Pannekoek on anarchism

[ed miliband]

I was told that Pannekoek wrote a piece on why he was not an anarchist, but I can't seem to find it, or any reference to it. (Perhaps it was written by Gorter?). Does anybody know if this exists, and if so, where I can find it?

I reckon it could be a pretty interesting read, especially for people who want clarification on the differences between council communism and anarchism, so I hope it exists...?

[Foldered]

Is this it? http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-not-suitable-anton-pannekoek

I don't know much about the guy, so I can't really comment, but I think this is what you're looking for.

[Zanthorus]

Maybe you're thinking of Anarchism not suitable (http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-not-suitable-anton-pannekoek)?

(EDIT: Foldered posted the above while I was still writing this post)

Although personally I think it is a pretty terrible piece.

There is also this passage from "Workers Councils":


Because in Paris during most of the 19th century small scale enterprises were dominant, the working class, not sharply separated from the mass of the small independent artisans and employers, could not develop a clear-cut class consciousness, though it was filled with an ardent republican and democratic fighting spirit. Seeing the capitalists rise by the protection of government, by using the political power for shameless personal enrichment, whereas they themselves were forcibly kept down, the workers considered State Power as the chief cause of their exploitation and their misery. So their feelings of free individuality, inheritance of the Great Revolution developed into some kind of anarchism, the doctrine that only by complete abolition of the State and its constraining power mankind can be free as an agglomeration of independent collaborating individuals.

When, in later years, with the gradual development and concentration of industry, trade unions arose, these, just as in England, took the central place in the social ideas of the working class. Not so much as practical means of participating in prosperity, but rather, French capitalism lacking industrial and commercial world power, as the theoretical basis of a better society. So towards the end of the century syndicalism became the theory of social reconstruction occupying the minds of the workers not only in France, but spreading over Spain, Italy and other countries also. Syndicats is simply the French name for trade unions. In the doctrine of syndicalism, "labor the basis of the new world," means that the syndicat, the union will be its organisation unit. The union, it says, is the free creation of the workers, their field of self-government, whereas in the State the officials and politicians, and in the political parties the intellectuals dominate. A political revolution that should make the State master of production would mean a more oppressive slavery for the workers. Liberation of the workers by revolution is only possible as a destruction of State and Government. It must be brought about by a universal strike, a common action of all its workers. In its place shall come the free association of all the unions; the unions will be the bodies to organise and direct production.

These principles clearly expound their dependence on the forms of French capitalism. Since the contents of politics stood at a wide distance from the productive work of society with its struggle of real class interest, the working class held itself at a wide distance from politics. Since politics was a dirty business of personal intrigue, the workers disdained to get mixed up with politics. Their practise, proclaimed as class war, theoretically for abolishing exploitation, practically for better working conditions, was comprised entirely within the field of production, where it acted by means of the syndicats. Syndicalism did not intend to yield or to submit to bank capital; in the syndicalist slogans of anti-patriotism, anti-militarism, and universal strike, it expressed its refusal to be carried away in the militaristic policy of bank capital. But this was only a negative form of opposition, not a positive form of fight; it underrated the powerful hold of capital through the power of nationalistic ideas. In the principle: that every member of the syndicat may individually take part in politics by voting "according to his philosophic or political ideas" is expressed the primitive helplessness of a class that contents itself with trying to exclude from its immediate struggle differences of opinion on society at large. The insight was lacking that against big capital in industry solid big organisations needs must arise, involving a bureaucracy of leading officials. And that production directed by the syndicats means production under the direction of union leaders and not by self-management of the workers.

Although again this is a terrible critique of class-struggle anarchism. I don't think you will find the real difference between council communism and social anarchism in either of these pieces.

[ed miliband]

Thanks for the quick responses, but I'm a little disappointed. :(

[syndicat]

but it's typical of the piss-poor and ignorant critique of syndicalism you will find among Marxist writers and groups. I just read a similar critique in some recent piece by the US Marxist group Solidarity.

In this piece Pannekoek ignores...and is apparently ignorant of...dual organizationalism, where you have a libertarian socialist politicali organization apart from the revolutionary unionist organization, as in Italy in World War 1 and the biennio rosso.