Anarcho-syndicalism vs. Council Communism

[fa2991]

Where do you draw the line between the two?

I generally just consider Council Communism syndicalist anarchism with a Marxist perspective on dialectics and capitalism, etc.

[Os Cangaceiros]

One is a specifically anarchist current, the other is not.

[ContrarianLemming]

Council Communiss oppose working in reformist unions, anarcho syndicalists do not.

[bricolage]

Is there a general anarcho-syndicalist position on councils or do they consider revolutionary unions to be embryonic of a new society to the extent that they could do fulfill the role that is usually attributed to councils?

[ContrarianLemming]

Is there a general anarcho-syndicalist position on councils or do they consider revolutionary unions to be embryonic of a new society to the extent that they could do fulfill the role that is usually attributed to councils?

The councils are part of the union, we support worker councils, the unioni s the confederation in which they are connected.

[Queercommie Girl]

Council Communiss oppose working in reformist unions, anarcho syndicalists do not.

To refuse to work with genuine reformists is stupid. They should learn from Trotsky's entryism.

[nuisance]

To refuse to work with genuine reformists is stupid. They should learn from Trotsky's entryism.
Well that's won it for me.

[Magón]

One holds to a more Anarchist road, while the other does not. Simple as that.

[bricolage]

One holds to a more Anarchist road, while the other does not. Simple as that.
I don't think that's really that true, for example I'd imagine a lot of non-syndicalist anarchists would have more in common with council communists than with anarcho-syndicalists.

[bricolage]

The councils are part of the union, we support worker councils, the unioni s the confederation in which they are connected.
But the unions are established in pre-revolutionary times, whereas councils can only come about in times of revolutionary struggle. Is this not just the co-option of revolutionary bodies?

[Magón]

I don't think that's really that true, for example I'd imagine a lot of non-syndicalist anarchists would have more in common with council communists than with anarcho-syndicalists.

How so? Anarcho-Syndicalism isn't any different from Anarchism, than their difference on Trade Unionism. Plus, on a scale between Anarcho-Syndicalism and Council Communism; Council Communism would be closer to Marxism. They're both still anti-Marxist-Leninism, but Council Communism would be closer to Marxism than Anarcho-Syndicalism would be. Because Anarcho-Syndicalism still works on an Anarchist level, but with Syndicalist Trade Unionism in the mix.

[bricolage]

How so? Anarcho-Syndicalism isn't any different from Anarchism, than their difference on Trade Unionism.
Which is of course a key difference for a lot of people/groups.


Plus, on a scale between Anarcho-Syndicalism and Council Communism; Council Communism would be closer to Marxism.
I don't think the Marxism/Anarchism dichotomy is particularly useful today, for example I imagine most self-defined anarchists today take more from Marx than they would from Bakunin, also certain platformist groups come across as remarkably trotskyist and vice versa, there are more examples. I think the whole idea of anarchists and marxists as seperated by the position on 'the state' is pretty outdated seeing as neither can offer an adequate definition of a 'state'. I would imagine the council communist idea of a future society, built from bottom up councils is actually pretty similar to what a lot of anarchists would propose, for example the Anarchist Federation in the UK releases a lot of council communist literature.

Maybe what I'm trying to say here is that most anarchists are probably council communists, they just don't like to say so!


They're both still anti-Marxist-Leninism, but Council Communism would be closer to Marxism than Anarcho-Syndicalism would be.
But again Marxism is a pretty vague term. Do we mean Marxism as in the writings of Marx? If so whose interpretations? Marxism as a political current? If so which one? And so forth.

Like anarchism, I think Marxism is a rather useless term.


Because Anarcho-Syndicalism still works on an Anarchist level, but with Syndicalist Trade Unionism in the mix.
The emphasis on trade unions though impacts heavily on how those groups act in the here and now. Considering how far away we are from any kind of emancipatory society, this is perhaps far more relevant than whether we support an 'anarchist' or a 'marxist' society.

[Delenda Carthago]

One is a specifically anarchist current, the other is not.

none is.anarchosyndicalism is a brach of syndicalism,not anarchism

[Magón]

Which is of course a key difference for a lot of people/groups.


I don't think the Marxism/Anarchism dichotomy is particularly useful today, for example I imagine most self-defined anarchists today take more from Marx than they would from Bakunin, also certain platformist groups come across as remarkably trotskyist and vice versa, there are more examples. I think the whole idea of anarchists and marxists as seperated by the position on 'the state' is pretty outdated seeing as neither can offer an adequate definition of a 'state'. I would imagine the council communist idea of a future society, built from bottom up councils is actually pretty similar to what a lot of anarchists would propose, for example the Anarchist Federation in the UK releases a lot of council communist literature.

Maybe what I'm trying to say here is that most anarchists are probably council communists, they just don't like to say so!

I think you'd find it more so, that self proclaimed Anarchists, aren't just pure, by the book Anarchists. They range in all sorts of things, from Anarcho-Syndicalism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, etc. Though I will agree, and never would disagree, Anarchism and Council Communism share similar traits between one another, Anarcho-Syndicalism focuses still more on an Anarchist mindset, than a Council Communist mindset.

Some, if not all Council Communists, who are more "Orthodox" to the ideal, would also stress a sort of Parliamentary System through social reforms. (So as I take it, not the type of Parliamentary System in use by Capitalist/Imperialist nations like the UK. So don't anyone start pulling out their hair, because I said anything.)

Anarcho-Syndicalists do not support a Parliamentary System, even with social reforms, they focus on the Anarchist view that each person is governor of themselves, but in doing so, supports everyone else in their community through social unions aka Trade Unions who's reforms better the Union and everyone else. Along with those who might be outside said Union, and in another.

The two share the same line at some points, but I'm sure more Anarchists would lean more towards Anarcho-Syndicalism than Council Communism. I do! :lol:

[bricolage]

I think you'd find it more so, that self proclaimed Anarchists, aren't just pure, by the book Anarchists.
What do you mean by 'pure' anarchism? I'm don't think such a thing has ever existed.


Some, if not all Council Communists, who are more "Orthodox" to the ideal, would also stress a sort of Parliamentary System through social reforms.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean participating in parliamentary politics in the present or establishing a parliamentary system post-revolution? I don't think council communists would be in favour of either to be honest.


The two share the same line at some points, but I'm sure more Anarchists would lean more towards Anarcho-Syndicalism than Council Communism. I do! :lol:
Once again I'm not sure this is really the case. For a lot of anarchists the trade union question is a pivotal one and the break with unionism is a defining feature of their praxis. For them I would imagine they are closer to council communism than anarcho-syndicalism, the latter still entrenched in trade union paradigms.

[Kiev Communard]

The basic difference of Anarcho-Syndicalism from Council Communism, as far as I understand this, is their position on the state power, as the Council Communists still envision some role for the State, even if in decentralized and workers-controlled form (similar to the direct-democracy state of the Ancient Greek polis), while Anarcho-Syndicalists reject any kind of explicitly political (as opposed to socio-economic) administration.

[bricolage]

The basic difference of Anarcho-Syndicalism from Council Communism, as far as I understand this, is their position on the state power, as the Council Communists still envision some role for the State, even if in decentralized and workers-controlled form (similar to the direct-democracy state of the Ancient Greek polis), while Anarcho-Syndicalists reject any kind of explicitly political (as opposed to socio-economic) administration.
That is probably the case in the theoretical yes, but I would imagine what council communists envisage as 'the state' (*) and what anarchists envisage as 'stateless' is remarkably similar. I think this is down to a confusion about what we actually mean by 'the state', there is a thread about it here; http://www.revleft.com/vb/definitions-state-t140742/index.html

* I don't actually think council communists speak much of state power, apart from as negative (ie. critiques of state capitalism). I'd have to hand this over to someone more knowledgeable on the matter though.

[Zanthorus]

I don't actually think council communists speak much of state power, apart from as negative (ie. critiques of state capitalism). I'd have to hand this over to someone more knowledgeable on the matter though.

Well, even in his more "spontaneist" and anti-partyist phase, Pannekoek still referred to anarchism as an ideology which arose from the class interests of the small artisans. If memory serves, he said that syndicalism resulted from the fact that when the french artisan class became proletarianised it still retained some of the old anti-political notions.

The comments I'm thinking of were specifically in his 1947 book Workers' Councils.

[Palingenisis]

Luckas (who is cool despite of his dissing Comrade Stalin) and Bordiga both refered to the Council Communists as anarcho-syndicalist (I will have to check where later).

[bricolage]

Well, even in his more "spontaneist" and anti-partyist phase, Pannekoek still referred to anarchism as an ideology which arose from the class interests of the small artisans. If memory serves, he said that syndicalism resulted from the fact that when the french artisan class became proletarianised it still retained some of the old anti-political notions.

The comments I'm thinking of were specifically in his 1947 book Workers' Councils.
I think I was more trying to get at council communist perspectives on the state as opposed to council communist perspectives on 'anti-state' currents. I still think a council communist 'state' is probably pretty similar to an anarcho-communist 'stateless'.

[ContrarianLemming]

I imagine most self-defined anarchists today take more from Marx than they would from Bakunin, also certain platformist groups come across as remarkably trotskyist and vice versa

tread carefully comrade.


Maybe what I'm trying to say here is that most anarchists are probably council communists, they just don't like to say so!

I know you're probably joking but a lot of people say this to me, always libertarian marxists, and it's just patronising, I know what I am, and I'm not a marxist. It's like when someone says there an atheist and the other says "you mean you're actually an agnostic right?"
"no! I'm pretty sure I'm an atheist".

[bricolage]

tread carefully comrade.
If we are talking about the 'Anarkismo' tendency groups then I stand by what I said.


I know you're probably joking but a lot of people say this to me, always libertarian marxists, and it's just patronising, I know what I am, and I'm not a marxist.
I think if you talk about what anarchist and marxist mean in popular discourse then of course anarchists are not marxists. I do however you stripped down a lot of anarchist thought of what a future society would look like then it is probably very similar to certain strains of 'marxism'.

[Paulappaul]

Anarcho - Syndicalism strives for a general strike, a strike organized and managed by the Union. Council Communists, strive for a Mass Strike, a Spontaneous, bottom up of struggle managed by the strikers themselves.

One is Spontaneous and self directed by Strikers, the other is not.

Modern Unionism never takes on a Political Character. In every revolution containing Workers' Councils, Political Demands have taken form and come into flourishing.

So while Unionism battles just the employer, the strikes of Workers Councils extend into the Political field, challenging the State.

[ContrarianLemming]

Syndicalism strives for a general strike, a strike organized and managed by the Union. Council Communists, strive for a Mass Strike, a Spontaneous, bottom up of struggle managed by the strikers themselves.

One is Spontaneous and self directed by Strikers, the other is not.

ths is untrue, as all anarcho-syndicalists would easily point out, it amounts as anti anarchist. You imply there is a difference between managed by the union and the strikers, the strikers are the union.

you also imply anarcho-syndicalists do not support "bottom up" means

your post amounts to the classic anti anarchist propaganda.

[Paulappaul]

Just because it amounts to "anti anarchist" doesn't mean shit. Anarchism isn't a fixed ideology, first of all. Second, Anarchists have always gone against there tendencies when the situation is right for the advancement of the Working Class. As does any good Socialist.

In unions there are always Union Representatives to direct and assist in struggles. Unions are created before there is a struggle, thus they are not Spontaneous.

General Strikes can be instituted in a Top Down method. Parties and Unions in the past have called out to the workers to be prepared on a certain day to strike, whereas Mass Strikes are organized and prepared by the Working Class itself.


your post amounts to the classic anti anarchist propaganda.

no. I'm not calling Anarchism "infantile" or "Utopian".

[ContrarianLemming]

General Strikes can be instituted in a Top Down method. Parties and Unions in the past have called out to the workers to be prepared on a certain day to strike, whereas Mass Strikes are organized and prepared by the Working Class itself.

You clearly imply that anarcho-syndicalists support the top down method, the bolded text also suggests that anarcho-syndicalist struggle is not carried out by the working class itself.


no. I'm not calling Anarchism "infantile" or "Utopian".


I'm talking about the elitist criticism.

[Magón]

Just because it amounts to "anti anarchist" doesn't mean shit. Anarchism isn't a fixed ideology, first of all. Second, Anarchists have always gone against there tendencies when the situation is right for the advancement of the Working Class. As does any good Socialist.

In unions there are always Union Representatives to direct and assist in struggles. Unions are created before there is a struggle, thus they are not Spontaneous.

General Strikes can be instituted in a Top Down method. Parties and Unions in the past have called out to the workers to be prepared on a certain day to strike, whereas Mass Strikes are organized and prepared by the Working Class itself.



no. I'm not calling Anarchism "infantile" or "Utopian".

Not necessarily, in Spain that's not exactly how it happened. The workers came to the Unions, or more or less their rage, etc. flooded into the Unions, who were collectivized and more organized. So General Strikes do have a Top Down method, they go: Worker, Union, Fighting! ;)

[Fietsketting]

General Strikes can be instituted in a Top Down method. Parties and Unions in the past have called out to the workers to be prepared on a certain day to strike, whereas Mass Strikes are organized and prepared by the Working Class itself.



How exactly is a General Strike not a mass strike? :blushing:

[syndicat]

I'm not sure "council communist" is a very well-defined term. Council communists I've known have been opposed to ongoing formal organizations, such as a mass organization. They tend to have a rather unrealistic "spontaneist" theory of how a mass challege to the system can emerge. This is not to say there wouldn't be a significant "spontaneous" element but ongoing movements and previous struggles are also important as far as the development of class & socialist consciousness are concerned. Revolutionary syndicalism isn't spontaneist in the sense that it sees a role for an ongoing formal mass organization, tho "self-managed" by the workers.

The label "anarcho-syndicalism" only came into being after the formation of the IWA in 1922, with most of the world's revolutionary syndicalists rejecting the Communist International and its aim of converting the mass organizations into tranmission belts of the party.

As far as the mass strike and workers councils are concerned, there isn't any difference here with revolutionary syndicalism.

[Paulappaul]

How exactly is a General Strike not a mass strike? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/blushing.gif

The theories are different. See Rosa Luxemburg's theory of a Mass Strike vs. a General Strike.


you clearly imply that anarcho-syndicalists support the top down method

I said,


General Strikes can be instituted in a Top Down method.

So whether or not they call it "bottom up" doesn't always reflect reality. Spontaneity avoids this.


Council communists I've known have been opposed to ongoing formal organizations, such as a mass organization.

More that Council Communists view Mass Organisation capable of combating Capital, to be spontaneous. Mass Organization is okay, but it's understood it doesn't have any revolutionary character.


They tend to have a rather unrealistic "spontaneist" theory of how a mass challege to the system can emerge.

Which is based on past mass uprising. Such of which I don't think is unrealistic.