An Outline of “Modular Platformism”
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
This article will attempt to explain and define a system for organizing which has been in use by anarchists for a very long time, but which, until now, I have not seen concretely described and articulated precisely as I’ve seen it used.
Note: This section gives context to the origins of this system and why I came to write about it. If you would like to skip to the description of the system itself, skip to SECTION 2: THE SYSTEM OF MODULAR PLATFORMISM
Background
About 8 months ago before today, the COVID crisis was new and terribly alarming. As an anarchocommunist content creator and activist living in Vietnam — where the disease hit a couple of months earlier than in the USA and Europe — I came quickly to realize that we would need to be able to organize in a fast, flexible, and non-dogmatic way to be able to mount defense and action against the wave of genocidal neglect which was unfolding.
I turned to a concept which had been introduced to me by some comrades that I knew well — people who have been engaging in on-the-ground, street-level activity and organizing for many years, and who had much more experience with rapidly building programs and actions than I did.
These activists had a rough-and-dirty system for quickly putting together ad hoc (and sometimes more permanent) organizational structures to address issues in their communities and engage in mutual aid, direct action, and protests quickly and as efficiently as possible while avoiding infighting.
This system, they told me, was based loosely on the ideas of the Black Panthers, the Zapatistas, the Occupy Movement’s formula for Consensus Democracy, and lived experience in the activist community.
This system, from what I could tell, could not be found explicitly outlined in any book of theory. It was highly syncretic in nature and praxis-oriented. The goals of the system were simple:
- Avoid leftist infighting as much as possible.
- Maintain consensus and harmony in the group as much as possible.
- Focus on action as much as possible.
This was intended to be a lean, ruthlessly efficient system of organizing that allowed comrades with a common goal to engage in tactical unity for specific aims. It was not meant for building “generalist” organizations of anarchists with broad ambitions of global change. It was to be used to build organizations that focused on one specific aspect of revolution, perhaps even one specific action in and of itself.
My comrades referred to this system as “platformism,” and it seemed like precisely what might be useful for the praxis that would be needed in the face of a ferociously rapid, world-changing event like a pandemic. Grand strategy for overthrowing the state and capitalism would not, and should not be the focus in the face of such an emergency. Rather, it seemed to me, we would need the precise and specific focus my comrades had been finding in their street-level activism.
I chose to create a video on my YouTube channel to introduce these ideas as quickly as possible, and I must admit it was thrown together quickly and roughly. Within this roughness was a lack of research into theory. I had discovered that Ukrainian anarchist Nestor Makhno was heavily associated with the idea of “platformism” and so I threw his name into the video, briefly mentioning him and implying that he had formed the core ideas which lead to the conception of “platformism” which I was presenting in my video.
What’s in a Name?
Immediately after publishing the video, I received several comments and correspondence indicating that what I was describing was not the platformism of Nestor Makhno.
Here is one of the more cogent comments I received, shortly after the video was published:
“Platformism is the opposite of this. The core of platformism is specificity and unity (or even uniformity) of revolutionary anarcho-communists who agree on the their ultimate goal and on the strategy how to get there. The point of the people around the Platform was to unite only ancoms who want a makhnovist-like revolution, and to exclude anyone who disagrees with that — of course all non-anarchists, but also all anarchists who have different views on goals or strategy, like ancols, mutualists, syndicalists, “propaganda of the deed” individualists, etc. They consciously juxtaposed platformism to typical anarchist, revolutionary, worker, and social organizations which were pluralist in their character, ie which would admit people who disagree on end-goals and/or on strategy but are willing to join together on the basis of some shared general views or practical (shorter-term) goals. What is talked about here in the video is having single-issue or several-issue orgs and movements which can gather people who disagree about wider issues (both end-goals and the path towards those end-goals) and unite them in working on practical issues, like antifa for example, or food not bombs, or e.g. in my city theres a great org which is dedicated to doing direct action against evictions, stuff like that. This is great praxis, and platformists — like all other anarchists — can and do accept and practice that, but that’s not platformism, it’s actually the opposite of platformism.”
I readily admitted then, as I do now, that the way I was using the word “platformism” was a break with this older and much more established use of the word “platformism.” I must also admit now that, when I made my video, I did not know what I did not know. I was doing my best to present ideas which I thought were important, and using the terminology which was presented to me. These were not my ideas, and I am not the one who decided to refer to these ideas as “platformism,” and I took it on good faith — without much book research — that this was an appropriate term.
I can understand why using this term in the way I did might have annoyed or confused some people, and I do believe in at least striving for coherence with the language we use, and so I recognize the points that have been made against me calling the system I have described as “platformism.”
I intended to do a followup video clarifying and explaining the distinction between Makhno’s “platformism” and the “platformism” I presented in my video, but simply never got around to it. I still might make that video one day, but in the meantime I am writing this article with three goals in mind:
- To explain the origins of what I have up until now called “platformism,” how I came upon these ideas — which are not my own — and why I decided to present them to the world how and when I did.
- To make it clear that I understand, now, what I did not when I made the video — that Makhno’s conception of platformism is quite different, indeed, in many ways, the inverse, of what I have presented.
- To distinguish what I have up until now been calling “platformism” from the more traditional and established concept of “platformism” clearly, now that I know better, and to briefly outline the principles, (rough) theory, and applications of the system which I have (up until now) been calling “platformism.”
“Modular Platformism” as a Name (at least for now)
To begin with, I think we must select a distinct name for this system to distinguish it from the traditional, Makhnoist conception of “platformism.” I for one am not too heavily caught up in naming, and I think the simplest thing is to adjectivize the system which I am presenting to make it clearly distinct from the established “platformism.”
I have come up with the term “modular platformism” because I think it best describes the benefits and the distinguishing features of the system. If another and more suitable name for this system can be determined, all the better, so for now let’s consider this the “working title” and move on.
NOTE: It has been suggested that the name be shortened to simply “modularism.” This is something I, myself, am open to. I am also hesitant to “decide” the name of this system unilaterally. If you have thoughts on this name or any other alternative suggestions please let me know. The idea of the platform is central to this concept but it doesn’t necessarily have to be part of the name of the system if that might be leading to any sort of confusion.
SECTION 2: THE SYSTEM OF MODULAR PLATFORMISM
Theoretical Principles
Modular Platformism is rooted in the following foundational theoretical principles:
Free Association: The most crucial underpinning of Modular Platformism, Free Association recognizes that all individuals are free to associate and disassociate from one another, and from any organization, at will. Revolutionaries must be free to choose what work we do, with whom we do the work, and how the work gets done. At any point and for any reason, any individual or group of individuals should be free to break association from a group all together, or to form a new group.
Tactical Unity: As distinguished from “Leftist Unity,” which seeks to unite all leftists in solidarity regardless of tendency, Tactical Unity is a more limited form of unity: striving to achieve unity of purpose and action on a tactical level where common goals are held.
Consensus Democracy: Consensus Democracy is the form of self-government and a core organizational principle of Modular Platformism. The group must be lead democratically, but not by simple majority. Each member of the group must have an equal voice in the operation of the organization. There should be no distinct and established “leadership” structure and any coordination positions or other offices must be consented to by the entire group. If any individual finds that they have differences or grievances with the group, they must be heard. If those differences or grievances become irreconcilable, they should be free to leave the group in accordance with the principle of Free Association.
Decentralization: Modular Platformism is designed to work within a wider “political ecosystem” of decentralized action and organization. No single Modular Platformist organization should be expected to carry out all of the work of the revolution. Likewise, no “institution” conceived within the framework of Modular Platformism should ever be seen as “central” to the movement, as a “vanguard,” or as a “guiding force” for global revolution. Members should be free to join as many or as few organizations as they see fit. Modular Platformist organizations should be seen as inherently commutable, morphable, and ultimately temporary, in nature, all at the discretion of the membership. Modular Platformism rejects centralization of power and is seen as an alternative to trying to build a single, unified, monolothic, centralized mass organization.
Tyranny of Structurelessness: Modular Platformism seeks to eliminate, or at least abate, the potential for “tyranny of structurelessness” first defined by feminist writer Jo Freeman. In short, if an organization has no organizational structure whatsoever it is prone to developing ad hoc, informal hierarchies in which some members dominate the group through force of will and personality.
Unity in Organizing Principles: This is a specified form of Tactical Unity, in which all members agree to adhere to Organizing Principles which define the ways in which members will behave and conduct themselves in carrying out the business of the organization.
Rejection: The principle of Rejection is rooted in the principle of Free Association. Just as any individual member should be free to disassociate from the group at any time, the group should also be free to reject or disassociate individuals from the group if they refuse to adhere to, conform to, or otherwise agree to the platform positions of the organization.
Specificity in Scope and Goals: The goals of a Modular Platformist organization must be clearly stated, as well as the acceptable tactics and strategies that will be used to achieve those goals, and any philosophical underpinnings which are seen as foundational and “non-negotiable” in carrying out the activity of the organization. Once the stated goals or objectives of a Modular Platformist organization have been achieved, the organization should be terminated, though the members of the organization would then of course be free to re-associate and form a new Platformist Organization with a new mission.
The Right to Split: An important principle of Modular Platformism is “the right to split.” At any time, if a member or group of members becomes dissatisfied with the direction of the group, has an ideological or tactical shift, or otherwise wishes to do so, they may split off to form a new group. They will also be entitled to use the organization’s Platform as a template or basis for the newly formed organization, with any changes or adjustments desired by the splitting member(s).
What Modular Platformism IS NOT
Modular Platformism should not be confused with the following forms:
Synthesism: Synthesist Anarchism is a framework which attempts to unite various leftist/anarchist tendencies such as individualist anarchism, anarchocommunism, mutualism, etc., into one unified Federation. Modular Platformism is not inherently “synthesist” in nature. Although a Modular Platform could be developed with synthesist principles, this is not strictly necessary, and it is entirely possible to have Modular Platformist organizations that are specifically aligned with only one specific tendency. For example, it is entirely possible to design a Modular Platform that is wholly Anarchocommunist, to the exclusion of all other anarchic tendencies. Finally, the Modular Platform structure is wholly different from the Federation Structure, though it could be possible for a Modular Platformist organization to form a Federal structure or other such alliances with other Modular Platformist and non-Modular Platformist organizations.
Platformist: As discussed in the first section of this document, Modular Platformism is distinct from what is traditionally called Platformism. Platformism is a concept of broad institutional uniformity of anarchists who agree on the their ultimate goal and on the strategy how to get there. What distinguishes Platformism from Modular Platformism is primarily a matter of scope and institutional permanence. Platformism is primarily used as an organizational mode for protracted, long-term, broad, and far-reaching revolutionary strategies whereas Modular Platformism is intended to be more tactical, focused, flexible, and temporary in nature.
A Note on Sectarianism
Nothing about Modular Platformism is inherently sectarian, nor does Modular Platformism preclude sectarianism. Although Modular Platformism it is rooted and conceived in anarchist principles and theory, t is entirely possible to have a highly focused Modular Platform that only allows for one very specific range of philosophical and ideological positions. It is also entirely possible for a Modular Platform to be broadly inclusive, up to and including members who are of completely different ideologies (i.e., Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Social Democrats, etc.).
As will be discussed below, the key criteria to joining a Modular Platformist organization is agreeing to the Platform, and the Platform will indicate which, if any, philosophical positions must be agreed to before joining.
The Platform
Modular Platformism is foundationally rooted in a document called a “platform.” A platform will typically consist of four parts:
- A Statement of Purpose:
The Statement of Purpose outlines the reason the organization has been formed, the situation which caused the organization to be founded, and any other background elements that lead to the formation of the organization. - Objectives and/or Demands:
This is a list of specific goals which the organization seeks to achieve. These objectives and demands should be as concrete and specific and quantifiable as possible, so that all members will know when the goals are achieved and the organization has run its course. The organization may have one single goal or objective, or it may have dozens, but these Objectives and Demands will define the specific ends which the group hopes to achieve and the conditions under which the organization will have run its course and be terminated. - Strategic and/or Ideological Principles:
This section will define what strategies, tactics, and actions will be used to bring about the Objectives and Demands of the organization, as well as any strategies, tactics, or actions which will be prohibited. In addition, Ideological or Philosophical Principles may be defined here which all individuals must strictly agree to before joining. - A Pledge of Unity and Principles:
This pledge will be taken by all members: an agreement to adhere and conform to the principles of Tactical Unity and Unity in Organizational Principles for the duration of membership, as well as agreeing to all other terms and conditions laid out by the platform. Any individual who is not willing to agree to conform to the Platform will be rejected from receiving membership without malice.
Advantages of Modular Platformism
The key advantages of Modular Platformism are its flexibility and its emphasis on unified ACTION. I and others have used Modular Platformism to form and develop organizations for brief and longer-lasting organizations and have found several benefits of this form:
Decreased Infighting: When a Platform is designed well, it greatly decreases the amount of infighting that can occur, since all existing members already agree to what might otherwise become points of contention.
Focus on Action: Modular Platformism is especially useful for organizations that want to focus on ACTION. Tactical and strategic principles can be laid out and then simply followed by members.
Clarity of Shared Vision: If tactics and strategies need to be adjusted, the Platform provides a convenient vehicle for rapidly working out such changes through consensus democracy. If the majority of the membership decide to change the Platform, any minority who stand in disagreement to these changes can make the decision whether to agree to the changes, or to leave the group, or to separate and form a new group of their own.
Rapid Structure Prototyping: The Modular Platformist system allows for rapid development of organizational structures. If elements of these structures are found to be problematic or lacking, the Platform can quickly and easily be modified with the consensus of all members. In this way, an organization can quickly be streamlined, developed, and modified to adjust with the times, and any individual members who strongly disagree with any changes are free to launch their own experimental forks or branches. Ideally, these “splintered” groups will maintain productive relations and communication with each other so that they can compare notes on what works and what doesn’t work, allowing for rapid development of organizational principles.
A Testimonial
One activist, Nora, has been using Modular Platformism extensively for on-the-ground activism and organization throughout the pandemic and the BLM protests.
Here are Nora’s comments on the system of Modular Platformism:
“Modular Platformism to me is not about any theory but a wide range of theories that work in different situations. Many people that I’ve met have had many ideas and conceptions on building a platform and Modular Platformism has been an action-oriented method to explore different structures and relations within a group of members. I specifically remember during my time in one organization, many people posting research on hierarchy and consensus building which included things like different types of theoretical structures of flat hierarchy. For us platformism was our own definition of what worked and the motions of real democracy that anarchists strive for. We discussed ideas, not individuals — ideas that related to our goal and how we wanted to achieve it. It wasn’t about blindly applying a specific process or formula, but realizing what our goal was and working backwards to get our solution.
“Platformism is the what we used to find these solutions: rather than having policies and rules and permanent bureaucracy, we had these modular platforms, and people could come up and take bits of pieces of a platform and then make it their own. And Modular Platformism respects, by default, the input and ideas of every individual member of the group. Any member can freely associate or disassociate in a way that is unique, transparent, democratic, and based in consensus.”
Limitations of Modular Platformism
Modular Platformism is not a “one-size-fits all” solution, and is not appropriate for many organizational use cases.
Very Small, Closely Knit Groups: Modular Platformism is perhaps overkill for very small groups of close comrades dedicated to revolution, for whom a cell or “action team” structure may be more beneficial. However, even very small groups may wish to develop a minimalist platform or set of principles to which all members agree.
Large Scope Organizations: Any group with general ambitions towards organized revolution activity which is wide in scope and intended to be more or less permanently established should probably select other organizational structures which will allow for more stability and permanence in structure.
Potential for Modular Platformist Federations
There is potential for (and precedence for) multiple organizations coming together according to Modular Platformist principles in a federal form, in which multiple organizations come together in accordance with a shared Platform. However, such organization goes beyond the scope of this document.
Acknowledgements and Conclusion
Practically none of these ideas are my own, and the activists I’ve worked with (who at this time wish to remain anonymous) deserve every credit for developing these ideas through their own praxis and experience going all the way back to the Occupy Movement, well over a decade ago. If there is anything in the way of error or a lack of clarity, I take full responsibility.
I believe there is much more work to be done in terms of developing and advancing the framework of Modular Platformism. This entire document is fully in the public domain and I welcome anyone to build upon, modify, rip apart, or re-envision any of the ideas presented here (with or without crediting me) in the interest of advancing our movement against oppression, tyranny, and capitalism.
