A - I n f o s

a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **
News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts Our archives of old posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Greek_ 中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ _The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours | of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012 | of 2013 | of 2014 | of 2015 | of 2016 | of 2017 | of 2018 | of 2019

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups

(en) anarkismo.net: Syndicalism or platformism? Syndicalism AND Platformism! - a reply by the (die)plattform (de)

Date Sun, 4 Aug 2019 09:42:35 +0300


Criticism is a gift. Usually, however, just this special present is packaged a little loveless, which is why it is then accepted so reluctant. ---- Also a recent, quite polemical discussion with our text " https://www.dieplattform.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/layout17shre-7.pdf " falls into this category: the brochure " https: // www .syndikat-a.de / index.php? article_id = 2 & cat = 3923 & prod = 5422 ", published by Syndikat-A as a copy of the journal https://tsveyfl.blogspot.com/p/start.html . ---- The author Frederik Fuss has a strong bitterness in the face of the state of the anarchist movement. Even the term "movement" is too much of a good thing for him. This frustration has very relevant reasons - with regard to the criticism in our text seems to be consensus. We only doubt that in this way he will be successful in doing something about them.

As for us, we are still grateful for the input. We do not need harmony and no (cross-organizational) consensus on all issues. What do we care about the packaging ... is free.

If we ignore this, there are certainly some noteworthy points that can help to better describe our positions. As the author himself notes, it was never our claim to provide a comprehensive explanation of the world with this first text - but a basis for discussion.

We are therefore right in pointing to a few empty spaces in our text: for example, the hitherto unformulated position on anti-Semitism - which should not only be mentioned in relation to the shift to the right. Such blanks exist in the text even a few more, which are not mentioned in Fuß criticism. We are aware of that. We will also take a clear stance on other situations of oppression and domination that are too brief or unmentioned.

As the successful paragraph on the strengths of platformism emphasizes, "the collective process of negotiating the concepts first enables individuals to place their own thoughts and conceptions of and about the world in a fruitful relationship with those of others. Dissent can and does not have to be carried out ... have been suppressed. "We have already successfully started this process, as both the large number of positive and negative reactions to our text show.

Insinuations such as, we would understand capitalism or patriarchy as purely interpersonal relations of domination, at least show us that we need to formulate and expand these points and relationships again more carefully and clearly. With a little benevolence, a different point of view would have been deducible from our text: The sentences "At the center of capitalist functioning are not human needs, but the achievement of (maximum) profit and capital utilization" and "Patriarchy the world-wide system of oppression and exploitation of women "should become clear that we are not concerned with shortened and personalized rule of domination.

The statement that gender is not social (that is, social) constructed, but that it is "rather ... a social process that generates and enforces gender," we are then a bit puzzling. But of course there are also material foundations and emotional, institutional and physical influences regarding "ideological dressing", no question. We have the impression to address these in our text at least partially. But even here, everything is certainly even clearer.

There are also affirmative passages - such as criticizing some of the current (albeit over-subscribed) developments in FAU to which our text indeed provides answers: for example, the reference to a clear, anarchist viewpoint in everyday union work or the proposal a supraregional awareness structure.

It must also be said: Not a few of us are organized in the FAU and participate in internal discourses there. We see our approach and that of anarcho-syndicalism not as opposites, but as complementary and natural siblings.

This assessment also leads us to reject the variant of platformism that Frederik Fuss represents. The resulting accusation against us is that we are not platformistically enough, or that we are anethistic anarchist in a platform costume. It contains, based on passages of the historical platform of 1926, an exclusive representation claim and the attempt to gain a power of definition over the anarchist movement. For good reasons, which can be found in our text, we think that this is neither feasible nor desirable. Many present-day, platformist organizations, who likewise do not want to enforce "anarchist monoculture", think this similarly. However, this does not mean that we have a synthetic organizational approach, as assumed b Fuß. Our organization is based on the unity of theory and practice, goals and strategies. This applies to all constituents and members of the platform. This organizational approach as well as a diverse, well thought out and socially effective anarchist movement are not mutually exclusive.

Therefore, we also resolutely oppose his proposal to join the FAU in an attempt to transform it into an organization based on platform principles. Just as we disagree with the assessment, "with the FAU there is already an organization in Germany that fulfills some requirements of the idea of platformism". The FAU, with its "principles and fundamentals" of 2015, has a very general and brief theoretical basis. However, the individual FAU syndicates do not have a common understanding of practical activity, nor a common understanding of strategies to achieve their goals (ignoring the general strike).

The FAU as an anarcho-syndicalist union has a clear and correct current focus in the syndicalist labor struggle on anarchist basis - the FAU's strict anarcho-syndicalism demanded by Fuß (taking into account its current capabilities) is, in our opinion, fulfilled. As a platformist organization of ideas, we do not have to focus primarily on labor disputes, but can also contribute to other social struggles of the wage-dependent class - continuously and as the main focus of our organization. We therefore have a broader policy space in the current situation.

To come back on Fuß reasoning: The platformism has nunmal since its founding paper developed almost 100 years ago. In the wake of its Latin American character, the especifismo, we must further disappoint ourselves: we do not want to work only with syndicalists and synthetic anarchists on a practical level. We want to get into the balance of power and social struggles - in other words, wherever we are strategically given, we will happily work with people who do not even see themselves as anarchists. Anyone who, on the basis of a claim of platform superiority, sees the synthesis on the next level alone in practical cooperation, will probably have to rely on it.

Of course we would be happy if FAU or FdA would adopt some of our approaches in the future. But once that happens, then on the basis of voluntariness, insight into their correctness and not through intra-anarchist confrontation and repression. This strategy, even if it were promising - which it absolutely is not - would only weaken and split the movement as a whole.

But we have started to strengthen the anarchist movement. In order for us to be able to set ourselves up effectively according to our platform-based and especifismo-derived approach, we need our own organization. This also applies to the - never completely finished - development of a consistent, theoretical basis, a binding structure, which is just not arbitrary, and an effective practice. "Fight where you stand" is certainly an important principle - not only in terms of labor, but also on Mietenkämpfe, social revolutionary twists of identity politics or ecology - but not the only one. An altered perception of anarchism does not have to be enforced, especially in a "scene", but in the social public sphere. Whether that can succeed,

We also have to reject other arguments.

For example, the assumption made in the air that our view of National Socialism is based on the condensed fascism theory of the Stalinist Dimitroff, according to which fascism is virtually only a puppet or particularly "consistent" expression of the financial capital.
Again, we may have to clarify something once again. If we say that "fascism can serve as a way out of capital in times of crisis", that does not mean "capital is behind fascism". Instead, this refers to the simple fact that fascism and capital in the past have always made good ally and the nationalist as well as capitalist-dominated competitive society, unfortunately, provides good conditions for slipping into fascist barbarism. This also applies to the current shift to the right, for example, for the promotion of AfD by political groups from the economy.

In order to recognize this, it is not necessary to put different phenomena in one. Even though we were concerned with fascism in general, the practical efforts of National Socialists to "negate the capital ratio" were largely ideological in comparison to the extent of their practical collaboration with capital groups. The great emphasis on racist-racist and anti-Semitic content is indeed an important distinguishing feature of National Socialism compared to many capitalist actors, as well as other fascist movements. But even if capitalist interests were frustrated partly and especially towards the end in favor of more direct power and violence during National Socialism, The Volkish element historically had the function of pacifying, mitigating and overriding class antagonisms and not their cause. National Socialism unleashed the class struggle from above, partly replacing wage labor with open slavery, not to mention the barbaric, absolutely dehumanizing forced labor in the labor and concentration camps, which to this day brings German companies the necessary advantage in world market competition.

Nor do we by any means reduce all migrants to Muslims - but it remains important to note that the latter have become a primary enemy image for some of today's right, which in turn makes this reduction. Not only because of "envy and admiration," as Fuß claims, but above all on the basis of anti-Muslim racism, "barbarian discourses" and a self-image as gatekeeper of a Christian-Western hegemony.

That racist attitudes in society tend to decrease statistically with stronger contact with the people they refer to, as well as structural differences in urban and rural areas. Of the assumed automatism was with us also no speech. However, we gladly accept the incentive to deal with "identity diffusion" as the basis of right attitudes.

It is also a pity that Fuss accuses us of not being concrete enough, for example, to discard only platitudes in terms of the anarchist concept, but often even fiddling around in a cloud of just such - only more influenced by academic jargon. But that does not make up for the lack of concretization of criticism. It would have been exciting for us to find out exactly what he still misses or suggests. Unfortunately, instead of formulating answers himself, it often remains in pure negativity - which is legitimate, but also significantly more unsettling.

Unlike the author, we do not consider the anarchist movement irrelevant. Otherwise we would hardly want to get involved in it to the degree. On the contrary: at the latest after the decline of real socialism, some anarchist contents in left-wing movements have become hegemonic. In the same way, the social movements increasingly recognize that suppression is mutually supportive and intersectionally interwoven - anarchism, with its declared opposition not to one, but to all forms of domination, offers here a theoretical basis in which various social movements converge could. Unfortunately, organized anarchism has failed to capitalize on this great potential due to the weaknesses we have identified.

Despite all this again - thanks for the 32-page brochure - which also refers to our text. We have read them partly with great profit and are also very pleased that we could continue to fuel the discussion about anarchist organization.

Related Link: https://www.dieplattform.org

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31494
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center