The Platform for the Organization of Libertarian Communists is a foundational text of libertarian communism. Our activist network has decided to publish this century-old text in four parts, with commentary. For while this text is obviously dated, we aim to show how its logic remains essentially relevant and can inspire our thinking in the 21st century . Let us now turn to " The General Part of Archinov's Platform ."
1. The class struggle, its role and its meaning.Comment : This paragraph doesn't offer much new analysis, and it would also be necessary to consider the contemporary evolution of wage labor. However, its political relevance remains. The Platform aimed to affirm the place of anarchism within the workers' movement. Thus, anarchism primarily addresses members of the social classes exploited by capitalism. The Platform anchors anarchism in the revolutionary movement aiming for the abolition of capitalism. This point was strongly criticized by the Synthetists, for whom individualists had a legitimate place within anarchism.
There is no single humanity. There is a humanity of classes: slaves and masters. Like all those that preceded it, the capitalist and bourgeois society of our time is not one. It is divided into two very distinct camps, differentiated socially by their situation and function: the proletariat (in the broadest sense of the word) and the bourgeoisie.
For centuries, the fate of the proletariat has been to bear the burden of arduous physical labor, the fruits of which accrue not to them but to another privileged class, the bourgeoisie, which holds property, authority, and the products of culture (science, education, etc.). The social subjugation and exploitation of the working masses form the foundation upon which modern society rests, without which this society could not exist.
This fact engendered a centuries-long class struggle, sometimes taking on an open and violent character, sometimes an insidious and slow pace, but always directed, in essence, towards the transformation of the current society into one that would respond to the needs, necessities and conception of justice of the workers.
All of human history, in the social sphere, represents an unbroken chain of struggles waged by the working masses for their rights, their freedom, and a better life. This class struggle has always been, throughout the history of human societies, the principal factor determining their form and structure.
The social and political system of any country is primarily the product of class struggle. The given structure of any society reveals the state at which class struggle has stalled and where it currently stands. The slightest shift in the relative positions of the struggling class forces incessantly produces changes in the fabric and structures of society.
Such is the general, universal scope and meaning of the class struggle in the life of class societies.
2. The need for a violent social revolution
Comment : This section is somewhat dated. The reality of class relations has changed considerably . The symbolic violence highlighted by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu plays a more significant role in class domination today than it did a century ago. Nevertheless, one can only agree with the assertion that "the dominant classes (...) are making the struggle against them increasingly difficult ." However, to claim that " only violent social revolution can transform capitalist society " seems simplistic. The " crucial moment " of the class struggle cannot be this imagined final confrontation, but rather the construction within capitalist society of counter-powers, which, in times of capitalist crisis, can lead to a dual power structure, an open door to communism.
The principle of the violent subjugation of the masses constitutes the foundation of modern society. All manifestations of its existence-the economy, politics, social relations-rest upon class violence, whose instruments of service are the authorities, the police, the army, and the courts. Everything in this society, every enterprise taken individually, as well as the entire state system, is merely the bulwark of capitalism, where workers are constantly under surveillance, where forces are always ready to repress any workers who threaten the foundations or even the tranquility of present-day society.
At the same time, the system of this society deliberately maintains the working masses in a state of ignorance and mental stagnation: it forcibly prevents the raising of their moral and intellectual level, in order to more easily subdue them.
The progress of modern society, the technical evolution of capital and the improvement of its political system, strengthen the power of the ruling classes and make the struggle against them increasingly difficult, thus delaying the decisive moment of the emancipation of labor.
Analysis of modern society leads us to the conclusion that only violent social revolution can transform capitalist society into a society of free workers.
3. Anarchism and Libertarian Communism
Comment : Couldn't have said it better! Of course, using today's language.
The class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their aspirations for freedom gave rise in the circles of the oppressed to the idea of anarchism: the idea of the negation of the social system based on the principles of classes and the State, and of its replacement by a free and non-statist society of self-governing workers.
Anarchism was born, therefore, not from the abstract reflections of a scholar or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle waged by the workers against capital, from the needs and necessities of the workers, from their applications towards freedom and equality, aspirations which become particularly vivid in the best heroic periods of the life and struggle of the working masses.
The eminent thinkers of anarchism, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others, did not create the idea of anarchism but, having found it in the masses, simply helped, by the power of their thought and knowledge, to define and spread it.
Anarchism is not the result of personal works nor the object of individual research.
Similarly, anarchism is by no means the product of humanitarian aspirations. A unified humanity does not exist. Any attempt to make anarchism the attribute of all humanity as it currently exists, to ascribe to it a generally humanitarian character, would be a historical and social lie that would inevitably lead to the justification of the current order and a new form of exploitation.
Anarchism is generally humanitarian only in the sense that the ideals of the working classes tend to make life healthy for all people, and that the fate of humanity, today or tomorrow, is linked to that of enslaved labor. If the working masses are victorious, all of humanity will be reborn. If they do not triumph, violence, exploitation, slavery, and oppression will reign as before in the world...
The birth, development and realization of anarchist ideals have their roots in the life and struggle of the working masses and are inseparably linked to their fate.
Anarchism aspires to transform bourgeois and capitalist society into one that guarantees workers the products of their labor, freedom, independence, and social and political equality. This alternative society will be libertarian communism. It is within libertarian communism that social solidarity and free individuality find their full expression, and that these two ideas develop in perfect harmony.
Libertarian communism holds that the sole creator of social values is labor, both physical and intellectual, and consequently that only labor has the right to govern all economic and social life. This is why it neither justifies nor, to any extent, acknowledges the existence of non-working classes.
As long as these classes coexist with libertarian communism, the latter will not recognize any duty towards them. Only when the non-laboring classes decide to become productive and wish to live in communist society under the same conditions as everyone else will they occupy a place analogous to that of everyone else, that is to say, that of free members of society enjoying the same duties as all other working members.
Libertarian communism aspires to the elimination of all exploitation and violence, both against the individual and against the masses. To this end, it establishes an economic and social foundation that unifies all economic and social life in the country into a harmonious whole, ensures that every individual has an equal position, and provides everyone with the maximum well-being. This foundation is the pooling, through socialization, of all means and instruments of production (industry, transportation, land, raw materials, etc.) and the establishment of economic organizations based on the principle of equal self-governance of the working classes.
Within the limits of this self-managed workers' society, libertarian communism establishes the principle of equality of value and rights of every individual (not of individuality " in general ", nor of mystical " individuality " or the concept of individuality, but of the concrete individual).
It is from this principle of equality, and also from the fact that the value of the work provided by each individual cannot be measured or estimated, that the fundamental economic, social and legal principle of libertarian communism derives: " From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs ".
4. The denial of democracy
Comment : Let's not play with words! The Platform speaks of representative democracy. To that extent, we agree with what is said. But we remain in favor of a true democracy, that is to say, etymologically, " Power of the People ." Which is not representative democracy!
Democracy is one of the forms of capitalist and bourgeois society.
The basis of democracy is the maintenance of two antagonistic classes in modern society: labor and capital, and their collaboration on the foundation of private capitalist property. The expression of this collaboration is the parliament and the representative national government.
Formally, democracy proclaims freedom of speech, of the press, of associations, as long as they do not challenge the interests of the dominant class, that is to say, the bourgeoisie.
Democracy maintains the principle of private capitalist property intact. By doing so, it allows the bourgeoisie to control the entire economy of the country, the press, education, science, and art, effectively making the bourgeoisie the absolute master of the nation. Having a monopoly in the economic sphere, the bourgeoisie can establish its unlimited power in the political sphere as well. Indeed, representative government and parliament are, in democracies, merely executive bodies of the bourgeoisie.
Therefore, democracy is only one aspect of bourgeois dictatorship, veiled under deceptive formulas of political freedoms and fictitious guarantees.
5. The denial of authority
Comment : Using today's language and perhaps a slightly more nuanced analysis, we share the observation made by the Platform a century ago. Even more, some aspects can be considered prescient.
Bourgeois ideologues define the state as the organ that regulates the complex political, civil, and social relations between people within modern society, protecting its order and laws. Anarchists fully agree with this definition, but they add that at the heart of this order and these laws lies the subjugation of the vast majority of the people by an insignificant minority, and that this is precisely the purpose of the state.
The state is, simultaneously, the organized violence of the bourgeoisie against the workers and the system of its executive organs.
Left-wing socialists, and in particular the Bolsheviks, also consider bourgeois authority and the state to be servants of capital. However, they believe that authority and the state can become, in the hands of socialist parties, a powerful tool in the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat. For this reason, these parties advocate for socialist authority and a proletarian state. Some seek to seize power through peaceful, parliamentary means (the Social Democrats); others through revolutionary means (the Bolsheviks, the Socialists, and Left-wing revolutionaries).
Anarchism considers both of these theses to be fundamentally erroneous, harmful to the work of emancipation of labor.
Authority is always linked to the exploitation and subjugation of the masses. It arises from this exploitation, where it is created in the interests of the masses. Authority without violence and without exploitation loses all reason for being.
The State and Authority deprive the masses of initiative, stifle the spirit of creation and free activity, and cultivate in them a servile psychology of submission, expectation, the hope of climbing the social ladder, blind trust in guilds, and the illusion of sharing Authority. Yet the emancipation of workers is only possible through the process of direct revolutionary struggle waged by the vast working masses and their class organizations against the capitalist system.
The conquest of power by social-democratic parties, through parliamentary means, under the current order, will not advance the emancipation of labor one step, for the simple reason that the bourgeoisie will hold the entire economy and politics of the country in its hands. The role of socialist authority will thus be reduced to reforms and improvements to this same bourgeois regime. (Examples: McDonald's, the social-democratic parties of Germany, Sweden, and Belgium, which have come to power in capitalist societies).
Seizing power through social upheaval and the organization of a so-called " proletarian state " cannot further the cause of genuine labor emancipation.
The state, initially built supposedly for the defense of the revolution, inevitably ends up being inflated with its own needs and characteristics, becoming the goal itself, producing specific privileged castes on which it relies: it subjects the masses by force to its needs and those of the privileged castes and consequently re-establishes the foundation of capitalist authority and the state: the habitual enslavement and exploitation of the masses by violence (example: the " worker and peasant state " of the Bolsheviks).
6. The role of the masses and the role of anarchists in the social struggle and in the social revolution.
Comment : Obviously, the editors of the Platform could not have fully anticipated the evolution of social structures in France. Furthermore, the assertion that " The State must perish, not one day in the future society, but immediately " cannot be taken literally. It is, moreover, contradictory to the following paragraph on the transitional period. During the revolutionary process, anarchists participate in the creation of counter-powers within society. The convergence of these counter-powers can lead, through the loss of legitimacy of the State, to a situation of dual power. It is only at this point, when the dominated social classes have organized themselves en masse within this emerging power, that the State can be destroyed and replaced by it.
Finally, another point must be emphasized. We generally agree with the logic described here. However, the political situation has profoundly changed over the last century. On the one hand, anarchism is far more marginalized. On the other hand, doubts have crept into other revolutionary movements regarding Leninist strategy. Self-management practices have emerged within movements where they were not expected. Therefore, in our view, anarchists must take on a new, complementary task: to popularize self-management ideas as widely as possible and to draw all self-management movements into a dynamic that promotes the autonomy of the social movement and the creative dynamism of the masses. It is no longer possible to imagine that anarchists alone could undertake all the tasks described below. The discourse, without changing its substance, must replace anarchism with the broader concept of self-management. Rereading this paragraph in this light gives it much greater relevance.
The main forces of the social revolution are the urban working class, the peasant masses, and a part of the working intelligentsia.
Note: While the working intelligentsia, like the urban and rural proletariat, is an oppressed and exploited class, it is relatively more divided than the workers and peasants due to the economic privileges granted by the bourgeoisie to some of its members. Therefore, in the early days of the social revolution, only the less affluent strata of the intelligentsia will take an active part.
The anarchist conception of the role of the masses in social revolution and in the construction of socialism differs in a way that is typical of statist parties. While Bolshevism and related currents believe that the working masses possess only destructive revolutionary instincts, being incapable of creative and constructive revolutionary activity-the main reason why this activity must be concentrated in the hands of men forming the state government or the Central Committee of the Party-anarchists, on the contrary, believe that the working masses carry within them enormous creative and constructive potential, and they aspire to remove the obstacles preventing its manifestation.
Anarchists see the State as the primary obstacle, usurping the rights of the masses and depriving them of all functions of economic and social life. The State must perish, not someday in the future society, but immediately. It must be destroyed by the workers on the first day of their victory and must not be re-established in any form whatsoever. It will be replaced by a federalist system of workers' production and consumption organizations, federally unified and self-governing. This system excludes both the organization of Authority and the dictatorship of any party whatsoever.
The Russian Revolution clearly illustrates this orientation of the social emancipation process in the creation of the system of workers' and peasants' soviets and factory committees. Its unfortunate error was its failure to dismantle, in a timely manner, the organization of state power, first under the Provisional Government and then under the Bolsheviks. Taking advantage of the workers' and peasants' trust, the Bolsheviks reorganized the bourgeois state to suit the prevailing circumstances and then used this state to stifle the creative activity of the masses by suppressing the free system of soviets and factory committees, which represented the first steps toward building a non-state, socialist society.
The actions of anarchists can be divided into two periods: the period before the revolution, and the period during the revolution. In both cases, anarchists can only fulfill their role as an organized force with a clear understanding of the objectives of their struggle and the means leading to the realization of those objectives.
The fundamental task of the General Anarchist Union, in revolutionary times, must be the preparation of workers and peasants for the social revolution.
By denying formal (bourgeois) democracy, the Authority of the State, and by proclaiming the complete emancipation of labor, anarchism accentuates to the maximum the rigorous principles of the class struggle: it awakens and develops in the masses class consciousness and revolutionary class intransigence.
It is precisely in the spirit of class intransigence, anti-democratism, and the ideals of anarchist communism that the libertarian education of the masses must be undertaken. But education alone is not enough. What is also necessary is a certain anarchist organization of the masses. To achieve this, work must proceed in two directions: firstly, in the selection and grouping of revolutionary working and peasant forces on a libertarian communist theoretical basis (specific libertarian communist organizations); secondly, in the grouping of revolutionary workers and peasants on an economic basis of production and consumption (production organizations of revolutionary workers and peasants, free workers' and peasants' cooperatives, etc.).
The working and peasant classes, organized on a basis of production and consumption and imbued with the tenets of revolutionary anarchism, will be the primary bulwark of the social revolution. The more these groups become conscious and organized in an anarchist manner from this moment onward, the more they will demonstrate a will for intransigence and libertarian creation at the time of the revolution.
As for the working class in Russia, it is clear that after eight years of Bolshevik dictatorship, which stifles the natural needs of the masses, free activity demonstrates, better than anyone else, the true nature of all power; this class possesses enormous potential for the formation of a mass anarchist movement. Organized anarchist militants must immediately, with all their available strength, address these needs and opportunities, so as not to allow them to degenerate into reformism (Menshevism). With equal urgency, anarchists must apply themselves with all their might to organizing the poor peasantry, crushed by state power, seeking a way out and harboring enormous revolutionary potential.
The role of anarchists in revolutionary periods cannot be limited to the mere propaganda of slogans and libertarian ideas.
Life appears as the arena not only for the propaganda of this or that conception, but also to the same degree as the arena for the struggle, strategy and aspirations of these conceptions to the direction of social and economic life.
More than any other conception, anarchism must become the guiding conception of the social revolution because it is only on the theoretical basis of anarchism that the social revolution can lead to the complete emancipation of labor.
The leading role of anarchist ideas in the revolution signifies an anarchist orientation of events. This driving theoretical force should not be confused, however, with the political leadership of statist parties, which ultimately leads to state power.
Anarchism aspires neither to the conquest of political power nor to dictatorship. Its primary aspiration is to help the masses take the authentic path of social revolution and socialist construction. But it is not enough for the masses to take the path of social revolution. It is also necessary to maintain this orientation of the revolution and these objectives: the abolition of capitalist society in the name of that of free workers. As the experience of the Russian Revolution of 1917 showed us, this latter task is far from easy, primarily because of the many parties that seek to steer the movement in a direction opposed to social revolution.
Although the masses express themselves deeply in social movements through anarchist tendencies and slogans, these tendencies and slogans remain scattered and uncoordinated, and consequently fail to organize the driving force of libertarian ideas necessary to maintain anarchist orientation and objectives within the social revolution. This driving theoretical force can only be expressed through a collective specifically created by the masses for this purpose. Organized anarchist elements constitute precisely this collective. The theoretical and practical duties of this collective at the time of the revolution are considerable.
He must demonstrate his initiative and deploy total participation in all areas of the social revolution: that of the orientation and general character of the revolution, that of the positive tasks of the revolution in the new production, that of the civil war and the defense of the revolution, of consumption, of the agrarian question, etc...
On all these questions and on many others, the masses demand a clear and precise answer from the anarchists. And since the anarchists advocate a conception of revolution and of the structure of society, they are obliged to give a clear answer to all these questions, to link the solution to these problems to the general conception of libertarian communism, and to devote all their energies to its effective realization.
Only in this case do the General Anarchist Union and the anarchist movement fully fulfill their driving theoretical function in the social revolution.
7. The transitional period
Commentary : The Platform fundamentally challenges the Bolshevik conception of the transition period, asserting that " the workers' takeover of productive and social functions will draw a clear line between the statist and non-statist eras ." Should we conclude from this that everything will be completed by this workers' seizure of power? Obviously not! Because then they will " only begin the construction of a free society ." It will therefore be a transitional period between capitalism and communism.
This question takes on even greater significance today with the ecological crisis destabilizing our societies. We will not only have to adapt our production methods to the principle of " from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs ," but also take ecological imperatives into account. This will not happen overnight.
Socialist political parties understand the expression " period of transition " to mean a specific phase in the life of a people, the characteristic features of which are: a break with the old order of things and the establishment of a new economic and political system, a system which, however, does not yet represent the complete emancipation of the workers.
In this sense, all the minimum programs of socialist political parties, for example the democratic program of the opportunist socialists or the program of the " dictatorship of the proletariat " of the communists, are programs of the transitional period.
The essential feature of these minimum programs is that they all consider it impossible, for the moment, to fully realize the ideals of the workers: their independence, their freedom, their equality, and consequently, they retain a whole series of institutions of the capitalist system: the principle of state constraint, private ownership of the means and instruments of production, wage labor, and several others, according to the goals to which this or that program of the parties refers.
Anarchists have always been principled opponents of such programs, believing that the construction of transitional systems that maintain the principles of exploitation and constraint of the masses inevitably leads to a further growth of slavery.
Instead of establishing minimum political programs, anarchists have always defended the idea of immediate social revolution which would deprive the capitalist class of economic and political privileges and put the means and instruments of production, as well as all the functions of economic and social life, back into the hands of the workers.
Anarchists have maintained this position to this day.
The idea of a transitional period, according to which the social revolution must lead not to a communist society but to a system X, preserving the elements and remnants of the old capitalist system, is inherently anti-social. It threatens to reinforce and develop these elements to their former proportions, and sets events back.
A striking example of this is the regime of the " dictatorship of the proletariat " established by the Bolsheviks in Russia.
According to them, this regime was only supposed to be a transitional stage towards total communism. In reality, this stage has in fact led to the restoration of class society, at the heart of which, as before, are the workers and poor peasants.
The central focus in building a communist society does not lie in guaranteeing every individual unlimited freedom to satisfy their needs from the very first day of the revolution, but rather in conquering the social base of that society and establishing the principles of egalitarian relations between individuals. As for the question of a greater or lesser abundance of goods, it is not a matter of principle but rather a technical problem.
The fundamental principle upon which the new society will be built, the principle upon which this society will, so to speak, rest and which must not be restricted in any way, is that of equality of relations, freedom, and the independence of the workers. Now, this principle represents precisely the fundamental primary demand of the masses, in whose name they will rise up only for social revolution.
One of two things will happen: either the social revolution will end with the defeat of the workers, in which case it will be necessary to start preparing for the struggle again, for a new offensive against the capitalist system; or it will bring about a victory for the workers, in which case the latter, having seized the means enabling them to self-administer - of the land, of production and of social functions - will begin the construction of the free society.
This is what will characterize the beginning of the building of communist society which, once started, will then follow the course of its development without interruption, constantly strengthening and perfecting itself.
In this way, the takeover of productive and social functions by workers will draw a clear line of demarcation between the statist era and that of non-statism.
If it wants to become the spokesperson for the masses in struggle, the flag of an entire revolutionary social era, anarchism must not assimilate its program to the survivals of the outdated world, to the opportunistic tendencies of systems and periods of transition, nor hide its fundamental principles, but, on the contrary, develop and apply them to the maximum.
8. Anarchism and trade unionism
Comment : This section reflects the duality of the libertarian communist struggle as it enjoys near-universal consensus today. On the one hand, the struggle for the development of a pluralistic and autonomous social movement. On the other, the struggle for the libertarian communist societal project. Libertarian communism is meaningless without its complement, revolutionary syndicalism.
But here again, and for the same reasons as in the paragraph " The role of the masses and the role of anarchists ", we invite the reader to " replace anarchism with the broader concept of self-management ".
We consider the tendency to oppose libertarian communism to syndicalism and vice versa to be artificial, devoid of any foundation or meaning.
The concepts of anarchism and syndicalism belong to two different realms. While communism-that is, a free society of equal workers-is the goal of the anarchist struggle, syndicalism-that is, the revolutionary workers' movement organized by profession-is only one form of the revolutionary class struggle. By uniting workers on the basis of production, revolutionary syndicalism, like any professional group, lacks a fixed theory; it does not possess a worldview that addresses all the complex social and political questions of contemporary reality. It always reflects the ideology of various political groups, particularly those most actively active within its ranks.
Our attitude towards revolutionary syndicalism stems from what has just been said. Without concerning ourselves here with resolving in advance the question of the role of revolutionary unions in the aftermath of the revolution, that is to say whether they will be the organizers of all new production, or whether they will cede this role to workers' soviets, or even to factory committees, we believe that anarchists must participate in revolutionary syndicalism as one of the forms of the revolutionary workers' movement.
However, the question as it arises today is not whether or not anarchists should participate in revolutionary syndicalism, but rather how and for what purpose they should take part.
We regard the entire preceding period, up to the present day, when anarchists entered the revolutionary syndicalist movement as individual militants and propagandists - as a period of artisanal relations with the professional labour movement.
Anarcho-syndicalism, which seeks to forcefully introduce libertarian ideas into the left wing of revolutionary syndicalism by creating anarchist-type unions, represents a step forward in this respect; but it does not yet entirely transcend the empirical method. For anarcho-syndicalism does not necessarily link the work of "anarchizing" the syndicalist movement with the organization of anarchist forces outside of that movement. Yet, it is only on the condition of such a link that it is possible to "anarchize" revolutionary syndicalism and prevent it from veering toward opportunism and reformism.
Considering revolutionary syndicalism solely as a professional workers' movement lacking a defined social and political theory, and consequently powerless to resolve the social question on its own, we believe the task of anarchists within this movement is to develop libertarian ideas, to orient it in a libertarian direction, in order to transform it into an active force of social revolution. It is crucial never to forget that if syndicalism does not find timely support from anarchist theory, it will inevitably rely on the ideology of some state political party.
French trade unionism, which once shone with anarchist slogans and tactics, subsequently fell under the influence of the Bolsheviks on the one hand, and especially on the other hand of the opportunistic right-wing socialists, is a striking example.
But the task of anarchists within the ranks of the revolutionary workers' movement can only be fulfilled if their work is closely linked to and reconciled with the activities of the anarchist organization outside the trade union. In other words, we must enter the revolutionary professional movement as an organized force, responsible for the work carried out in the trade unions to the general anarchist organization, and guided by it.
Without limiting ourselves to the creation of anarchist unions, we must seek to exert our theoretical influence on revolutionary syndicalism as a whole, in all its forms (the IWW, the Russian Professional Unions, etc.). We can only achieve this goal by working as a rigorously organized anarchist collective, and in no way as small, empirical groups lacking both organizational ties and theoretical convergence.
Anarchist groups in companies and factories, concerned with the creation of anarchist unions, leading the struggle in revolutionary unions for the preponderance of libertarian ideas in unionism, groups oriented in their action by a general anarchist organization: such are the meaning and forms of the attitude of anarchists towards the revolutionary unionism attached to it.
https://plateformecl.org/la-plateforme-darchinov-partie-generale/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten