File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2003/anarchy-list.0303, message 862


Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:55:00 +0000
From: Iain McKay <iain.mckay-AT-zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: letter to Anarchy


And now for something completely different...

I'm sending this letter to Anarchy Magazine, in reply to
their last issue. I felt that it was an extremely petty
issue and, to be honest, a waste of space in parts. Some
of the issues it raised were important, but the feel of
it just came across as counter-productive.

As it is, I don't want to get into a big debate but I felt
that I should correct some of the errors. I think that a
constructive debate is essential, but the last issue of
Anarchy simply failed to rise to the occassion.

I should note that I wrote this before the war started, but
I guessed people would want a break from war talk.

Iain
-------------------------------------------------------

Dear Anarchy

I was deeply disappointed by the last issue of Anarchy. The 
reason is simple. While denouncing what it considers the 
"repeated pronouncements of contempt for many (often even 
most) anarchists" and those who present "no hint . . . that 
the people denounced might have genuinely radical and 
intelligent reasons for thinking and acting as they do," we 
were subjected to exactly this as regards "Platformism." 

In the various articles bashing the Platform, at no time 
was there any attempt to explain why some anarchists have 
felt an affinity to that document and the tradition is 
created (and, yes, it does have a tradition and influence 
even if some contributors to Anarchy may want to deny it). 
This seems strange, considering the claim that Anarchy 
thinks other anarchists should be doing that. What are we 
to conclude from this? That "workerist, organisationalist" 
anarchists have to apply one set of standards while the 
contributors of Anarchy another?  I get that impression. 
Even the review of NorthEastern Anarchist magazine failed 
to meet the exacting standards Anarchy set for others. I 
re-read both Aileen O'Carroll's article on the Russian 
Revolution and Brian Sheppard's one on the labour movement 
and I have to say that Anarchy's "review" of both was 
simply a distortion of what they argued. 

I am not going to reply to every point raised in the 
numerous articles produced. That would be impossible. 
Likewise, as I am not a Platformist I will not defend it. I 
will say this, Malatesta's critique of the Platform was 
substantially correct and, moreover, exactly the kind of 
critique Anarchy promised but failed to deliver. Malatesta 
understood the motivations of the original Platformists and 
had a dialogue with Makhno without questioning his 
anarchism. Unlike Anarchy's contributors, he did not 
slander Makhno as being a crypto-Leninist but rather an 
anarchist whose position should be constructively 
discussed. But, then again, Malatesta was an 
"organisationalist" anarchist (maybe even a "workerist" one 
as well) and so, presumably, "one step" from Platformism 
and so two steps from Leninism.

I will, however, make a few comments. 

Firstly, I need correct one of Bob Black's inaccuracies. He 
states that the WSM "without so indicating, omits several 
interesting passages from the Platform." Presumably this is 
part of some plan to hide the Leninist aims of that 
document and so, presumably, the WSM itself. Sadly for 
Black, his comments are simply not true. These "interesting 
passages" are not, in fact, from the Platform. They are 
from a later document (which is reprinted as "document no. 
3" in Skirda's Facing the Enemy). Skirda's translation of 
one passage simply states that "decisions, though, will 
have to be binding upon all who vote for and endorse them." 
No mention of "sanctions." Ignoring the question of which 
translation is correct, is Black suggesting that abiding by 
collective decisions you took part in making equates to 
"the state"? If so, then any organisation becomes "the 
state" and so anarchy becomes an impossible dream. If not, 
then surely abiding, in general, by group decisions you 
help make is an example of the "responsible individualism" 
he contrasts to the Platform?

Secondly, I find it ironic that while Black accuses the 
Platform of Leninism, his critique of it rests, in part, on 
the basic idea of Leninism, namely the false notion that 
working class people cannot develop socialist ideas by 
their own effort. He is at pains to mock the Platform for 
arguing that anarchism was born in the class struggle. 
"This is of course untrue," he asserts. It appears to be a 
case of "class political consciousness can be brought to 
the workers only from without, that is, only outside of the 
economic struggle, outside the sphere of relations between 
workers and employers"? Black again? No, Lenin (from What 
is to be Done?). Or, in other words, "socialism and the 
class struggle arise side by side and not one out of the 
other" (to quote, as Lenin did, Social Democratic leader 
Karl Kautsky). 

It seems strange that Black seemingly subscribes to Lenin's 
maxim that "there can be no talk of an independent ideology 
being developed by the masses of the workers in the process 
of their movement." Where does that leave working class 
spontaneity and autonomy? Lenin was clear, "there is a lot 
of talk about spontaneity, but the spontaneous development 
of the labour movement leads to its becoming subordinated 
to bourgeois ideology." Which, from his perspective, makes 
perfect sense. But where does it leave Black? 

Not only can Black's argument be faulted logically, it can 
be faulted factually. Echoing Lenin and Kautsky, Black 
argues that anarchism comes from Proudhon. Yet was Proudhon 
somehow separate from the experiences of the class he was 
part of? He was not, of course. Proudhon got many of his 
ideas (and the term Mutualism itself) from the artisans in 
Lyon who had developed their ideas independently of 
bourgeois intellectuals and had practised class struggle 
for some time (rising the black flag in insurrection in the 
1830s). In 1848, Proudhon stressed that his ideas were not 
abstract concepts divorced from working class life. As he 
put it, "the proof" of his mutualist ideas lay in the 
"current practice, revolutionary practice" of "those labour 
associations . . . which have spontaneously . . . been 
formed in Paris and Lyon." But, then again, the likes of 
Proudhon, according to Lenin, contribute to socialist ideas 
"not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians." Black 
seems to share that perspective.

Similarly, Bakunin's anarchism seems, for Black, to have 
popped into his head from some unspecified place. However, 
the facts are that the ideas championed by Bakunin had been 
developed independently within the First International by 
workers before he joined. This, in part, explains his 
success in the International. He was a focus for ideas that 
had already been developed by workers as part of their 
struggles and experiences, ideas he of course add to and 
deepen. Bakunin contributed to anarchism, but working class 
people and their ideas contributed to the development of 
his ideas.
 
Then there is Kropotkin. While Black uses him to discredit 
the Platform on this issue, the fact is that Kropotkin 
expressed the same ideas as that document. In "Modern 
Science and Anarchism", for example, he notes that 
"Anarchism originated among the people" and, indeed, that 
it "originated in everyday struggles." In his "Great French 
Revolution" he argues that "the principles of anarchism . . 
. already dated from 1789, and that they had their origin, 
not in theoretical speculations, but in the deeds of the 
Great French Revolution." The Platform, clearly, follows 
Kropotkin in this. Personally, I'll side with Kropotkin 
(and the Platform) against Black (and Lenin) on this issue. 

All this is not surprising, given a basic knowledge of 
anarchist theory and history. What is surprising is that 
someone like Black should make such an argument. I expected 
better from him, but I'm unfortunately getting used to 
being disappointed by his (often sloppy) assertions against 
"workerist" and "organisationalist" anarchists. 

Thirdly, I have to question why Black feels the necessity 
of mentioning Makhno's drinking in his account of the 
Platform. Given that Makhno had seen non-stop combat for 
four years, I'm not surprised that he turned to drink to 
dull the pain (both mental and physical). And, 
incidentally, why mention Arshinov's return to Russia when 
discussing the Platform? I suppose it is to suggest that 
Platformists were (and are) just hidden Leninists. But, 
then, how can be explain the fact that Makhno and Mett 
remained anarchists to the end? Mentioning Arshinov's 
return seems as petty as mentioning Makhno's drinking. 
Equally, to compare the Platform's arguments for a 
revolutionary army with "the counter-revolutionary People's 
Army" in Spain is incredible. Looking at its suggestions on 
this matter surely shows that the CNT's "revolutionary 
militias" were a close approximation to what was desired. 
Given the similarities between the CNT militias and the 
Makhnovist movement, I am surprised that anyone could claim 
otherwise.

Fourthly, the whole "dual power" article seems flawed. 
After all, Lenin and Trotsky were simply describing 
situations that arose in the process of class struggle. As 
such, it is not about "how to create a set of institutions 
that can pull the allegiance of the governed away from the 
existing state" (as Lawrence Jarach states) but rather 
institutions which the governed create themselves to 
counter the power of the existing state. That the 
Bolsheviks used the soviets to seize power should not blind 
us to their origins and initial function as a strike 
committee created in 1905 to co-ordinate struggle against 
the Tsarist state. Significantly, anarchist support for the 
soviets as both a means of fighting the state/capital and 
as the framework of a socialist society predates Bolshevik 
lip-service to this idea by twelve years (and can be traced 
back to Bakunin, even Proudhon). 

As such, the idea of "anarchist dual power" (if you want to 
use that term) simply means the idea that the embryo of the 
new world must be created while fighting the current one. 
Rather than signify a desire for "loyalty" to "a state-in-
formation" it means encouraging organs of self-management 
by which the oppressed exercise their autonomy and restrict 
the power of boss and government until such time as they 
can abolish both. Kropotkin expressed this idea as follows 
in 1909: "To make a revolution it is not . . . enough that 
there should be . . . [popular] risings . . . It is 
necessary that after the risings there should be something 
new in the institutions [that make up society], which would 
permit new forms of life to be elaborated and established."

That the Bolsheviks used such organs to take power does not 
mean we should eschew support for them. Quite the reverse, 
as such bodies are the only means by which working class 
people can manage their own affairs directly. The task of 
anarchists is, in part, to stop vanguards turning these 
bodies into hierarchical institutions, into the structures 
of a new state. So the idea of building "societies of 
resistance" within capitalism is an old one within 
anarchism, one which predates the birth of Lenin and 
Trotsky (never mind their descriptive expression "dual 
power"). 

Fifthly, it seems to me that the only people who take the 
Platform as a bible are the anti-Platformists. All the 
Platformists I have met argue that they see the Platform as 
a flawed guide, not a blueprint. No "Platformist" I know 
subscribes to the organisational schema outlined in it. The 
principles of federalism, tactical and theoretical unity, 
and so on are generally supported, of course, but the 
system of secretariats is not applied. Even "tactical and 
theoretical unity" is generally used to signify co-
operation and sticking by collective decisions once they 
have been made. As such, to attack the Platform without 
considering how it is applied seems a pointless task. It 
smacks more of an ideological approach than a theoretical 
one. Perhaps, as argued in reply to a letter, it would make 
more sense for the Platformists to call themselves neo-
Platformists to avoid confusion on this matter but, then 
again, perhaps the "post-left" anarchists could take this 
as read and move onto concrete critiques of current 
Platformist ideas and practice? 

Finally, on a totally different subject, I would like to 
make a few comments on (I)An-ok Ta Chai's letter calling 
for unity between anarchists and "right anarchists." As 
there is no such thing as "right anarchists" it would be 
impossible to work with them. By "right anarchists" I 
assume it is meant right-wing libertarian capitalists who 
falsely call themselves anarchists. Given that these people 
are in favour of private police, property (and so theft), 
obedience (to private power by wage slaves), private rulers 
and have blind faith in both private property and the 
capitalist market, it seems that they and anarchists do 
not, in fact, share much in common in terms of what we are 
against. In terms of what we are for, they are against free 
association, free speech, autonomy, and independent thought 
if the property owner so decrees. They may be against state 
power, but they are in total favour of private power and 
the means of defending it (e.g. by means of private 
police). I think its obvious that little in common and we 
should resist their attempts to appropriate the anarchist 
name for their authoritarian ideology.

Ultimately, I feel that the whole "post-left" argument is 
flawed simply because anarchism already rejects everything 
which is labelled "leftist" by Anarchy contributors. It 
seems to me a case of semantics, over which much pointless 
arguing past each other will result. I also find it strange 
to see anarchists influenced by Platformism arguing for 
diversity of tactics and organisation while "post-left" 
anarchists denounce all those who organise and act in non-
approved ways as "workerists," "organisationalists" and 
"leftists." But in these times I've come to expect such 
strangeness. 

Hopefully comrades in North America will realise that the 
mistakes made by a real revolutionary movement will always 
be more important than a thousand articles. After all, only 
practice will see who is right. Sadly Anarchy's 
contributors singularly failed to appreciate that many 
anarchists are influenced by the Platform precisely because 
of their negative experiences of current forms of anarchist 
organising and activity. If some anarchists are organising 
into a specific organisation (and I think it is good that 
they are) then, surely, this is due the failure of the 
"anti-organisationalism" which seems to dominate North 
American anarchism. I hope that anarchists everywhere will 
avoid the problems of both "anti-organisationalism" and 
Platformism and embrace a truly anarchist approach to 
organising together to spread our ideas within the struggle 
against hierarchy in order to turn it into a struggle for 
freedom. Reading Malatesta's critique of the Platform would 
be a good first step.

Yours in solidarity

Iain


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005