Council communism vs. syndicalism/anarchist-syndicalism.

[Little-Lenin]

:)Hello comrades!

Here is a question again for you:

What is the difference between the workers way of organize themselves and society according to:
1) Council communism (left-wing communism?)?, and:
2) Syndicalism/anarchist-syndicalism.

In solidarity,

Little-Lenin

[Die Neue Zeit]

They're essentially the same. The burden of organizing the class (hence the need for a bureaucracy) is left by both to the indefinite future known as the "revolutionary period." The only difference is the organizational form of how to con the masses into taking power "non-bureaucratically": councils/soviets vs. "one big union."

[Lamanov]

Oh boy, here we go again.

Anarcho-syndicalism calls for actual everyday struggle not only for revolutionary, but also for immediate goals. And this call is made reality, which basically overturns Jacob's assertions.

The difference between the two is mostly in the form and purpose of revolutionary organization. Council communists organize into "ideological" groups which, in the words of Pannekoek, do the "secondary work left for political parties", namely, agitation, education, discussion and propaganda, and in time of "revolutionary period" are supposed to work for creation of workers' councils and development of their revolutionary, communist nature.

Anarcho-syndicalists organize into "class-struggle" groups which practice federalism and are based on workplaces and/or locations. These organizations are indeed political since they are based on a certain revolutionary platform, like the "Principles of revolutionary unionism."

The cross-point between council communism and revolutionary syndicalism was in Germany in 1920's when German council communists created AAUD (http://kurasje.org/arkiv/16000f.htm) and AAUD-E.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Define "political."

Why don't I see anarcho-syndicalist strikes aimed at, for example, having all politicians getting only the salary of an average skilled worker? Why don't I see anarcho-syndicalist strikes aimed at forcing politicians to universalize non-deflationary cost of living adjustments and living wages? Why don't I see anarcho-syndicalist strikes aimed at securing for workers the right to bear arms and to form people's militias? Why don't I see anarcho-syndicalist strikes aimed at forcing a pre-cooperative worker buyout policy ("cooperatives with state aid" a la Lassalle) for all workplaces under threat of mass layoffs?

[Lamanov]

See Methods of Anarchosyndicalism (http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/rocker/sp001495/rocker_as5.html) (Chapter 5. from Anarchosyndicalism) by Rudolf Rocker.

[Die Neue Zeit]

All I've read there is binary and economistic thinking on the part of Rocker. Without political parties at the helm, any union, no matter how "class-strugglist" it may be, is doomed to conducting general strikes starting with economic aims (never starting with political aims like those I've mentioned above, not to mention the absence of mass civil disobedience). This was the very fate of the relationship between the German unions and the SPD.

Therefore, this leaves the syndicalist little choice but to proclaim himself to be for a "general strike for the socialist revolution." Lenin called this a "curvet to the left" in regards to its economistic nature ("curvets to the right" being ordinary tred-iunionizm, modern "social democracy," etc.).

[Lamanov]

Militants obviously need to understand that "proletariat constituting itself into a political party" (Marx) can't be made on Leninist lines and that it is precisely this moment of struggle that has to come "from the workers themselves" in the form of workers' councils and nothing else but them.

You're wrong when you call Rocker's views on political struggle "economism." And you're completely wrong when you say that syndicalist call for "General strike" is purely "economic", since it is a political act in its entirety (I've explained elsewhere (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1478068&postcount=20) what "General strike" actually means).

[BabylonHoruv]

Define "political."

Why don't I see anarcho-syndicalist strikes aimed at, for example, having all politicians getting only the salary of an average skilled worker? Why don't I see anarcho-syndicalist strikes aimed at forcing politicians to universalize non-deflationary cost of living adjustments and living wages? Why don't I see anarcho-syndicalist strikes aimed at securing for workers the right to bear arms and to form people's militias? Why don't I see anarcho-syndicalist strikes aimed at forcing a pre-cooperative worker buyout policy ("cooperatives with state aid" a la Lassalle) for all workplaces under threat of mass layoffs?


They did strike for these sorts of things in Spain, when they had the power to do so. In the US, at the current time, not enough of the unions are anarchist for this to have any effect.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Militants obviously need to understand that "proletariat constituting itself into a political party" (Marx) can't be made on Leninist lines and that it is precisely this moment of struggle that has to come "from the workers themselves" in the form of workers' councils and nothing else but them.

Ever heard of the post-Maoist Progressive Labor Party? Their organizational line of thinking is actually the same as mine on one crucial point (CSR, Chapter 6 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power-and-t83963/index.html)): as much of the workers as a whole becoming members of their own political party before any revolutionary outbreak.

That means, however, that forming autonomous workers' councils would be little more than superfluous, since the organs for workers' power will have been built by and within the transnational SPD (Social Proletocracy) itself.

Which brings me to one important point: "autonomous" workers' councils are nothing more than very useful front organs for political parties and coalitions among such.


And you're completely wrong when you say that syndicalist call for "General strike" is purely "economic", since it is a political act in its entirety (I've explained elsewhere (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1478068&postcount=20) what "General strike" actually means).

If so, then at least consider using a more accurate, profoundly true, and important term suggested by Kautsky in The Social Revolution: political strike.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt1-3.htm#s7


Naturally, I am not using the idea of a general strike in the sense that the anarchists and the French trade unionists use the word. To these latter the political and especially the Parliamentary activity of the proletariat is to be Supplemented by the strike and it is to become a means to throw the social order overboard.

That is foolish. A general strike in the sense that all the laborers of the country at a given sign shall lay down their labor presupposes a unanimity and an organization of the laborers which is scarcely possible in present society, and which if it were once attained would be so irresistible that no general strike would be necessary. Such a strike mould, however, at one stroke render impossible the existence not simply of existing society but all existence, and that of the proletarians long before that of the capitalist, and must consequently collapse uselessly at just the moment when its revolutionary virtue began to develop.

The strike as a political weapon will scarcely ever, certainly not in any time now visible, take on the form of a strike of all the laborers of a country. It can also not have the purpose of displacing the other means of political struggle but only of supplementing and strengthening them. We are now entering upon a time where opposed to the overwhelming power of organized capital an isolated non-political strike will be just as hopeless as is the isolated parliamentary action of the labor parties opposed to the pressure of the capitalistically dominated governmental powers. It will be ever more necessary that both should grow and draw new strength from co-operation.

As is the case with all new weapons the best manner to use a political strike must first be learned. It is not a cure-all as the anarchists announce it, and it is not an infallible means, under all conditions, as they consider it. It would exceed my purposes to investigate here the conditions under which it is applicable.

[Agrippa]

The primary difference between the "anarcho"-syndicalists and left-communists was that the former essentially suported the Bolshevik development of bureaucratized "workers' councils" to mediate between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, (and ultimately usurp the bourgeoisie) whereas the former recognized that "the competition between social democratic and bolshevik trade union work was a competition in corruption." :cool:

Also, the "anarcho"-syndicalists, like the Bolsheviks, believed, unlike the anarcho-communists, that the workers' couldn't just be allowed or given the freedom to directly expropriate and manage the resources of the bourgeoisie - but needed to be gradually "educated" in regards to "management" by the professional revolutionaries through a "transition" that involved reformist labor struggles.

[Lamanov]

Agrippa, in your first sentence you wrote "former" twice. Who thought what?

The second sentence is just untrue and senseless (as far as anarcho-syndicalists go).

I'll get back to Jacob later.

[Revy]

They are similar tendencies, in that they both place an emphasis on workers' councils as the main method of organization against capitalism.

[Agrippa]

Agrippa, in your first sentence you wrote "former" twice. Who thought what?

The "anarcho-sydnicalists" did little to resist, and in fact, implicitly supported, the development of bureaucratic, Communist Party-controlled soviets, because they (perhaps correctly) viewed it as an advancement of their (reformist) workers' self-management goals.

Whereas the communists, be they "anarcho-" or "left-" saw through Lenin and his allies pretty easily. For the same reason, they weren't on very good terms with the anarcho-syndicalists (and other pro-state "anarchists" such as Kropotkin) for most of the Russian revolution


The second sentence is just untrue and senseless (as far as anarcho-syndicalists go).

Unfortunately, both sentences are true, as even a cursory read of the anarchist literature will determine. For example, Paul Avrich speaks power to truth in The Russian Anarchists despite his clear syndicalist and Kropotkinist sympathies.

[Old Man Diogenes]

I see very little difference between the two ideologies both seem to oppose "revolutionary parties" as they believe they lead to single-party dictatorships. Council communists (so Wikipedia says) regard worker's council and municipalities as the natural form of working-class organisation and governmental power, the only miniscule difference I see here is that in anarcho-syndicalism there is no governmental power, only a new society which is democractically self-managed by the workers themselves.

[9]

The primary difference between the "anarcho"-syndicalists and left-communists was that the former essentially suported the Bolshevik development of bureaucratized "workers' councils" to mediate between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, (and ultimately usurp the bourgeoisie) whereas the former recognized that "the competition between social democratic and bolshevik trade union work was a competition in corruption." :cool:

Also, the "anarcho"-syndicalists, like the Bolsheviks, believed, unlike the anarcho-communists, that the workers' couldn't just be allowed or given the freedom to directly expropriate and manage the resources of the bourgeoisie - but needed to be gradually "educated" in regards to "management" by the professional revolutionaries through a "transition" that involved reformist labor struggles.

I think the question was about the differences in theory/ideology between the two tendencies, not about what two groups claiming these tendencies did in the Soviet Union. Your "definition" of anarcho-syndicalism has no correspondence to the modern meaning of the word, nor do present-day anarcho-syndicalists advocate or support organization of labor, etc. in any form which is reflective of your description or supportive of Soviet-style economics.
So frankly, I'm a bit confused as to why you define anarcho-syndicalism with such selective, obsolete anecdotes when they are of no relevance to the modern international tendency.

[Lamanov]

The "anarcho-sydnicalists" did little to resist, and in fact, implicitly supported, the development of bureaucratic, Communist Party-controlled soviets, because they (perhaps correctly) viewed it as an advancement of their (reformist) workers' self-management goals.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Syndicalists in 1917 Russia had 6 men; they based their propaganda on factory committees and against Bolshevik controlled institutions. When their Golos Truda turned into a daily magazine "Bolshevik Soviets" were already a done deal and any contest through them would be senseless.

On the other hand, there was no "Left" outside the Bolshevik party (not to mention 'council communists'), and everything they tried to achieve was supposed to count on party institutions as well.

And why the hell are we even discussing Russia?


I see very little difference between the two ideologies both seem to oppose "revolutionary parties" as they believe they lead to single-party dictatorships. Council communists (so Wikipedia says) regard worker's council and municipalities as the natural form of working-class organisation and governmental power, the only miniscule difference I see here is that in anarcho-syndicalism there is no governmental power, only a new society which is democractically self-managed by the workers themselves.

With power of workers' councils this is purely a semantic difference. I never heard any council communists call for a "government" of the councils, because in theory there should be no separation of "executive" and "legislative" or any other de facto workers' power.


I think the question was about the differences in theory/ideology between the two tendencies, not about what two groups claiming these tendencies did in the Soviet Union.

Yeah, the guy is basing his argumentation in a time and place where there was no effective anarcho-syndicalism and no effective council-communist tendency or organization.

There's no mention of Spain/Argentina or Germany, where they count the most.

I'm guessing he's a Platformist or a Bordigist looking for some kind of a post-confirmation of his ideology.

[Agrippa]

So frankly, I'm a bit confused as to why you define anarcho-syndicalism with such selective, obsolete anecdotes when they are of no relevance to the modern international tendency.

The modern international anarcho-syndicalist tendency is even worse off now than it was in Russia, though


You have no idea what you're talking about.

It's always a possibility I'm willing to consider.


Syndicalists in 1917 Russia had 6 men;

The whole movement? I doubt that. From what I understand it was one of the more popular anarchist sects at the time.


they based their propaganda on factory committees and against Bolshevik controlled institutions.

But at what point? The Bolshevik rise to power didn't begin in 1917. The anarcho-syndicalists were the last to take their eyes out from under the wool....


When their Golos Truda turned into a daily magazine "Bolshevik Soviets" were already a done deal and any contest through them would be senseless.

I'm not saying they should have contested the Bolsheviks from inside the Russian Communist Party. But it's pretty much established that anarcho-sydnicalists such as Golos Truda identified more with the Bolsheviks than with anarcho-communists they percieved as "bandits".


On the other hand, there was no "Left" outside the Bolshevik party

Again, doubtful. SRs?


(not to mention 'council communists')

Do you have proof for these claims?


and everything they tried to achieve was supposed to count on party institutions as well.

Sort of, but they were less in love with delusions of workers' self-management within the confines of an industrial capitalist economy, workers' organizations are the primary organization of class war, unrealistic demands that would only aleviate rather than abolish capitalism, etc.


And why the hell are we even discussing Russia?

So when discussing a political faction, we're not even allowed to analyze how members of that faction behaved during relevant historical contexts?


Yeah, the guy is basing his argumentation in a time and place where there was no effective anarcho-syndicalism and no effective council-communist tendency or organization.

As opposed to 21st century white America, or whatever time and place you're writing from?


There's no mention of Spain/Argentina or Germany, where they count the most.

The syndicalists and other bureaucratic anarchists fucked up pretty badly in those places too. CNT-FAI, anyone?


I'm guessing he's a Platformist or a Bordigist

Wrong. But nice guess.

[Lamanov]

The whole movement? I doubt that. From what I understand it was one of the more popular anarchist sects at the time.

Nope. 6 men, including Maximoff and Volin. They started publishing Голос Труда in August as a weekly until they went daily in the fall. Their influence exceeded their numbers (as committees threatened to "go syndicalist"), but they were no match for the Bolshevik machinery.

Only later, through 1918 and 1919, would they make more members when they organize Bakers' Union in Moscow and other food industry workers.


But at what point? The Bolshevik rise to power didn't begin in 1917. The anarcho-syndicalists were the last to take their eyes out from under the wool....

Starting at that time, in August, as a bulletin and a propaganda group.


I'm not saying they should have contested the Bolsheviks from inside the Russian Communist Party. But it's pretty much established that anarcho-sydnicalists such as Golos Truda identified more with the Bolsheviks than with anarcho-communists they percieved as "bandits".

I didn't say "from the inside of the party", I said within the Soviets.

On the other hand, it is actually true that anarcho-communist organizations in Russia (and their membership was probably in hundreds) did include some "bandits", and that fact served as a pretext for storming of anarchist clubs in Moscow on April 12th 1918.

Anarcho-syndicalists condemned that act, but still, they did have prior ideological disagreements with anarcho-communist groups.

Most serious anarchist organization in Russia, which included all kinds of anarchists, was NABAT, established during Makhno's campaign.


Again, doubtful. SRs?

When I said "Left" I meant like "council communists" or Bolshevik "Left Communists" around Коммунист.

Left SRs were similar to the Bolsheviks in many things, mostly in their statism: they shared Dzerzhinsky's Вечека project from the beginning as partners. The only positive current from the SRs, in my opinion, were "Maximallists", with their "ultra-left" parole of "All power to the Soviets, none to the Parties" which came out again in Kronstadt in 1921. Their members Anatoly Lamanov (oh, look at that) ;) was the leading propagandist of Kronstadt Rebellion.


Do you have proof for these claims?

Well, council communists didn't exist until 1919 in Germany. That's kind of "known fact".


Sort of, but they were less in love with delusions of workers' self-management within the confines of an industrial capitalist economy, workers' organizations are the primary organization of class war, unrealistic demands that would only aleviate rather than abolish capitalism, etc.

Anarcho-syndicalists in Russia (and nowhere) never had these propositions about "self-management" of that sort. I don't get the rest.


The syndicalists and other bureaucratic anarchists fucked up pretty badly in those places too. CNT-FAI, anyone?

They did (in Spain, not Argentina). But actual reasons were not stated above.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'll get back to Jacob later.

And I'll be there. ;)

[Lamanov]

And I'll be there. ;)

Yeah, I just saw, there's nothing to respond to. I mean ...


If so, then at least consider using a more accurate, profoundly true, and important term suggested by Kautsky in The Social Revolution: political strike.

... just because Kautsky wrote something ... wait. Is there a need finish this sentence? I don't think so.


Which brings me to one important point: "autonomous" workers' councils are nothing more than very useful front organs for political parties and coalitions among such.

Yeah, yeah, whatever. Step off the soap box, will you. :thumbdown: We'd like to retain our power within our own ''organs''.

[ComradeOm]

Tell me Lamanov, can you recommend any good books on anarchist/anarchism in the Russian Revolution? Preferably not written by anarchists but I'll take what I can get

[Lamanov]

Holy crap! :p

I wanted to Google out Russian Anarchists by Paul Avrich for you (I never read that one, but I hear it's very good) and it turns out there's a torrent (http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4386101/The_Russian_Anarchists_-_Paul_Avrich).

So I guess I'll be reading it soon. :thumbup1:

Avrich was a history professor at Princeton.

[Invariance]

I uploaded that for someone before. Here (http://g.imagehost.org/download/0230/Avrich_The_Russian_Anarchists), the link might still work.

[Pogue]

Tell me Lamanov, can you recommend any good books on anarchist/anarchism in the Russian Revolution? Preferably not written by anarchists but I'll take what I can get

http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group

You may find this interesting.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah, yeah, whatever. Step off the soap box, will you. :thumbdown: We'd like to retain our power within our own ''organs''.

Give me an example of a network of workers' councils that was not filled in any way, shape or form by political organizations ("parties") of the working class.

[Pogue]

Give me an example of a network of workers' councils that was not filled in any way, shape or form by political organizations ("parties") of the working class.

Turin.

http://libcom.org/history/italian-factory-occupations-biennio-rosso

They happened despite the parties of the 'left'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Those were factory committees limited to the employed, not workers' councils enfranchising the unemployed, the retired and disabled, the homemakers, etc.

[Pogue]

Those were factory committees limited to the employed, not workers' councils enfranchising the unemployed, the homemakers, etc.

They were worker's councils by anyones definition. I just proved you wrong, stop trying to dodge it now.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Since when were factory committees soviets?

[Lamanov]

Give me an example of a network of workers' councils that was not filled in any way, shape or form by political organizations ("parties") of the working class.

That's not the point. No one is claiming that there should be no place for political parties, fractions and tendencies both within the councils and on the 'outside'. There would always be a certain 'program' or 'points' which would take majority delegate vote, but no power should ever lay beside the councils.

There we reach a point of great similarity for anarcho-syndicalism and council communism, on political activity parallel to the councils:

»If organizations expressing the survival of different interests and ideologies persist, a libertarian socialist organization, voicing its own particular outlook, will also have to exist. It will be open to all who favor the total power of the Councils, and will differ from all others, both in its programme and in its practice, precisely on this point: its fundamental activity will be directed towards the concentration of power in the Councils and to their becoming the only centers of political life. This implies that the libertarian organization would have to struggle against power being held by any particular party, whatever it may be.« (Pierre Chaulieu, Socialisme ou Barbarie, no. 22, 1957.)


Since when were factory committees soviets?

Factory committees are naturally the basis of "Soviets" (territorial Councils); first (1905.) Soviet delegates were elected in the factories, in workers' assemblies. The composition of 1917. (City) Soviets is actually a historical exception which should not be followed as an example.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I must say that I actually enjoy this forthright revival of the classical debate that took place in the Second International, one between the "Hegelian Marxist Left" and the "Left Syndicalists" on the one hand and the "Kautskyan Marxist Center" on the other (http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-communism-and-t94758/index.html?p=1304513). :D

[The link to Weekly Worker #495 isn't working at the moment, so I provided another link.]


Factory committees are naturally the basis of "Soviets" (territorial Councils); first (1905.) Soviet delegates were elected in the factories, in workers' assemblies. The composition of 1917. (City) Soviets is actually a historical exception which should not be followed as an example.

All the former does is disenfranchise the unemployed, the retired and disabled, and the homemakers.

[ComradeOm]

Cheers Lamanov and Vinnie. I'll probably skim through the downloaded version and then order it online if I like. For some reason I can never get the hang of e-books


http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group

You may find this interesting.I've seen this polemic before and I have a number of problems with it, not least of which includes factual inaccuracy. It is not a serious work of history and should not be treated as such by anyone

[Agrippa]

Nope. 6 men, including Maximoff and Volin. They started publishing Голос Труда in August as a weekly until they went daily in the fall.

I don't think establishing that there were six men involved in publishing Голос Труда proves that the anarcho-syndicalist movement comprised of six men. As you yourself stated, "their influence exceeded their numbers".


On the other hand, it is actually true that anarcho-communist organizations in Russia (and their membership was probably in hundreds) did include some "bandits"

But to me this is a primary ideological difference between anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, proponents of the latter always reduce the direct expropriation of capitalist resources to "banditry" without explaining why such "banditry" must be condemned.


and that fact served as a pretext for storming of anarchist clubs in Moscow on April 12th 1918.

So? Just because something is a pretext for state repression doesn't mean that it is wrong, morally or tactically. The state will repress us without pretext, if need be. If we limit our behaviors to those we (falsely) believe won't provoke repression, we are essentially agreeing to be a doormat for the forces of capitalism.


Most serious anarchist organization in Russia, which included all kinds of anarchists, was NABAT, established during Makhno's campaign.

Which didn't exactly organize around the anarcho-syndicalist line, even if it included anarcho-syndicalists.


When I said "Left" I meant like "council communists" or Bolshevik "Left Communists" around Коммунист.

Still, I think it's an exaggeration to say there weren't any.


Left SRs were similar to the Bolsheviks in many things, mostly in their statism: they shared Dzerzhinsky's Вечека project from the beginning as partners. The only positive current from the SRs, in my opinion, were "Maximallists", with their "ultra-left" parole of "All power to the Soviets, none to the Parties" which came out again in Kronstadt in 1921. Their members Anatoly Lamanov (oh, look at that) ;) was the leading propagandist of Kronstadt Rebellion.

Well, yeah, I was referring mostly to the maximalists in my original comment.

[Little-Lenin]

:)Hi everybody who read this. I have the impression from stuff I have read that neither the IBRP nor the ICC wants to be called Bordigists. Is this impression correct, and if it is correct, I wonder why. It would be great to get an answer/many answers to this question. Was not Bordiga an internationalist and left communist?

In solidarity,

Little-Lenin

[Niccolò Rossi]

:)Hi everybody who read this. I have the impression from stuff I have read that neither the IBRP nor the ICC wants to be called Bordigists. Is this impression correct, and if it is correct, I wonder why. It would be great to get an answer/many answers to this question. Was not Bordiga an internationalist and left communist?

In solidarity,

Little-Lenin

Hi Little-Lenin,

Whilst we can certainly agree Bordiga was an internationalist and an authoritative figure on the communist left, the term 'Bordigist' has certain connotations and a certain meaning other than 'internationalist' and 'left communist'. The term 'Bordigist' is used to refer to the Partito Comunista Internazionale (International Communist Party) and its descendants (today this includes Il Programma Comunista, Il Partito Comunista, Il Comunista and Bolletino)* who adopt a certain set of positions pivotally on the question of the 'invariance' of the communist programme, the nature class consciousness and the role of the party.

If you want to know more about the relation of the IBRP and ICC to the Bordigist you can refer to the following:

The New International will be the International Party of the Proletariat (http://www.ibrp.org/en/articles/2001-08-01/the-new-international-will-be-the-international-party-of-the-proletariat) (IBRP, 2001) [See the section 'The Bordigists']

A caricature of the Party: the Bordigist Party (http://en.internationalism.org/node/2647) (ICC, 1978)

Hope this helps :)

*All of which still officially use the name 'Partito Comunista Internazionale' and are thus referred to by the name of their journal for distinction.