A century later, what can we learn from the Russian and Ukrainian anarchists? --- The early 1920s were a dark period for the anarchist movement in Eastern Europe. The Russian Revolution had transformed from a genuine workers' uprising into a dictatorship of the Bolshevik Party. --- Anarchist groups and newspapers were banned, and their members either thrown into prison or killed. Others were forced into exile. Some of these refugees-including the Ukrainian militia leader Nestor Makhno, the Belarusian Ida Mett, and the Russian Peter Arshinov-ended up in France. There, they gathered themselves together, reflected on their experiences, and prepared to launch a new publication named Delo Truda ("the Cause of Labour").
Before the revolution, the Russian anarchist movement was relatively small. But over the course of 1917, groups and newspapers sprung up all over the place, gaining a foothold among both workers and peasants.
But this anarchist movement was still deeply disorganised. It was divided not just by ideological disagreements, but by radically different tactics. Anarchism in Russia had no clear sense of direction or ability to challenge the hegemony of the Bolsheviks (who, before taking power, embraced slogans close to the better organised anarchists).
Today, the anarchist movement still faces many of these problems. So what can we learn from the Delo Truda group?
Better disunited than misunited
Delo Truda believed that if the anarchist movement across the world didn't take organisation seriously, it would be doomed forever. They had seen first-hand how the disorganised and erratic nature of the Russian movement had led to defeat.
At the same time, they knew that this couldn't be fixed by simply trying to unite all those who called themselves anarchists. Papering over divisions wouldn't solve the problem that 'anarchism' meant different things to different people, and that many of their ideas contradicted each other.
To Delo Truda, an anarchist organisation needed to be based firmly in the politics of class struggle and have a clear, shared strategy. It was better to have fewer members, dedicated to common goals, than a larger group pulling in different directions.
Unity and collective responsibility
On the 20th of June, 1926, the Delo Truda group published a draft "Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists"-now known as 'the Platform'.
The Platform contains three sections. The first gives a general overview of anarchism, class, and strategy. The second deals with how society should be managed during a revolution. Though all of the Platform is valuable, it's the third and final section that is best known. Here, the authors outline four principles for a proposed anarchist organisation.
The first principle is unity of theory. Anarchist organisations need to be grounded in a solid foundation of anarchist theory, shared by all members.
The second is unity of tactics. Groups don't work when members are just doing their own thing. To be effective, and to have real democratic accountability, groups need to plan, coordinate and implement agreed decisions together.
The third principle is collective responsibility. This follows from the first two points. The political activity of individual members is guided by the organisation as a whole. When members engage in their unions or social movements, they're not just doing it as random individuals, but as members of a political organisation. Members have to be accountable to each other and the shared project of the group.
Organisation from below
The Platform's fourth and final principle is federalism, a key ideain anarchism, and central to the Platform's proposed structure for an anarchist federation.
A revolutionary organisation can't be based on authoritarian, top-down structures. It can only be built through free agreement and the autonomy of members, branches, and groups.
Crucially, federalism doesn't mean disorganisation. For a federation to work, and to reap the benefits of high-level coordination, groups need to honour their agreements and implement collective decisions.
To facilitate all of this, the Platform proposes that anarchist organisations have "Executive Committees". This wording can lead modern readers to think of some kind of corporate board of directors, or a centralised party leadership. But if you read the Platform, this clearly isn't the intended meaning.
The committee would, instead, facilitate coordination between the different groups, study the overall state of the movement, and implement decisions made by congresses. An 'Executive Committee' of this kind has no authority of its own-power remains in the hands of members and their respective groups.
The Platforms legacy
100 years on, there are elements of the Platform that are outdated. For instance, we don't need to worry so much about building links between workers and peasants- particularly in a country like Australia.
Other sections are lacking, too. The authors are internationalists, but they don't give internationalism the central role it deserves. Considerably more attention is given to armed struggle. But even the most effective defence is doomed if a revolution doesn't spread.
The Platform was only a draft, though, and was seen by its authors as a living document. Its central argument-that anarchists should be organised and intervening in the class struggle- is as important today as it ever was.
Because the past hundred years have shown just how right a lot of the Platform is. The anarchist movement is still hampered by disorganisation. The connections between the anarchist movement and the wider working class are more frayed now than they were in the early 20th century. All of this has been to the disadvantage of anarchism and the working class movement.
Meanwhile, the most effective anarchist organisations have been those like the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU) in the 1950s-70s. The FAU was effective precisely because it followed ideas similar to those of the Platformists, under the label of 'especifism' (referring to the need for a 'specific anarchist organisation').
Platformism and the ACF
The Anarchist Communist Federation has been influenced by the Platform, but we don't call ourselves "platformist". This is for the same reason that we don't call ourselves "especifist". The Platform and especifism are part of a much longer tradition of organised anarchist communism.
The authors of the Platform recognised that they weren't making any big innovations. Their basic ideas have been part of the anarchist movement since the beginning, and had informed organisations in countries like Italy and Spain.
Still, we would argue that the Platform is an essential contribution to this tradition. It should be studied by anyone who believes that, to actually overthrow capitalism and the government, we need a realistic plan to win.
https://ancomfed.org/2026/08/100-years-of-the-platform/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten