Platformers" and "Synthetists" clashed in the anarchist press, attacking the "liberals" on the one hand and the "Bolsheviks" on the other. This latter attack, first launched by the authors of the Response to the Platform, would become a recurring theme. The Platform is accused of wanting to "Bolshevize" anarchism. It is therefore necessary to analyze the historical context of the emergence of this text and the contradictions inherent in a democratic revolutionary organization.
Democratic Centralism
Leninism is defined above all by a specific conception of revolutionary organization, developed under very particular conditions. Before the 1917 revolution, the Tsarist regime in Russia crushed all dissent with an iron fist. Lenin thus forged the principle of democratic centralism, which attempts to reconcile internal debate with unity of action. The party functions, in theory, on the basis of discussion and collective decision-making-through voting on policy and the appointment of leaders by the rank and file-but once a decision is made, it is imposed on all members with strict discipline, guaranteeing the unity of the movement in action. The party's aim, then, is to resemble the class that sustains it, the proletariat, and to enable action-no small feat during periods of intense repression. This form of organization, however, generates tensions that the party must skillfully overcome. Indeed, there is a fundamental contradiction between centralization and democracy: excessive centralization tends to lead to bureaucratization and a separation between the leadership and the rank and file.
Moreover, according to Trotsky, the relationship between centralization and democracy is not constant. It exists in a balance that depends on the actual struggles, the country's context, the state of the party and its members, and the authority wielded by the leadership. While democracy usually prevails over centralism, the reverse can also occur. Thus, for Lenin, fundamental principles such as guaranteeing the rights of minorities, opposition groups, and the autonomy of local organizations must be upheld. As long as it does not hinder the unity of action decided by the party, the freedom to criticize is therefore fundamental. Democratic and ideological debate is presented as having to be in accordance with strict organizational unity and with the submission of everyone to the decisions of the congress. This element of centralism, namely unity in the struggle, would, for Lenin, be what would make it possible to avoid fatal errors during key moments of political crisis.
Platformism or barbarism?
The Platform arose from an experience similar to democratic centralism. The Delyo Truda group did not start from a theoretical abstraction, but from the concrete observation of the limitations encountered by anarchist forces during the Russian and Ukrainian revolutions. This "internal impotence," as Arshinov called it, stemmed from the anarchists' disinterest in the actual revolution. In Russia, many of them were content to simply offer grand literary pronouncements on freedom and exhort the people to do the rest, without showing them any possible paths.
Today, the organizations that are the heirs of the Platform transcend the contradiction between centralization and democracy with democratic controls both during and outside of congresses, and center their internal democracy on the organizational base, the local groups.
Zhong Hua (UCL Alsace)
For the Platform, it was essential that anarchists establish a revolutionary organization based on federalism; on theoretical and tactical unity; on an executive committee to coordinate all the federation's organizations; and on collective responsibility. The entire organization then becomes responsible for the proper implementation of collective decisions. Individual responsibilities-so dear to classical anarchism-are thus integrated and transcended within the class organization. Each and every one must be loyal to the organization, which supports and controls the implementation of collective decisions and bears the responsibility for the failures and victories of each and every one.
At this stage of the analysis, the similarities might not prove the liberals of the Response wrong. In both cases, we find the search for theoretical unity, tactical coherence, collective responsibility, and ongoing coordination among activists. Revolutionary organization is also conceived as an instrument for overcoming the fragmentation produced by class society. For the fundamental problem is the same: the revolutionary subject must be constructed; the proletariat is not spontaneously unified and combative. The historical role of revolutionary organization, therefore, is to transform this fragmentation into a conscious collective force. Synthetist critics have often mistaken for a Bolshevik specificity what is, in reality, a more general necessity for any revolutionary organization. Any organization that intends to act effectively must develop common orientations, coordinate its members, and demand respect for collectively made decisions. Without this, unity remains formal and action remains powerless.
Trust does not preclude control.
While the organizational principle may appear similar, it seems to us that the real difference between platformism and democratic centralism lies in their construction from different ideologies and in their relationship to centralism. Whereas centralism appears necessary to Lenin, it must be constantly countered by a federalist structure for the Platform. Thus, the contradiction between centralization and democracy is never resolved once and for all: the means to combat centralism are established relentlessly. This is where the Platform's specificity lies: not in the illusion of an organization without a center, but in the will to subordinate all central functions to the base of the federation, the member organizations.
The Libertarian Marxist Studies Working Group of UCL
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Analyse-materialiste-La-Plateforme-l-anarchisme-bolchevise
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten