Council Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism

[Crusade]

How are they different?

[Zanthorus]

Well, in terms of history anarcho-syndicalism was an outgrowth of the revolutionary/libertarian socialism of Bakunin and the latin sections of the first international. Council communism developed as a section of the third international in Germany which originally supported the Russian Revolution but who came to develop a theory of Russia as "state-capitalist". They placed emphasis on workers self-management and the formation of workers councils as the content of the communist revolution.

The main difference would be in terms of trade-unions. Anarcho-syndicalists see the possibility of creating "revolutionary unions" which encompass the whole class and then act to reorganise society after the revolution. Council communists are generally hostile to rank and file unionism. I don't know about any broad consensus on "revolutionary unions". Pannekoek supported the I.W.W to a certain extent as an organ which went beyond the traditional structures of unionism and served to educate the workers in class struggle. However he never thought that revolutionary unions would reorganise society always placing the onus on the formation of workers councils.

[Zanthorus]

For reference here's an essay by Pannekoek on Trade-Unionism:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/union.htm

His verdict on the I.W.W from that piece:


Industrial unionism alone as a method of fighting the capitalist class is not sufficient to overthrow capitalist society and to conquer the world for the working class. It fights the capitalists as employers on the economic field of production, but it has not the means to overthrow their political stronghold, the state power. Nevertheless, the I.W.W. so far has been the most revolutionary organisation in America. More than any other it contributed to rouse class consciousness and insight, solidarity and unity in the working class, to turn its eyes toward communism, and to prepare its fighting power.

And Pannekoek on the I.W.W from the full length "Workers Councils":


Thus the two forms of organisation and fight stand in contrast, the old one of trade unions and regulated strike, the new one of spontaneous strike and workers' councils. This does not mean that the former at some time will be simply substituted by the latter as the only alternative. Intermediate forms may be conceived, attempts to correct the evils and weakness of trade unionism and preserve its right principles; to avoid the leadership of a bureaucracy of officials, to avoid the separation by narrow craft and trade interests, and to preserve and utilise the experiences of former fights. This might be done by keeping together, after a big strike, a core of the best fighters, in one general union. Wherever a strike breaks out spontaneously this union is present with its skilled propagandists and organisers to assist the inexperienced masses with their advice, to instruct, to organise, to defend them. In this way every fight means a progress of organisation, not in the sense of fees paying membership, but in the sense of growing class unity.

An example for such a union might be found in the great American union "Industrial Workers of the World" (I.W.W.). At the end of last century in contrast to the conservative trade unions of well-paid skilled labor, united in the "American Federation of Labor," it grew up out of special American conditions. Partly out of the fierce struggles of the miners and lumbermen, independent pioneers in the wilds of the Far West, against big capital that had monopolised and seized the riches of wood and soil. Partly out of the hunger strikes of the miserable masses of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, accumulated and exploited in the factories of the Eastern towns and in the coal mines, despised and neglected by the old unions. The I.W.W. provided them with experienced strike leaders and organisers, who showed them how to stand against police terrorism, who defended them before public opinion and the courts, who taught them the practice of solidarity and unity and opened to them wider views on society, on capitalism and class fight. In such big fights ten thousands of new members joined the I.W.W., of whom only a small fraction remained. This "one big union" was adapted to the wild growth of American capitalism in the days when it built up its power by subjecting the masses of the independent pioneers.

Similar forms of fight and organisation may be propagated and may come up elsewhere, when in big strikes the workers stand up, without as yet having the complete self-confidence of taking matters entirely in their own hands.

[Blake's Baby]

Council communism itself had several strands over the years. Originally coming out of KAPD, they were pro-party, and 'pro-October' if I can use a horrible phrase. They were also the first group to theorise that the unions had definitively become a hinderance to the revolution. Personally I think they made a lot of sense in the early days.

Under the influence of Otto Ruhle especially, many of them adopted the view that all parties were inherently bourgeois and state-capitalist bureaucracies in waiting. They theorised then that the Russian revolution was a mangerial takeover not a real revolution.

Some of them were involved in the 'Unionen' movement in Germany, which was for a kind of half-way between a union and a party. I never really understood that part, but I think it's where the accusations of syndicalism came from.

So; the tendency that theorises unions are counter-revolutionary ends up confused with syndicalism. Oh the irony.

[ContrarianLemming]

asides from whats been explained above (specifically the views on unions) Council communists also have a marxist view of class (ie: feck the peasants) and a marxist definition of the state, there not anarchists.
In practice, they might aswell be the same.

[Devrim]

Personally I think they made a lot of sense in the early days.

Under the influence of Otto Ruhle especially, many of them adopted the view that all parties were inherently bourgeois and state-capitalist bureaucracies in waiting. They theorised then that the Russian revolution was a mangerial takeover not a real revolution.

Yes, I would agree with this. I think that the 'anti-party' thing was a regression'


Some of them were involved in the 'Unionen' movement in Germany, which was for a kind of half-way between a union and a party. I never really understood that part, but I think it's where the accusations of syndicalism came from.

Yes, that is where it came from. The 'Unionen' were at one point big organisations with about half a million members.

This article goes into the question:

http://libcom.org/library/chapter-9-revolutionary-syndicalism-unionism

Devrim