Keywords: Platform, Organisation, WSM, Synthesis, Syndicalism  

This is the text of a talk of member of the
Workers Solidarity movement gave recently at an
anarchist meeting in northern Ireland.  It should
help clear up some of the misconceptions about
anarchism.  It also explains what Platformism is.


Introductory talk about the Workers Solidarity
Movement
delivered to the Cushendall meeting hosted by
Organise!, June 1993


The Workers Solidarity Movement was formed in
1984.  Prior to this the late 1970s and early
1980s had seen the first episodes of public
anarchist activity with the emergence of local
anarchist groups, many of them shortlived, in
Belfast, Dublin, Dundalk and Limerick.  These
groups tended to have no common policies or
activities, no organised education or discussions
about anarchism, no strategy for changing society.
The only requirement for membership was usually
that one described oneself as an 'anarchist'.

There was a widespread tendency to opt out of real
struggles in favour of self-imposed isolation.  A
good example of this was the behaviour of many
anarchists in Dublin at the time of the anti-
nuclear movement in the late 1970s.  Hundreds of
people, mainly young and not members of any
political grouping, were in local anti-nuclear
groups.  Rather than joining these groups, making
concrete suggestions for taking the campaign
forward, working to increase the level of self-
activity and explaining anarchism to an audience
which contained many who were open to radical
politics, what did they do?  They cut themselves
off from these people and set up their own anti-
nuclear group for anarchists only.

A few of us who had been through all this messing
initiated discussions with other anarchists about
the need for clear policies, agreed tactics and a
new organisation.  Our starting point was that the
working class has the power to overthrow
capitalism and create an anarchist society.  Our
role is to convince our class that this is
possible; to win the battle of ideas against the
authoritarian solutions of social democracy,
nationalism and leninism; and to popularise
anarchist ideas and methods.

We saw, in broad terms, four major streams within
modern anarchism: reformism, synthesis groups,
syndicalism and 'Platformism'.    We were
attracted to, for want of a better word,
'Platformism'.

Before going on to say a little about this I
should give our views on what is, by far, the
largest current within the international anarchist
movement, and one that has been a major influence
on Organise! - syndicalism.

It can trace its roots back to the last century.
As the repression which followed the 1871 Paris
Commune began to relax and the idea of 'propaganda
by deed' was seen to be taking our movement into a
cul-de-sac some anarchists looked away from such
acts of revenge and desperation, and towards the
newly emerging labour movement.  A set of ideas,
anarcho-syndicalism, developed which said that
organising workers into One Big Union based on
libertarian beliefs and using methods of direct
action would lead to the General Strike where the
bosses were locked out and the classless,
stateless society ushered in.  Unlike other
unions, their belief is that the union can be used
not only to win reforms from the bosses but also
to overthrow the capitalist system.  They hold
that most workers are not revolutionaries because
the structure of their unions is such that it
takes the initiative away from the rank & file.
They see the biggest problem in the structure of
the existing unions rather than in the ideas that
tie workers to authoritarian, capitalist views of
the world.

This movement grew until the 1920s and 1930s when
the rise of fascism saw it suffer horrific
repression, from which it has never fully
recovered.  With the exception of Spain, Sweden
and the Netherlands none of today's syndicalist
unions has a membership of more than 1,000.  This
is a good figure for a political organisation but
not so good for a union.  Most are more accurately
described as propaganda groups trying to build
unions rather than being unions as we understand
that word.  But this should not blind us to their
importance.  In many countries they have a real
tradition, they have organisation, they attract
excellent militants.  They are the biggest
tendency in present-day anarchism.

Syndicalists do not wish to create a revolutionary
political organisation.  Their aim is an
industrial union.  It is a-political, arguing all
that is necessary to make the revolution is for
the workers to seize the factories and the land.
After that they believe that the state and all the
other institutions of the ruling class will come
toppling down.   They do not accept that the
working class must take political power.  For them
all power has to be immediately abolished on day
one of the revolution.

Because syndicalist organisation is the union, it
organises all workers regardless of their
politics.  Historically many workers have joined,
not because they were anarchists, but because the
syndicalist union was the most militant and got
the best results.  Because of this tendencies
always appeared that were reformist. And who, even
in the syndicalist movement, would deny that this
is the case with the bigger syndicalist unions
today such as the Swedish Central Organisation of
Workers (SAC), the Spanish General Confederation
of Workers (CGT) or the Dutch OVB?

Syndicalists are quite correct to emphasise the
centrality of organising workers in the workplace.
Critics who reject syndicalism on the grounds that
allegedly it cannot organise those outside the
workplace are wrong.  Taking the example of
anarcho-syndicalism in Spain it is clear that they
could and did organise throughout the entire
working class as was evidenced by the Iberian
Federation of Libertarian Youth, the 'Mujeras
Libres' (Free Women), and the neighbourhood
organisations.  More recently we saw the British
DAM putting time, energy and resources into both
the anti-poll tax campaign and the Anti-Fascist
Action organisation.

Its weakness is rooted in its view of why workers
are tied to capitalism, and in its view of what is
necessary to make the revolution.  Spain in 1936/7
represented the highest point in anarcho-
syndicalist organisation and achievement;
achievements we draw a lot of inspiration from.
But because of their a-politicism they were unable
to develop a programme for workers' power, to wage
a political battle against other currents in the
workers' movement (such as reformism and
Stalinism), and to give a lead to the entire class
by fighting for complete workers' power.

Instead they got sucked into support for the
Popular Front government, which in turn led to
their silence and complicity when the Republican
state moved against the collectives and militias.
The minority in the CNT, organised around the
Friends of Durruti, was expelled when they issued
a proclamation calling for the workers to take
absolute power (i.e. that they should refuse to
share power with the bosses or the authoritarian
parties).

The CNT believed that when the workers took over
the means of production and distribution this
would lead to "the liquidation of the bourgeois
state which would die of asphyxiation".  History
teaches us different. In a situation of dual power
it is very necessary to smash the state.

In contrast to this the Friends of Durruti were
clear that "to beat Franco we need to crush the
bourgeoisie and its Stalinist and Socialist
allies.  The capitalist state must be destroyed
totally and there must be installed workers' power
depending on rank & file committees.  A-political
anarchism has failed".  The political confusion of
the CNT leadership was such that they attacked the
idea of the workers seizing power as "evil" and
leading to an "anarchist dictatorship".

The syndicalist movement, organised in the
International Workers Association and outside it,
refuses to admit the CNT was wrong to "postpone"
the revolution and enter the government.  They
attempt to explain away this whole episode as
being due to "exceptional circumstances" that
"will not occur again".  Because they refuse to
admit that a mistake of historic proportions was
made, they are doomed to repeat it (should they
get a chance).

We recognise that the syndicalist unions, where
they still exist, are far more progressive than
any other union.  But anarchist-communists like
ourselves will seek to organise within their ranks
and everywhere else workers are organised.  We
will not liquidate our specific politics and
organisation into the a-politicism of syndicalism.
The battle of ideas is vital.  It is not enough
that people are won to accepting that the present
system should be overthrown, it is not enough that
they are won to accepting that anarchism is a nice
idea.  We have to win the argument that it is
superior to any other alternative being put
forward.  That means combatting other ideas in the
left and unions, not ignoring them.

We must also understand what is involved in
changing society.  Revolutionary situations throw
up situations of dual power where neither the
working class nor the ruling class (or would-be
rulers) is immediately able to exert its total
control.  The power of bosses and their state must
be smashed or we leave them the means to get back
on top.  Spain in 1936/37 demonstrated this in a
most forceful fashion.

Which brings us to 'Platformism'...  Anarchists,
who numbered up to 10,000 without including the
Makhnovist army, had been involved in the 1917
Russian Revolution.  They had been in the unions,
in the factory committees, in the soviets of
workers, peasants and soldiers.  They had their
own papers, federations and clubs.  Yet their
influence was extremely limited and we all know
how that revolution turned out in the end.

Nestor Makhno, Peter Arshinov (author of The
History of the Makhnovist Movement) and others
forced into exile set up the bi-monthly magazine
Dielo Trouda in Paris in 1925.  The following
year, along with Ida Mett (the author of The
Kronstadt Commune), Valesvsky and Linsky (about
whom I know nothing), wrote the Organisational
Platform of the Libertarian Communists.

It saw the problem of the Russian anarchists, and
the movement generally, as its failure to provide
a theoretically coherent and organisationally
effective alternative to Leninism within the
working class.  Or to put it plainly, nice ideas
were not enough.

They dealt with the class struggle, the state's
relationship to the class division of society and
used classical anarchist arguments against the
Bolshevik advocacy of the party dictatorship in
the so-called 'transitional period' between the
overthrow of capitalist power and the maturing of
the classless society.  They also pointed to the
political weakness of syndicalism and argued for a
struggle in all the unions "for the domination of
libertarian ideas".  As it states "It is necessary
to never forget that if trade unionism does not
find in anarchist theory a support in opportune
times it will turn, whether we like it or not, to
the ideology of a political statist party".  This
has been seen to happen in the French CGT, in
Argentina where the FORA lost support to Peronism
and in Spain where the bulk of the CNT's mass
membership did not break from the 'leading
militants' who entered the Popular Front
government.

They went to talk about the sort of organisation
that the Dielo Trouda group thought necessary.
This was covered under four headings.

No.1, Theoretical Unity
Theory is what guides us along a defined path
towards a determined goal.  They said that such
theory should be common to all members of an
organisation.  That is, that they share the same
goal and the agree on a common path towards it.
Though this is common sense, we can still find
anarchists who disagree saying that it
straitjackets us into a forced conformity.

No.2, Tactical Unity
In our case it means concrete things like
membership of the WSM is not open to those who
reject work inside the unions nor to those who
would see the state as some power that stands
apart from the bosses, because to include such
views in our organisation would mean that we could
no longer work together as an organisation.  We
would be little more than a group of individuals
who came together to tell each other of the
different and sometimes contradictory things we
were doing.  Not a lot of point in that.

Instead we discuss, debate and then agree what
tactic in a given struggle is best for that
struggle and for anarchism.  Having reached a
decision we implement it, we use our strength and
numbers as an organisation with a unified outlook
to give added effect to our activity.

No.3, Collective Responsibility
The Platform says "The Practice of acting on one's
personal responsibility should be decisively
condemned and rejected in the ranks of the
anarchist movement".  No, this doesn't mean we
have to be continually running off to some
committee for permission to show a bit of
initiative.  It does mean that there should be no
room for the self-indulgent egoists who treat
politics as more of a hobby than a commitment.
Our goal, our tradition and our means are
profoundly collective (as opposed to the
authoritarian individualist ethos fostered by
capitalism).

Each member should be be responsible to the
organisation for their political activity and, in
turn, the organisation must be responsible to each
member.  There must be no division between leaders
and led.

No.4 Federalism
Here the authors draw a distinction between real
federalism, the free agreement to work together in
a spirit of free debate for agreed goals; and what
they describe as "the right, above all, to
manifest one's 'ego', without obligation to
account for duties as regards the organisation".
As they point out there is no point making
decisions if members will not carry them out.

However, when they went on to talk about a General
Union of Anarchists they found themselves under
attack from anarchists such as Voline, Fabbri,
Malatesta and Camilo Berneri who accused them of
trying to "Bolshevise anarchism".  I believe that
this criticism was wrong.  On one hand Voline and
his fellow thinkers were opposed because they saw
no problem with organisations which were a pick
'n' mix of anarcho-syndicalism, anarchist-
communism and individualism with all the
incoherence and ineffectiveness that implies.  On
the other hand many anarchists saw the proposed
General Union of Anarchists as some sort of
monopoly organisation that would incorporate all
anarchists.  It is a fault of the authors that
they did not say explicitly that the General Union
would, as all anarchists should, work with others
when it is in the interests of the class struggle.

Neither did they spell out that all the decisions,
the policies and the direction of the organisation
would be taken by the members after full and free
debate.  It should not have to be spelled out when
addressing other anarchists but seemingly it did,
and the "Platform' was misunderstood by many as a
result of this omission.  Further signs of
authoritarianism were seen in the proposal for an
executive committee.  Maybe if they had called it
a working collective or something similar the same
threat would not have been seen. The tasks of this
executive committee were listed as "the execution
of decisions taken by the Union with which it is
entrusted, the theoretical an organisational
orientation of isolated organisations consistent
with the theoretical positions and general
tactical line of the Union, the monitoring of the
general state of the movement, the maintenance of
working and organisational links between all the
organisations in the union, and with other
organisations.  The rights, responsibilities and
practical tasks of the executive committee are
fixed by the congress of the Union".

The last sentence of the document talks about the
aim of the Union to become the "organised vanguard
of the emancipating process".  It appears that
what is being talked about is winning the best
militants, the most class conscious and
revolutionary workers to the Union.  But it is not
clearly spelled out.  A doubt could exist.  Did
they mean a more Leninist type of vanguard?  When
taken with the entire pamphlet I don't think so
but even if this is not the case it still does not
invalidate the rest of the work.  It would be very
stupid to throw away the whole document because of
one less than clear sentence.

Just before leaving this topic I want to look at
two arguments that get used again and again
against the Platform.  Firstly we are told that it
is Arshinov's 'Platform' as if the other four
authors were just dupes, quite an insult to the
memory of revolutionaries like Makhno.  It is done
because in 1934 Arshinov returned to Russia, where
three years later he was murdered in Stalin's
purges.  What Arshinov did eight years after
helping to write the 'Platform' surely does no
more to invalidate what was written then any more
than Kropotkin's support for Allied imperialism in
the First World War invalidated all his previous
anarchist writings.

The other is the experience in Britain where the
Anarchist Workers Association in the 1970s and the
Anarchist Workers Group of a few years ago both
claimed the 'Platform' as an inspiration.  Both
groups - after very promising starts - declined,
degenerated, died and then saw their remnants
disappear into the Leninist milieu.  This question
can be taken up in the discussion.  I would also
recommend the WSM document about the decline of
the AWG which was presented to our Wexford meeting
last year.

The 'Platform' is no Bible full of absolute
truths.  Anarchists have no need of such things.
It is a signpost pointing us in what we believe is
the direction of making anarchism the alternative
to both the present set-up and the authoritarian
alternatives served up by most of the left.  It
ideas have been developed and modified in the
light of experience over the years.  Two other
notable documents are Towards A Fresh Revolution
by the Friends of Durruti and the Manifesto of
Libertarian Communism by Georges Fontenis.  They
are part of the writings of the tradition of
'Platformism'  They are well worth reading, and
are put into context when you see how an
organisation like the WSM operates.  We stand in
their tradition because it is the best one, but it
is a continually developing, modifying and growing
tradition.  We have no tablets carved in stone.
We do have a base from which to work as
revolutionary anarchists.  That is one of the
values of a specific tradition.

So now onto the more specific history of the WSM.
We are a very small group.  Therefore the first
task facing us is to get anarchism better known in
Ireland and to develop our politics through our
involvement in real struggles.  I haven't got time
to go through everything we have done over the
last eight and a half years but I'll mention a few
things to give an idea of how the WSM works.

Internal - membership is open to those who agree
with our policies (or at least most of them),
contribute financially to the organisation, do work
for the WSM such as selling Workers Solidarity, or
being involved as anarchists in their unions and
in campaigning groups.  Decisions are made by
everyone after a period of discussion and debate.
Where a minority does not agree with a position we
may adopt they have the right to use part of
Workers Solidarity to put their case, as well as
the Internal Bulletin and meetings.  This has not
arisen so far but we have made a point of
providing for such an occasion because democracy
is not something we can treat lightly.

Industrial - Through our involvement in our
unions and in strike support work we have shown at
least a small layer of trade union activists that
anarchists are far from the media stereotype and
are actually deserving of respect.  Though small
in numbers two of us have been elected onto our
branch committees as known anarchists and one as a
delegate to the Dublin Council of Trade Unions.
We have always seen this as our most important
single area of activity and this has translated
into work, in particular, around the Dunnes
Stores, Waterford Glass, Pat Grace and Japan
Boutiques strikes - to name but a few.

International - We have always been ready to
give whatever aid and solidarity we can to workers
and anarchists in foreign lands.  Our first
actions in this sphere were probably leafleting
and picketing the Laura Ashley shop in Dublin in
response to an appeal from workers in one of their
Scottish suppliers were on strike, and were
receiving assistance from the DAM.  Another was
the circulation of an information sheet and model
resolution among trade unionists in Dublin's only
tyre factory at the time anarcho-syndicalists of
what was known as the Renavado CNT were on trial
in Vitoria.  More recently we have registered a
protest with the Nepalese Dept of Labour against
union busting, in response to an appeal from the
Nepal Battery Workers Unions which arrived via the
US section of the IWA.  We have also picketed the
Nigerian embassy on the international day of
solidarity with the anarchists who had been jailed
by the military regime and sent money to help
their families, and we have sent money towards the
court costs of comrades facing trial in Peru.

Pamphlets/paper - We have, so far, produced 39
issues of Workers Solidarity, though have had to
stop producing a monthly and move to a bigger
quarterly as we don't have the numbers to produce
a monthly, sell it and do all the other things we
want to.  As we grow, in both numbers and
geographical spread, we hope to move towards a
monthly which can popularise anarchism and address
current issues with information, advice and
debate.  At present, however, we have to aim our
magazine at those who have already rejected the
system to some degree but as our base grows so
will our ability to take anarchist politics to
greater numbers of people.

We have also produced pamphlets on anarchism, on
the national question, on divorce, on Spain and
reprinted the Organisational Platform.  Two of the
pamphlets have had to reprinted as they sold out.
In addition to this we get anarchist ideas and
history into a few more hands by running a mail
order book service.

Abortion/divorce - Recently considerable gains
have been made in terms of social progress in the
26 counties.  Last year we were instrumental in
forming the Abortion Information Campaign and
organising the 10,000 strong march which finally
led to the overturning of the constitutional ban
on abortion.  We have also been involved in the
pro-Divorce campaign, canvassing in 1986, getting
two members elected to the National Executive of
the Divorce Action Group and producing a pamphlet
on the politics of the family and divorce during
the last referendum.

Meetings - We hold public meetings, which often
allows us meet people we may otherwise never have
contact with.  The most recent was last month when
40 turned up to hear talks on the New World Order
and the Anarchist Alternative.

For an organisation of seven members and a few
supporters who sell our magazine and work with us
politically - this isn't too bad.  It shows what
could be achieved if we had more anarchists and
bigger organisations.

We believe that, while we still have things to
learn, we are going in the right direction and
will contribute towards building a mass anarchist
movement in our country.  The small number of
anarchists in Ireland at present, the absence of a
native tradition and the lack of any sizable base
within the working class are drawbacks.  But they
do not depress us.  All movements start somewhere.
Anarchists time and time again, in many countries
and in the most difficult of circumstances, have
grappled with the problem of building and
maintaining a mass influence within the working
class.  It is not easy but it can be done.  We
hope that comrades will want to find out more
about the WSM, will work with us on matters of
mutual concern, and where they find themselves in
agreement with us will join the WSM.

***********************
The Workers Solidarity Movement can be contacted
at
WSM
PO Box 1528
Dublin 8
Ireland

Further reading
Organisational platform of the libertarian communists    (WSM #1.50)
Manifesto of Libertarian communism
Towards a fresh revolution


