Libertarian Marxism

[Pretty Flaco]

I've taken an interest in particular political theory and so I'd just like to know if anybody could point me in the direction of any good writings about it, or explain some parts of the philosophy for me.

[Nachie]

There's not much to it, really. "Libertarian Marxism" is a redundancy much like "anti-state communism", made necessary only by the preponderance of Leninist distortions.

We could recommend any number of texts written by "libertarian" or "autonomist" Marxists, but the idea is simply that you read Marx himself with a libertarian understanding. Really the key point is that Bolshevism is a state-capitalist distortion of Marx's ideas, so there is no such thing as "Marxism-Leninism", and you don't have to view Marx from behind the blinders of the Vanguard Party, etc.

http://www.redanarchist.org/images/marxleninmusic.gif

[StoneFrog]

As a libertarian Marxist i will say marx's view of the transition was not libertarian. But a lot is different now since his time (what 150 years ago?).

Best one i know:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/workers-councils.htm

[Pretty Flaco]

So you're saying it's all bullshit?

[StoneFrog]

So you're saying it's all bullshit?

no he's trying to say its closer to real marxism, because it doesn't use all the vanguard party shit.

[black magick hustla]

its a meaningless term used by anarchos for marxists they like. the authoritarian/libertarian dichonomy comes from a language alien to marxism. no council communist called himself like that or whatever and i doubt they would anyway. marxism is about class not about order givers and order takers

[black magick hustla]

also council communism dissappeared from the face of the earth because they were very anti organization

[Paulappaul]

I've taken an interest in particular political theory and so I'd just like to know if anybody could point me in the direction of any good writings about it, or explain some parts of the philosophy for me.

Libertarian Marxism focuses more on,

- The Economic and Philosophical manuscripts, and the general Marxist use of Dialectics and the study of historical materialism.

- Critique of the State and bureaucracy. Mostly from Critique of the Gotha Programme and the subsequent letters from Marx and Engels.

- The working class to spontaneously arise against the ruling class. Coming mostly from the principles of 1st international.

Contray to With no.Mute's comment about Marx "not being Libertarian", I would say Marx was very libertarian and so was his transitional program, often quoted and upheld by Council Communist, Anton Pannekoek.


Some good works to start out with are the works of Humanist Marxists, particularly the Johnson - Forest tendency (http://www.marxists.org/subject/humanism/index.htm).

Some shorter, quick stuff is,

Anton Pannekoek's Social Democracy and Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1927/sdc.htm), Party and Class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/party-class.htm), Workers Councils (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/councils.htm) (not to be confused with the link pasted by with no mute)

Paul Mattick's Spontaneity and Organisation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1949/spontaneity.htm) and Council Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1939/council-communism.htm).

Cajo Brendel's Council Communism & The Critique of Bolshevism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/brendel/1999/communism.htm)

Sylvia Pankhurst's Communism and its Tactics (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pankhurst-sylvia/communism-tactics/index.htm)

Internationale Situationiste (http://libcom.org/library/internationale-situationiste) otherwise called "the situationist" international.

Socialisme Ou Barbarie (http://libcom.org/tags/socialisme-ou-barbarie) is very good as well.

[black magick hustla]

barring the situs and SouB none of that has anything remotely libertarian about them

[StoneFrog]

also council communism dissappeared from the face of the earth because they were very anti organization

True libertarianism no?? :laugh:

Originally Council Communists did support the organization (in limited terms thou) but later Anton Pannekoek basically denounced even the party as a form of organization after the KAPD dissolved.

I still support limited use of an organization (not party) as a means to agitate and produce propaganda, and to support councils if needed (only if needed). Unions, typical Party organizations etc i don’t like.

[Paulappaul]

barring the situs and SouB none of that has anything remotely libertarian about them

Despite the rejection of the State, the upholding of Workers' Councils and other Spontaneous Movements? Expand please.


True libertarianism no?? :laugh:

Originally Council Communists did support the organization (in limited terms thou) but later Anton Pannekoek basically denounced even the party as a form of organization after the KAPD dissolved.

I still support limited use of an organization (not party) as a means to agitate and produce propaganda, and to support councils if needed (only if needed). Unions, typical Party organizations etc i don’t like.

Anton Pannekoek does not denounce a party, infact he says it's necessary for Council Communism and a spontaneous struggle.


For the parties—then remains the second function, to spread insight and knowledge, to study, discuss and formulate social ideas, and by their propaganda to enlighten the minds of the masses. The workers’ councils are the organs for practical action and fight of the working class; to the parties falls the task of the bolding up of its spiritual power. Their work forms an indispensable part in the self-liberation of the working class. Anton Pannekoek - 1947 - Theses On The Fight Of The Working Class Against Capitalism

[black magick hustla]

i think some people confuse the extreme economism of some of the most anti organizational elements of the german/dutch left with libertarianism. it had nothing to do with authoritarianism or not, but the view that party militancy was voluntarist and artificial. the issue was never about direct democracy and hierarchy

[StoneFrog]

The old labor movement is organized in parties. The belief in parties is the main reason for the impotence of the working class; therefore we avoid forming a new party—not because we are too few, but because a party is an organization that aims to lead and control the working class. In opposition to this, we maintain that the working class can rise to victory only when it independently attacks its problems and decides its own fate.
Very first thing said in Party and Class -Anton Pannekoek 1936

Basicaly what mr pancake said in Theses On The Fight Of The Working Class Against Capitalism is not really a true party, but a propaganda distributor and agitator and that’s all its limited to.

[Paulappaul]

That was written in 1936. Theses of the Working Class was written in 1947.

Pannekoek separated Political Parties which participate in Government and Trade Unions from Council Communist parties which refrain from doing so.

[StoneFrog]

srry added a little to my post before you posted

[StoneFrog]

i think some people confuse the extreme economism of some of the most anti organizational elements of the german/dutch left with libertarianism. it had nothing to do with authoritarianism or not, but the view that party militancy was voluntarist and artificial. the issue was never about direct democracy and hierarchy


ok ok you want to be fucking happy?
im a Anarcho-Council-Communist...
Happy now :rolleyes:

TBH eliminating the bosses and not replacing it by another organization like party o union but direct control to the workers via councils is inherently libertarian, its produces a non hierarchical society. Council Communism looks to achieve libertarianism even if its not for libertarian reasons, which i think everything they talk about non-organizational is about not producing "new forms of domination" over the workers is libertarian.

[Zanthorus]

"Libertarian Marxism" is a meaningless term. The only person I know of who ever self-identified as such was Daniel Guerin, who was actually an anarchist who bought somewhat into the "Marx was an evil authoritarian" myth and tried to combine Marxism with Bakunin's views on the state. There are two articles by him here (http://libcom.org/library/libertarian-marxism) where he parrots all the standard anarchist lines about Marx.

I pretty much agree with maldoror that it's a nice little label that anarchists thought up to tag the Marxists they like, even when most of them never had anything approaching a "libertarian" analysis. In the early years of the German Left they were in fact very "vanguardist", although that term has been bent out of shape by so many hysterical anti-Lenin tracts that it's almost meaningless.

The basic common thread is that all of them (The groups that people like to tag as "libertarian Marxism") have some kind of critique of Bolshevism and some spontaneist tendencies and fetishes for workers councils. A better descriptor than "Libertarian Marxism" would actually probably be "Neo-Menshevism" considering how they parrot all the standard Menshevik lines about how the Bolsheviks were conspiratorial Jacobins in waiting.

[Pretty Flaco]

I think this about wraps up my questions on this topic. Thanks guys!

[Paulappaul]

A better descriptor than "Libertarian Marxism" would actually probably be "Neo-Menshevism" considering how they parrot all the standard Menshevik lines about how the Bolsheviks were conspiratorial Jacobins in waiting.

Actually Pannekoek refereed to it as the "New Blanquism" - Trotsky refereed to the Bolsheviks as Jacobin's - with regards to the concept of a small revolutionary politburo i.e. the Central Committee that was being propagated within the 1st year of the 3rd International.


but a propaganda distributor and agitator and that’s all its limited to.

Which is basically a Party not during election time.

Council Communists, despite what others say, don't mind organization or Parties as long as refrain from institutions of the bourgeois or Hierarchy.

[JazzRemington]

also council communism dissappeared from the face of the earth because they were very anti organization

Isn't the ICC a council communist organization?

[StoneFrog]

Isn't the ICC a council communist organization?

No its a left-Communist organization, i think someone told me they did have some Council Communists in Australia. there are no organizations just of council commies. Only two i know that have had Council Commies in resent times is AF and ICC, both not Council Communist organizations just organizations which closely resemble their theories.

@Paulappaul
Doesn't a party mean they take part in parliamentary activities, or some form of representation? I haven't read that they wanted to do anything of the sort, its just basically a group of intellectuals producing pamphlets and other forms of propaganda as well as contributing towards advancing theory. So it takes away a lot of the part of what differentiates itself from other forms of general organization. Never the less doesn't matter, if we call it a party or not, just so long as its clear that the party in no way is there on behalf of the workers.

[Android]

they did have some Council Communists in Australia

I would be surprised if this is true. Seeing as how the ICC are strong critiques of what is referred to as councilism. But it could be true - maybe ICCers or left communist sympathisers in Australia who post on here could offer some insight on this.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

AFAIK, the closest thing to a council communist organization that currently exists:

http://thecommune.wordpress.com

[Zanthorus]

Isn't the ICC a council communist organization?

They uphold the legacy of the Dutch-German Left alongside the Italian Left but not without criticism of the tendencies within it that led to "councillism" which strictly speaking was a degeneration of the clarity of the early German left.


Doesn't a party mean they take part in parliamentary activities, or some form of representation?

A party is any organisation which attempts to implement it's program through the governmental institutions of society. In the case of communists, we want to get our program enacted by the workers councils.

[syndicat]

The basic common thread is that all of them (The groups that people like to tag as "libertarian Marxism") have some kind of critique of Bolshevism and some spontaneist tendencies and fetishes for workers councils. A better descriptor than "Libertarian Marxism" would actually probably be "Neo-Menshevism" considering how they parrot all the standard Menshevik lines about how the Bolsheviks were conspiratorial Jacobins in waiting.

Mensheviks weren't libertarian in any form. They were as statist and centralist as the Bolsheviks. The soviets created by the Mensheviks in the Russian revolution concentrated power in the executive committee and in even a smaller group, the Presidium...and this before the Bolsheviks gained majorities in the fall of 1917. The unions organized by the Mensheviks were equally centralized, with power concentrated in the national executive committee. This was why the factory committee movement in 1917 was independent of the unions...tho radicals in the factory committee often did belong to a union, it often was just paper membership.

In his book "Before Stalinism" Sam Farber notes that it was a weakness shared by both Menshevism and Bolshevism that they didn't emphasize direct participation in making decisions by rank and file working people. Thus worker assemblies and neighborhood assemblies did not fit into their plans...because they were focused on control over the central state, and over holding the executive power on the top-down structured soviets.

It's probably true that Marxists who I might regard as "libertarian Marxists" didn't usually call themselves "libertarian". If you read Carl Levy's "Gramsci and the Anarchists", you'll learn that the Italian Socialist party members were highly influenced by anarchist and syndicalist ideas in the years leading up to the biennio rosso. This is in fact the reason why the Turin Libertarian Group could enter into an alliance with the local branch of the Socialist Party in building the radical shop stewards movement, based on assemblies in the factories.

Also, revolutionary syndicalism in the years before and during World War 1 included many Marxists or members of nominally Marxist socialist parties, such as the American Socialist Party and the Italian Socialist Party. There was thus a certain interpenetration of libertarian and marxist ideas in the radical left in those years.

Back in the '70s the group London Solidarity, which was close to Socialism or Barbarism in France, did not call itself "anarchist" but did call itself "libertarian socialist". In that period I was influenced by the old pre-1919 American Socialist Party (the left of that party, people like Debs and Mary Marcy) and read a lot of Marx and held various Marxist views -- historical materialism, labor theory of value, etc. But I also called myself a "libertarian socialist," occasionally an "anarcho-Marxist".

There is also the example of the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation in the '60s which was considered "anarcho-Marxist".

Historically there has been quite a bit of mutual influence at various times. Mark Leier's biography of Bakunin makes a good case for the view that Bakunin was much closer to Marx in his views than people usually suppose.

[The Idler]

Look up Maurice Brinton