Organizational Platform of the
General Union of Anarchists (Draft)
Introduction
Anarchists!
Despite the force and unquestionably positive character of anarchist ideas, despite the clarity and completeness of anarchist positions with regard to the social revolution, and despite the heroism and countless sacrifices of anarchists in the struggle for Anarchist Communism, it is very telling that in spite of all this, the anarchist movement has always remained weak and has most often featured in the history of working-class struggles, not as a determining factor, but rather as a fringe phenomenon.
This contrast between the positive substance and incontestable validity of anarchist ideas and the miserable state of the anarchist movement can be explained by a number of factors, the chief one being the absence in the anarchist world of organizational principles and organizational relations.
In every country the anarchist movement is represented by local organizations with contradictory theory and tactics with no forward planning or continuity in their work. They usually fold after a time, leaving little or no trace.
Such a condition in revolutionary anarchism, if we take it as a whole, can only be described as chronic general disorganization. This disease of disorganization has invaded the organism of the anarchist movement like yellow fever and has plagued it for decades.
There can be no doubt, however, that this disorganization has its roots in a number of defects of theory, notably in the distorted interpretation of the principle of individuality in anarchism, that principle being too often mistaken for the absence of all accountability. Those enamoured of self-expression with an eye to personal pleasure cling stubbornly to the chaotic condition of the anarchist movement and, in defence thereof, invoke the immutable principles of anarchism and its teachers.
However, the immutable principles and teachers show the very opposite.
Dispersion spells ruination; cohesion guarantees life and development. This law of social struggle is equally applicable to classes and parties.
Anarchism is no beautiful fantasy, no abstract notion of philosophy, but a social movement of the working masses; for that reason alone it must gather its forces into one organization, constantly agitating, as demanded by the reality and strategy of the social class struggle.
As Kropotkin said: "We are convinced that the formation of an anarchist party in Russia, far from being prejudicial to the general revolutionary endeavour, is instead desirable and useful in the highest degree." (Foreword to Bakunin's Paris Commune, [Russian edition], 1892)
Nor did Bakunin ever oppose the idea of a general anarchist organization. On the contrary, his aspirations with regard to organization, as well as his activities within the first workingmen's International, give us every right to view him as an active advocate of precisely such a mode of organization.
Broadly speaking, nearly all of the active militants of anarchism were against dissipated action and dreamed of an anarchist movement united by a common purpose and common tactics.
It was during the Russian revolution of 1917 that the need for a general organization was felt most acutely, since it was during the course of that revolution that the anarchist movement displayed the greatest degree of fragmentation and confusion. The absence of a general organization induced many anarchist militants to defect to the ranks of the Bolsheviks. It is also the reason why many other militants find themselves today in a condition of passivity that thwarts any utilization of their often immense capacities.
We have vital need of an organization which, having attracted most of the participants in the anarchist movement, would establish a common tactical and political line for anarchism and thereby serve as a guide for the whole movement.
It is high time that anarchism emerged from the swamp of disorganization, to put an end to the interminable vacillations on the most important questions of theory and tactics, and resolutely move towards its clearly understood purpose and an organized collective practice.
It is not enough, though, to simply state the vital need for such an organization. It is also necessary to establish a means for creating it.
We reject as theoretically and practically unfounded the idea of creating an organization using the recipe of the "synthesis”, that is to say, bringing together the supporters of the various strands of anarchism. Such an organization embracing a pot-pourri of elements (in terms of their theory and practice) would be nothing more than a mechanical assemblage of persons with varying views on all issues affecting the anarchist movement, and would inevitably break up on encountering reality.
The anarcho-syndicalist approach does not solve anarchism's organizational difficulty, since anarcho-syndicalism fails to give it priority and is mostly interested in the idea of penetrating and making headway into the world of labour. However, even with a foothold there, there is nothing much to be accomplished in the world of labour if we do not have a general anarchist organization.
The only approach which can lead to a solution of the general organizational problem is, as we see it, the recruitment of anarchism's active militants on the basis of specific theoretic, tactical and organizational positions, which is to say on the basis of a more or less perfected, homogeneous programme .
Drawing up such a programme is one of the primary tasks which the social struggle of recent decades demands of anarchists. And it is to this task that the Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad has dedicated a substantial part of its efforts.
The “Organizational Platform” published below represents the outline, the skeleton of such a programme and must serve as the first step towards gathering anarchist forces into a single active, revolutionary anarchist collective capable of struggle: the General Union of Anarchists.
We have no illusions about the various deficiencies in the platform. As in any new, practical and, at the same time, critical departure, there are undoubtedly gaps in the platform. It may be that certain essential positions have been left out of the platform, or that certain others have not been developed adequately, or that still others may be too detailed or repetitive. All of this is possible, but that is not the issue. What is important is that the groundwork be laid for a general organization, and that aim is achieved, to the necessary extent, by this platform. It is the task of the general collective - the General Anarchist Union - to further elaborate and improve the platform so as to turn it into a complete programme for the whole anarchist movement.
We also have no illusions on another score.
We anticipate that a great many representatives of so-called individualism and "chaotic" anarchism will attack us, foaming at the mouth and accusing us of infringing anarchist principles. Yet we know that these individualist and chaotic elements take “anarchist principles" to mean the cavalier attitude, disorderliness and irresponsibility that have inflicted all but incurable injuries upon our movement and against which we struggle with all our energy and passion. That is why we can calmly parry any attacks from that quarter.
Our hopes are vested in others - in those who have remained true to anarchism, the workers, who have lived out the tragedy of the anarchist movement and who are painfully searching for a way out.
And we have high hopes of the anarchist youth, those young comrades born on the winds of the Russian revolution and absorbed from the outset by the whole gamut of constructive problems, who will undoubtedly insist on the implementation of positive organizational principles in anarchism.
We invite all Russian anarchist organizations, scattered throughout the various countries of the world, as well as individual anarchist militants, to come together into a single revolutionary collective, on the basis of a general organizational platform.
May this platform be a revolutionary watchword and rallying point for all the militants of the Russian anarchist movement and may it mark the birth of the General Union of Anarchists!
Long live the organized anarchist movement!
Long live the General Anarchist Union!
Long live the Social Revolution of the world's workers!
ON REVOLUTIONARY DISCIPLINE
Nestor Makhno
Some comrades have put the following question to me: How do I conceive revolutionary discipline?
I take revolutionary discipline to mean the self-discipline of the individual, set in the context of a strictly-prescribed collective activity equally incumbent upon all, the responsible policy line of the members of that collective, leading to strict congruence between their practice and their theory.
Without discipline in the organization - the vanguard of the revolution - one cannot think of undertaking any serious activity for the cause of the Revolution. Without discipline, the revolutionary vanguard cannot be revolutionary vanguard; since, if it were in a disorderly, disorganized state, it would be powerless to analyse and provide guidance on the pressing questions of the day, something that as initiator the masses would demand of it.
I base these positions on observation and experience and on the following prerequisites:
The Russian revolution bore within it a content that was essentially anarchist in many respects. Had the anarchists been closely organized and had they in their actions abided strictly by a well-defined discipline, they would never have suffered the crushing defeat they did.
But because the anarchists "of all persuasions and tendencies" did not represent (not even in their specific groups) a homogeneous collective with a disciplined line of action, they were unable to withstand the political and strategic scrutiny which revolutionary circumstances imposed upon them.
Their disorganization reduced them to political impotence, giving birth to two categories of anarchist.
One category was made up of those who hurled themselves into the systematic occupation of bourgeois homes, where they set up house and lived in comfort. These are the ones I term the "anarchist tourists," who wandered around from town to town, in hope of stumbling across a place to live for a time along the way, taking their leisure and hanging around as long as possible to live in comfort and ease.
The other category was made up of those who severed all real connections with anarchism (although a few of them inside the USSR are now passing themselves off as the sole representatives of Russian anarchism) and who fairly swooped upon the positions offered them by the bolsheviks, even when the authorities were shooting anarchists who remained true to their revolutionary credentials by denouncing the bolsheviks' treachery.
In the light of these lamentable facts, it will be readily understood why I cannot remain indifferent to the nonchalance and negligence currently to be encountered in anarchist circles. It prevents them from establishing a collective, faced with which those people who grab at anarchism or who are long dead to the cause of anarchism or who just blabber on about anarchism, its unity and actions against the enemy (but who, when it comes to action, run from this unity), would be seen in a different light and would be pushed away to the place they belong. That is why I am speaking about an anarchist organization that rests upon the principle of comradely discipline.
Such an organization would lead to the necessary coordination of all of the living forces of anarchism in the country and would help anarchists to take their rightful place in the great struggle of labour against capital.
Only in this way can the idea of anarchism gain a mass following, and not be impoverished. The only ones who could balk at such an organizational set-up are the irresponsible, empty-headed chatterboxes who have until now almost dominated our movement, through our own fault.
Responsibility and discipline must not frighten the revolutionary. They are the travelling companions of the practice of social anarchism.
THE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE STATE
Nestor Makhno
The fact that the modern
State is the organizational form of an authority founded upon
arbitrariness and violence in the social life of toilers is independent
of whether it may be "bourgeois" or "proletarian." It relies upon
oppressive centralism, arising out of the direct violence of a minority
deployed against the majority. In order to enforce and impose the
legality of its system, the State resorts not only to the gun and money,
but also to potent weapons of psychological pressure. With the aide of
such weapons, a tiny group of politicians enforces psychological
repression of an entire society, and, in particular, of the toiling
masses, conditioning them in such a way as to divert their attention
from the slavery instituted by the State.
So it must be clear that
if we are to combat the organized violence of the modern State, we have
to deploy powerful weapons, appropriate to the magnitude of the task.
Thus far, the methods of
social action employed by the revolutionary working class against the
power of the oppressors and exploiters - the State and Capital - in
conformity with libertarian ideas, were insufficient to lead the toilers
on to complete victory.
It has come to pass in
History that the workers have defeated Capital, but the victory then
slipped from their grasp, because some State power emerged, amalgamating
the interests of private capital and those of State capitalism for the
sake of success over the toilers.
The experience of the
Russian revolution has blatantly exposed our shortcomings in this
regard. We must not forget that, but should rather apply ourselves to
identifying those shortcomings plainly.
We may acknowledge that
our struggle against the State in the Russian revolution was remarkable,
despite the disorganization by which our ranks were afflicted:
remarkable above all insofar as the destruction of that odious
institution is concerned.
But, by contrast, our
struggle was insignificant in the realm of construction of the free
society of toilers and its social structures, which might have ensure
that it prospered beyond reach of the tutelage of the State and its
repressive institutions.
The fact that we
libertarian communists or anarcho-syndicalists failed to anticipate the
sequel to the Russian revolution and that we failed to make haste to
devise new forms of social activity in time, led many of our groups and
organizations to dither yet again in their political and socio-strategic
policy on the fighting front of the Revolution.
If we are to avert a
future relapse into these same errors, when a revolutionary situation
comes about, and in order to retain the cohesion and coherence of our
organizational line, we must first of all amalgamate all of our forces
into one active collective, then without further ado, define our
constructive conception of economic, social, local and territorial
units, so that they are outlined in detail (free soviets), and in
particular describe in broad outline their basic revolutionary mission
in the struggle against the State. Contemporary life and the Russian
revolution require that.
Those who have blended
in with the very ranks of the worker and peasant masses, participating
actively in the victories and defeats of their campaign, must without
doubt come to our own conclusions, and more specifically to an
appreciation that our struggle against the State must be carried on
until the State has been utterly eradicated: they will also acknowledge
that the toughest role in that struggle is the role of the revolutionary
armed force.
It is essential that the
action of the Revolution's armed forces be linked with the social and
economic unit, wherein the laboring people will organize itself from the
earliest days of the revolution onwards, so that total
self-organization of life may be introduced, out of reach of all statist
structures.
From this moment forth,
anarchists must focus their attention upon that aspect of the
Revolution. They have to be convinced that, if the revolution's armed
forces are organized into huge armies or into lots of local armed
detachments, they cannot but overcome the State's incumbents and
defenders, and thereby bring about the conditions needed by the toiling
populace supporting the revolution, so that it may cut all ties with the
past and look to the final detail of the process of constructing a new
socio-economic existence.
The State will, though,
be able to cling to a few local enclaves and try to place multifarious
obstacles in the path of the toilers' new life, slowing the pace of
growth and harmonious development of new relationships founded on the
complete emancipation of man.
The final and utter
liquidation of the State can only come to pass when the struggle of the
toilers is oriented along the most libertarian lines possible, when the
toilers will themselves determine the structures of their social action.
These structures should assume the form of organs of social and
economic self-direction, the form of free "anti-authoritarian" soviets.
The revolutionary workers and their vanguard - the anarchists - must
analyze the nature and structure of these soviets and specify their
revolutionary functions in advance. It is upon that, chiefly, that the
positive evolution and development of anarchist ideas in the ranks of
those who will accomplish the liquidation of the State on their own
account in order to build a free society, will be dependent.
No comments:
Post a Comment