Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:54:13 -0500
From: Chuck0 <chuck-AT-mutualaid.org>
Subject: Re: letter to Anarchy


I have to admit that I haven't read the entire issue of the latest 
Anarchy, so perhaps my comments will be talking past your letter about 
the articles concerning platformism.

I thought that Jason McQuinn's articles in the new issue to be 
absolutely brilliant, especially the longer feature titled "Rejecting 
the Reification of Revolt." I will be doing what I can to promote that 
article, because I feel that it is one of the best essays to date that 
both explains post-leftism and what anarchism really is about.

One of the most discouraging things I've had to deal with concerning the 
anarchist movement of late is the ignorant hostility that has been 
directed at the post-left critique of contemporary anarchism. I get the 
impression that many of those who knee-jerk against post-leftism haven't 
bothered to actually READ what post-left writers have been writing. They 
are consumed with just seeing the PEOPLE who write these critiques, 
which unforunately prevents them from gaining any insight into what 
post-left critiques are trying to bring out about contemporary 
anarchism's relationship with the left.

This critique is needed more than ever, as word comes to me this morning 
that the soft anarchists in San Francisco have possibly sold out the 
direct action wing of the movement there to the liberals in the 
hierarchical peace movements. The more anarchists try to play the game 
of coalition politics with liberal and statist socialist groups, the 
more we get burned and the more we sabotage our chances to self-organize 
a practical class war against our common enemies.

Chuck0

Iain McKay wrote:

>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
>
>
>
>  
>