"Without a strategy that stems Irom common

political agreement, revolutionary organizations

are bound to be an aIIair oI reactivism against the
continual maniIestations oI oppression and in-
justice and/or a cycle oI Iruitless actions to be re-
peated over and over again, with little analysis or
understanding oI the consequences."
- Furious Five Collective, on Especifismo
100 Fl8ll0fM
ll'8 80l l08l f0f
Fl8ll0fMl8l8 M0f0
PJ Lilley & JeII Shantz
from The Northeastern Anarchist
< Issue 6: Platformism Without Illusions
Winter/Spring 2003 >
for many more essays & info:
nefac.net/pIatform

Reprint by Punching Out Press

july 2012
- http://jeffshantz.ca -
process then it makes a welcome and necessary contri-
bution to anarchism in North America.
Anarchist hobbyism is not much better than the hob-
byism oI stamp collecting or bird watching. Hobbies oI-
Ier their practitioners moments oI Ireedom, selI-expres-
sion and relieI Irom the daily grind but they don't do
much to keep the shit Irom piling up. Anarchism can do
better than that and must do better than that. This is
what platIormism recognizes and it attempts to take an-
archism out oI esoteric hobbyism.
Anarchism must move Irom the realm oI speculation
to the terrain oI possibility. In giving a serious impetus
to this movement, platIormist organizations oIIer much
to anarchist eIIorts in North American.
NOTES
(1) As well this will not be an exposition oI the platIorm's po-
sitions. Those accounts can be Iound elsewhere in this is-
sue or in Nicolas Phebus' Iine article "As Far as Organiza-
tion Goes: We are PlatIormists" |NEA#3|
Platformism 9
workplaces, anti-poverty actions and Iighting deporta-
tions to name only a Iew.
These actions, based upon serious debate and an es-
timation oI the capacities to do the work properly, have
moved the discussion oI organization out oI the clouds
oI speculation and brought it to the ground oI everyday
practice.
They have taken it Irom comIortable abstraction to
practical reality based on the experiences oI people liv-
ing under actually existing capitalism.
OI course, the platIorm is simply a "tactical and theor-
etical orientation" and platIormist organization is the
bringing together oI those who would develop that ori-
entation through their practice. Thus it is always open to
re-appraisal as circumstances suggest.
It's important to keep in mind that the platIorm was
only ever intended as a beginning, "as the Iirst step to-
wards rallying libertarian Iorces." Far Irom being a Iully
Ileshed out program oI action it provides only "the out-
lines, the skeleton oI such a programme." Its authors re-
cognized its many gaps, oversights and inadequate treat-
ments.
Part oI anarchism's growth must include a commit-
ment to developing visions and practices that can build
anarchist movements rather than just "scenes" or
cliques. II platIormism oIIers a starting point Ior this
8 Lillev & Shant:
"It is time Ior anarchism to leave the swamp oI
disorganization, to put an end to endless vacilla-
tions on the most important tactical and theoretic-
al questions, to resolutely move towards a clearly
recognized goal, and to operate an organized col-
lective practice."
- Organizational PlatIorm
oI Libertarian Communists, 1927
Much has been made over the last Iew years oI re-
newed activity by anarchists inspired by the 1926 plat-
Iorm. Rather than engaged debate on the issue, discus-
sion has tended to be polarized between deIenders oI the
platIorm and unwavering opponents oI platIormism
(and so-called organizational anarchism generally). Lost
in this polarization is the Iact that platIormism oIIers
some important insights into contemporary anarchist
actvity, insights that may be especially useIul Ior non-
platIormists.
We should begin this discussion by saying that we are
not platIormists. We have never been platIormists and,
Platformism 1
who knows, we may never be platIormists. In Iact, over
the years we' ve had our own share oI problems with the
platIorm and many arguments with proponents oI the
platIorm.
Still, we support the recent emergence oI platIormist
organizations in North America generally, and the activ-
ities oI a speciIic platIormist Iederation, NEFAC. We
also think that platIormist actions and ideas have much
to oIIer anarchists in North America, both in terms oI
their critique oI North American anarchist movements
and in terms oI their positive contributions to the
struggle Ior an anarchist society.
Thus we write this short piece not as boosterism Ior
those who agree with the platIorm, nor as a rebuttal to
those who are opposed to the platIorm. Instead we write
it as anarchists still grappling with the questions and
challenges posed by the platIorm. We are encouraged by
the possibilities raised by platIormist organizing which
buillds anarchism outside oI our limited circles and in
connection with people's everday lives and struggles un-
der capitalism.
In our view, the burden is on critics oI platIormism to
explain what is wrong with the emergence oI anarchist
organizations that through their ideas and activities
might serve as a pole oI attraction Ior anarchists. Non-
platIormists have many questions to answer.
Why not draw anarchists together to actively hash out
2 Lillev & Shant:
gether rather than dissipating and diluting our eIIorts.
OI course it's always easier to avoid the collective
work, the lengthy debate and discussion, the develop-
ment and revision oI ideas through practice and Iinally
the legwork oI organizing that platIormists take on. It's
also easier to develop pure schemes in the comIort oI
one's apartment, rarely worrying oneselI whether or not
such beautiIul Iantasies "would inevitably disintegrate
on encountering reality." PlatIormists, on the other hand,
accept the shared responsibilities oI building anarchist
movements in connection with those who suIIer the as-
saults oI capitalism.
The anarchist organization is a place to come together
and reIlect on work being done. It oIIers the opportunity
to examine and reIine one's practices and explore altern-
atives and options given the resources and experiences
at hand.
It seems to us that the important thing about platIorm-
ism isn't Iound in the speciIics oI a 1926 document but
in the challenge that it puts beIore us to come together
openly and seriously to develop anarchist strategies and
practices in a way that is engaged in real class struggles
against actually existing bosses, landlords and bureau-
crats. PlatIormists have taken up the challenge oI mov-
ing anarchism Irom its current status as social con-
science or cultural critique. This is exhibited in the work
being done by platIormist groups in tenants' unions,
Platformism 7
the synthesist basis that platIormists have been and re-
main so critical oI. While we're not convinced that syn-
thesist approaches must Iail, in my experiences they do
exhibit a tendency to be the "mechanical assembly oI in-
dividuals" which the platIormists suggested. Such
groupings work reatively well as long as their level oI
activity doesn't rise above running a bookstore, inIoshop
or Iree school. UnIortunately, even in those cases dis-
astrous riIts emerge when meaningIul political questions
are broached. A consensus based on not wanting to oI-
Iend other members or declining controversial work be-
cause it threatens collective harmony are too oIten the
deIault positions oI synthesist type groups.
PlatIormists seek a substantial unity based on shared
action and reIlection. PlatIormism encourages a political
and theoretical honesty. One can take a stand without
having to compromise or soIt peddle one's positions in
order to keep the peace.
Discussion oI unity perhaps requires some clariIica-
tion. When platIormists talk oI theoretical or tactical
unity they are not saying that everyone has to read the
same things or agree on all points. Surely, however,
there has to be some agreement on basic ideas. And
these positions are only determined collectively, through
open debate and discussion rooted in actual experience.
Unity speaks to a Iocused sharing oI resources and ener-
gies that brings currently limited anarchist Iorces to-
6 Lillev & Shant:
common positions, strategies and tactics? Why not
preIer that active engagement to the comIort oI spinning
out personal utopias, criticizing Irom the sidelines or
conversely setting aside political diIIerences altogether?
What is there to oppose in eIIorts "to rally all the milit-
ants oI the organised anarchist movement?" Why op-
pose attempts to attract working class militants to an-
archism?
The goal oI developing anarchist perspectives within
unions and other working class organizations is one that
anarchists have neglected Ior Iar too long. And then
many anarchists have the nerve to complain about the
un-anarchistic character oI the working class.
That some non-platIormists have responded to plat-
Iormist organizing dogmatically and reactively, criticiz-
ing a document to dismiss a movement, reIering to
broad generalizations about "organization" rather than
speciIic organizational practices, suggests that some
habits are tough to shake. Still it's exactly the habits nur-
tured during times oI lethargy, insularity and marginal-
ity that must be shaken oII as people are beginning to
seek alternatives to capitalist social relations. Not only
thoughts oI Iuture societies but oI real strategies Ior
making it happen are needed.
To begin with, it seems obvious that the original Dielo
Trouda concern with overcoming "the miserable state in
which the anarchist movement vegetates" is one that
Platformism 3
must be shared by North American anarchists today,
despite the encouraging upswing in anarchist activity re-
cently (oI which platIormists have played a good part).
As anarchist movements grow the questions oI organ-
ization and the relations oI various anarchist activities to
each other and to broader strategies and tactics Ior so-
cial change will only become more signiIicant and
pressing. II anarchists are to seize the opportunities
presented by recent upsurges in anarchist activity and
build anarchism in movements that have resonance in
wider struggles, then we must Iace seriously the chal-
lenges oI organization, oI combining and coordinating
our eIIorts eIIectively. We will be aided in this by draw-
ing upon the lessons oI past experiences and avoiding,
as much as possible, past errors.
One oI the glaring errors has been to avoid questions
oI organization and unity, leaving us woeIully unpre-
pared when struggles erupt. When movements are in
low ebb and goals are less ambitious, such questions
may appear less immediate and the impetus to break out
oI the protective shell oI the subculture less pressing.
This has been the situation in North America until very
recently.
The changed circumstances in a time oI growth Ior
anarchism, and anti-capitalist activities more generally,
require new practices suited to the changed dynamics oI
struggle. As struggles expand and develop, the question
4 Lillev & Shant:
is not so much whether people will Iorm organizations
or not, but rather the types oI organizations that will
emerge. People trying to beat capitalism will certainly
try to join Iorces with others to share resources, coordin-
ate eIIorts and build strength. To stand on the sidelines
in such matters is to leave the terrain open to authoritari-
an and/or reIormist organizations to Iill the breach.
When one looks at the history oI anarchism, organiza-
tional perspectives and activities, Iar Irom being mar-
ginal elements, represent the core oI anarchist endeav-
our. Attempts to suggest that organizational approaches
represent some deviation Irom anarchism or the intru-
sion oI un-anarchist ideas into anarchism are a strange
attempt at historical revisionism. OI course, most an-
archists are involved in some type oI organization or an-
other, whether an inIoshop collective, publication team
or aIIinity group.
Much oI anarchist activity in North America, unIortu-
nately, still corresponds with the Dielo Trouda descrip-
tion Irom 1926: "local organizations advocating contra-
dictory theories and practices, having no perspectives
Ior the Iuture, nor oI a continuity in militant work, and
habitually disappearing, hardly leaving the slightest
trace behind them." Absence oI durable anarchist organ-
izations still contributes to a driIt into passivity, demor-
alization, disinterest or a retreat into subculturalism.
Many oI these short lived organizations are built on
Platformism 5