Differences between Social Anarchism and Left Communism

[Desperado]

For example, what do left communists think of hierarchy? Is there a compulsory state with Left Communism? Can people set up their own Workers Council's and leave others freely? Also, where does Trotskyism come in relation to Left Communism?

And what exactly is Left Communism's view on vanguard parties?

[Zanthorus]

For example, what do left communists think of hierarchy?

I'm not particularly against it. My own personal view is that Communism requires a globally co-ordinate economic system, such as would almost certainly require representatives of some kind. You'll have to ask the anarchists wether this is 'hierarchy' or not as their definitions of that word seem to change every couple of minutes.


Is there a compulsory state with Left Communism?

We believe that the state will exist in the period of transition yes. I also think that people will be 'compelled' to do things against their will after this transition, but the modern state consists of more than just the violation of personal autonomy.


Also, where does Trotskyism come in relation to Left Communism?

Both currents uphold the October revolution as a working-class revolution. Both political currents descend from the Communist International. Left-Coms typically uphold the decisions of the first and sometimes the second congress. Trotskyists typically uphold the decisions of the first four congresses. The Italian Left initially supported the Trotskyist opposition after it was expelled from the PCd'I, but there was some unpleasantness with the International Left Opposition letting in a new Italian section without informing them first, and then the whole business where the Trotskyists turned towards entryism in the Social-Democratic parties, the 'French Turn'. So Bilan broke with the Trotskyist movement.

Generally Left-Communists disagree with the tactic of the united front with the Social-Democratic parties, the related slogan of the "workers' government", the idea that excising the reformist leadership of trade unions is a worthwhile activity (Since the union apparatus is integrated into the state) and the idea that parliamentary participation provides should be used to provide a platform for our views. We also disagree with the idea that the post-1921 RSFSR/USSR was a "workers' state".


And what exactly is Left Communism's view on vanguard parties?

We have the idea of the politically conscious sections of the class organising itself into a single international communist party with a centralised internal structure which defends the communist programme. We also have the idea that the party should not substitute itself for the class as a whole, nor should it become the state apparatus, or confuse the working-class with the state.

[Amphictyonis]

I'm not particularly against it. My own personal view is that Communism requires a globally co-ordinate economic system, such as would almost certainly require representatives of some kind. You'll have to ask the anarchists wether this is 'hierarchy' or not as their definitions of that word seem to change every couple of minutes.


^ This is the only real difference, this and the use of the state to abolish capital (Marxists) rather than abolishing the state to destroy capital (Anarchist).

Left communists don't advocate a hierarchical state, if we did we'd be advocating the perpetuation of class society. Left Marxists and Anarchists idea of post revolutionary government is the same. As democratic as humanly possible. We left Marxists want the transitional socialist state to be as democratic as can be but the end product, communism, both anarchists and Marxists share the same vision of a stateless society.

The question of what it will take to abolish capital is another topic. I understand the anarchist position (that of abolishing the state and capital will wither away) because capitalism cannot exist without a state to subjugate workers. the thing is, as history has shown, if we abolish the state, lets say, in Spain, the bourgeoisie in another country will fund an army to retake it from the socialists.

In order for the anarchist path to work it would have to be a global revolution overthrowing all bourgeois states at the same time. Spain didnty have the state apperatus to defend itself from Franco/fascists so it eventually fell back into the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Then again many Marxists are naive to think the state will just whither away with class society. At no point in human history has any group in power given up privilege voluntarily. So my point is, if Marxism is the path to communism then a sort of anarchist revolution may be needed to overthrow the transitional socialist states.

Not everything is cut and dry.

(most of this post was for the OP) :)

[Widerstand]

I'm not particularly against it. My own personal view is that Communism requires a globally co-ordinate economic system, such as would almost certainly require representatives of some kind. You'll have to ask the anarchists wether this is 'hierarchy' or not as their definitions of that word seem to change every couple of minutes.

Not really. Anarchists aren't opposed to hierarchy and authority per se. Talking about representatives, it would depend entirely upon the manner in which they are elected, what powers they hold, how accountable they are (recallable delegates or not?), etc.

[syndicat]

There are major differences in regard to strategy since Left communists are anti-union whereas most social anarchists are not. Some Left communists blow up the role of the party to a degree that many libertarian socialists would disagree with.

"Hierarchy" can be defined different ways. What social anarchism advocates is a form of socialism based on generalized self-management, rooted in assemblies (either in workplaces, neighborhoods or both), and direct democracy and delegate democracy as opposed to "representative government." An economy coordinated over a vast region does not require a state, if by this is meant a bureaucratic apparatus that isn't really controllable by the assemblies at the base and which has power over workers in social production...both of which would violate the idea of genderalized self-management. Delegate democracy means that the delegates are anserable directly to assemblies at the base, can be overruled by the assemblies, many issues are decided via the assemblies, etc. If there are classes or other forms of structured oppression of groups, then a society has not realized generalized self-management.

[Widerstand]

There are major differences in regard to strategy since Left communists are anti-union whereas most social anarchists are not. Some Left communists blow up the role of the party to a degree that many libertarian socialists would disagree with.

The Left Comms have a very vague definition of 'party': Any organization with a political program. As such, certain anarcho-syndicalist unions such as the FAU (and I guess the CNT too) are considered 'parties' by Left Comms.

[Magón]

Not everything is cut and dry.

Reactionary. :p

No, I agree, that sounds like a good idea. I like working to destroy a State. :D

[Paulappaul]

For example, what do left communists think of hierarchy?Councilists like Paul Mattick, Cajo Brendel and Socialisme ou Barbarie tied a critique of Hierarachy to Alienation and generally spoke out aganist it.

Frankly, Marxists alike recognize that Hierarchy alot of the times is synonymous with Alienation.


Is there a compulsory state with Left Communism? I can't speak for certain factions of Left Communism, but from a "Libertarian Marxist" perspective I would say that the "State" wouldn't be any different then a post Anarchist society.


Both currents uphold the October revolution as a working-class revolution.I would see that as disingenuous to Left Communists like Ruhle.


We have the idea of the politically conscious sections of the class organising itself into a single international communist party with a centralised internal structure which defends the communist programme. Again that is disingenuous to Left Communists like Pannekoek or Ruhle, who said the opposite of that.

[Thirsty Crow]

I also think that people will be 'compelled' to do things against their will after this transition, but the modern state consists of more than just the violation of personal autonomy. Would you indulge me and speculate on this proposition - that people will be "compelled" to do things against their will...?
Do you mean that people will be compelled to take up jobs which they do not want? Or something else/more than that?







We have the idea of the politically conscious sections of the class organising itself into a single international communist party with a centralised internal structure which defends the communist programme.Could you elaborate on the "centralised internal structure" a bit? What exactly does it entail?

It seems to me that my opinions could, alas, be classified...as left communist :scared:
:D

[Devrim]

Both currents [left communism and Trotskyism] uphold the October revolution as a working-class revolution. I would see that as disingenuous to Left Communists like Ruhle.


I don't think so really. I would say that everybody who calls themselves a left communist today sees that there was a workers' revolution in Russia in 1917. They might differentiate to exactly when it degenerated, but I don't think that putting an exact date on it is the most important point.

It is true that people like Otto Rühle took a different view. In 1917 they fully supported the revolution. The they started to typify the revoltion as having a 'dual nature', and eventually decided it was wholly bourgoeis. These sort of views are generally typified as 'council communism' today and not 'left communism'.



We have the idea of the politically conscious sections of the class organising itself into a single international communist party with a centralised internal structure which defends the communist programme. Again that is disingenuous to Left Communists like Pannekoek or Ruhle, who said the opposite of that.

The same things apply to this statement as above. Rühle certainly rejected the idea of the party at a very early date. At the same time, however, Pannekoek was a member of the KAPD, a left communist party, which believed in an elite vanguard party 'as hard as steel as clear as crystal'. He did later change his views, and argued for a position closer to Rühle's. I think it is fair though to say that the vast majority of left communists today argue for a centralised vanguard party.


The Left Comms have a very vague definition of 'party': Any organization with a political program. As such, certain anarcho-syndicalist unions such as the FAU (and I guess the CNT too) are considered 'parties' by Left Comms.

N, they are not. We don't think that the FAU or the CNT are 'parties'. Neither do we consider our own organisation, the ICC to be a party. For left communists the term 'party' means something beyond a small group of political militants. We are for the party, but we don't think that we are it. Neither do the other main left commuist group, the ICT.


There are major differences in regard to strategy since Left communists are anti-union whereas most social anarchists are not.

I think you are right to say 'most'. For example, the position of the UK Anarchist federation is, in my opinion, closer to ours than to yours.

Devrim

[PoliticalNightmare]

I'm not particularly against it. My own personal view is that Communism requires a globally co-ordinate economic system, such as would almost certainly require representatives of some kind. You'll have to ask the anarchists wether this is 'hierarchy' or not as their definitions of that word seem to change every couple of minutes.

Provided that citizens are not arranged into a hierarchy of political power (or economic despotism), there is no hierarchy. For instance representative democracy gives some people more political power as a representative (such as a politician or someone who works for a council) is voted into a constitution and then has more political power than everyone else. Thus we have a hierarchy. However, if every person has equal rights to sovereignty, we have no hierarchy. So direct democracy is better but still open criticism as I am about to explain.

If everyone must be confined to a practice of a national or international state and may not form their own individual communes, then there is a hierarchy and there is still presence of state. Democracy itself is a hierarchy because it is a rule of the majority over the minority. Thus I would instead advocate the principle of free association where every worker may join a commune that is either seperate from a inter/national organisation or it may form inter/national ties with other communes which other communes would not have to develop. So people in communes would not have to live by the rules of other communes in respect but since there is likely to be at least some inter/national ties that are formed voluntarilywe are not likely to have war between communes who disagree and there will be an effective way of organising the distribution of labour on a national and international basis.

These are my ideas of hierarchy, though please feel free to correct me as my ideas are to be taken with a pinch of salt as they are far from complete maturation.

[Zanthorus]

I agree with Devrim's comments on the difference between Councillism and Left-Communism. I'd just like to add that Pannekoek never saw the Russian Revolution as a bourgeois revolution. He saw it as a dual revolution - the working-class, with it's leading elements organised in the Bolshevik party, taking power in the urban areas through the Soviets, and a peasant war occuring in the countryside which redistributed land from the wealthy landowners. The political inexperience of the Russian working-class was said to have led to an overemphasis on the leaders as opposed to the mass of the class, and that combined with the conflict between the working-class impulse towards socialisation of production and the peasant impulse towards creating a system of small land-holdings combined to destroy the revolution. Interestingly, and at least slightly ironically, I think Pannekoek's idea has some commonalities with Lenin's view that the Russian Revolution would bring into power a revolutionary provisional government with it's class basis in an alliance of the working-class and peasantry ('The revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry').


Not really. Anarchists aren't opposed to hierarchy and authority per se. Talking about representatives, it would depend entirely upon the manner in which they are elected, what powers they hold, how accountable they are (recallable delegates or not?), etc.

Sorry, I was quite tired when I posted that. I know that most of what is called 'social anarchism' would not differ drastically from me on how the revolt against capital should play out.


Would you indulge me and speculate on this proposition - that people will be "compelled" to do things against their will...?
Do you mean that people will be compelled to take up jobs which they do not want? Or something else/more than that?

It means that, at the minimum, Communism entails organising production according to a common democratic plan. Obviously this will leave minority elements unsatisifed.


Could you elaborate on the "centralised internal structure" a bit? What exactly does it entail?

For the party to be an effective revolutionary organ, it needs to act in a unified way. This requires all militants adhering to a common plan of action. This doesn't exclude internal debate, dissent, or even the formation of organised fractions within the party. But these elements will have to win the party majority over to their views before they can implement their tactics. In some extreme situations, especially during the revolutionary period, it will not be possible to consult the parties membership before taking a decision, as the decision being made needs to be made quickly. This means that at some points the party's Central Committee will have to make decisions and get the party to implement them without discussion with the base.

[Desperado]

Thanks for all the answers so far, deeply interesting.



I can't speak for certain factions of Left Communism, but from a "Libertarian Marxist" perspective I would say that the "State" wouldn't be any different then a post Anarchist society.

Would you argue then that Council Communism comes under both Left Communism and Libertarian Marxism, and even anarchism? Edit: Wait, "post anarchist society"?


Anarchists aren't opposed to hierarchy and authority per se.

Aren't they? Could you elaborate?

[Widerstand]

N, they are not. We don't think that the FAU or the CNT are 'parties'. Neither do we consider our own organisation, the ICC to be a party. For left communists the term 'party' means something beyond a small group of political militants. We are for the party, but we don't think that we are it. Neither do the other main left commuist group, the ICT.

Oh right, sorry. The party was something that "grows out of class struggle" and represents the will/political action of the workers - did I get that right?


Aren't they? Could you elaborate?

Well for one there is the principal impossibility to have a non-hierarchical network (including groups of people, "social networks", etc.). This has to do with system theory, but basically it is mathematically impossible. Every organization/group/circle/society will sooner or later develop hierarchical structures. These can either be informal, which is dangerous, or formal, which makes them transparent. However, through constant effort, they can be minimized and reduced to nigh zero. 'Constant effort' is the key phrase here. We have to actively and without pause work to dismantle informal hierarchies. Whether or not this can be turned into a formal process is a matter of debate.

So far for the mathematical aspect. There is a less abstract reason, too. For one, there is legitimate and illegitimate authority. For example, if a fisher talks about fishing, he is a legitimate authority, at least more than me, who has never fished or informed myself about fishing. If some fat guy in a 5000 dollar suit tells me that capitalism is in my best interest, he is most likely an illegitimate authority, after all how could he know what "my best interest" is? Legitimate authority is justified, in fact it is good for us. Illegitimate authority however isn't. Hence the phrase "question all authority."

Now back to hierarchical structures: We need to organize society somehow, this is a practical necessity. It also true, as pointed out above, that consensus decisions are influenced by informal hierarchies - for example, a more extroverted, intelligent, nice, overall respected individual's opinion may more likely be agreed to than a rude one's, a shy individual with low self esteem may more easily give in than one with high self esteem, etc. And of course, in present day organizations, and possibly in a revolutionary or post-revolutionary society too, there may still be patriarchal mechanics informally at work. With the exception of patriarchal hierarchies, most leftists view those hierarchies as part of normal life, and I would agree. They are basics of group dynamics. Some of those could be minimized, eg. by helping persons develop self esteem, by educating people, etc. or by creating formal rules to counteract them. Although I have no idea how those would look exactly, maybe a fixed speech time for each, the possibility to have anonymous written proposals be read to the group, or similar.

In any case, a consensus decision also has practical limitations: You can't have a consensus of, say, 2 million people (supposing the city I live in turned Anarchist over night). This is why many Anarchists advocate a federal system. I for one, like an agree-to-disagree model: You have local councils, which consists of, say, everyone in your workplace. These councils make consensus decisions, and elect recallable delegates which communicate their decision to the next higher council, etc. You could have intersecting councils, based around workplaces, trades, living regions, etc. with individuals being parts of many of them. Agree-to-disagree means that stations (individuals/councils) can cooperate even if they disagree in some matters. For example they cooperate only to some extent, they split - one does things one way, and the other in another way, etc. It's a non-compromise cooperational concept.

[Paulappaul]

I don't think so really. I would say that everybody who calls themselves a left communist today sees that there was a workers' revolution in Russia in 1979. They might differentiate to exactly when it degenerated, but I don't think that putting an exact date on it is the most important point.I disagree and I am a left communist. Paul Mattick went so far as to acknowledge proletarian aims, but refused to call it a Proletarian Revolution and instead it was the "Bolshevik Revolution"


These sort of views are generally typified as 'council communism' today and not 'left communism'.I think OP was referring to all encompassing tendency of Left Communism and not just the Italian Factions.


Rühle certainly rejected the idea of the party at a very early date.No he didn't, he rejected the party in the traditional sense of the word.


At the same time, however, Pannekoek was a member of the KAPD, a left communist party, which believed in an elite vanguard party 'as hard as steel as clear as crystal'.The KAPD was a Council Communist party first of all, not a 'left communist party' as it advocated a federation of local chapters united on principle only practicing the theory of "unitary organization". Pannekoek wrote aganist the "elite vanguardism" before the KAPD's conception, furthermore, looking at the KAPD's programme I don't see Vanguardism or any major leadership role as compared to say, The Italian Left Communist party.

What I do find is that the relation of the party of Factory Organisations is so,


The relationship of the party to the factory organisation comes from the nature of the factory organisation. The work of the KAPD inside these organisations will be that of an unflagging propaganda, as well as putting forward the slogans of the struggle.Which frankly, doesn't sound like a convincing "elite vanguard".



He did later change his views, and argued for a position closer to Rühle's.

No, I'd argue both stayed free confident in that there would be some role for revolutionaries in a "party" during pre revolutionary times.


I think it is fair though to say that the vast majority of left communists today argue for a centralised vanguard party.Except for you know, people like Cajo Brendel (who just died a couple years ago), who basically went right up against that conception. Not that disagree with you, just we need to face historical accuracy here. Paul Mattick and his descendants today to would probably agree with that assertion.

Basically anybody who was formally in the KAPD would be against the "centralized vanguard party"


Would you argue then that Council Communism comes under both Left Communism and Libertarian Marxism, and even anarchism? Edit: Wait, "post anarchist society"?Council Communism is a part of the wider Left Communist tradition and Libertarian Marxist tradition.

Alot of Marxist tendencies come into familiarity with Anarchism. I think Anarchist organisations generally adopt Left Communist policies and are more and more shifting towards a pseudo-Pannekoek/Mattick (two Council Communists) position.

Did that answer your question?

[normtransformer]

There is only one short answer for me......capitalism is the difference.....

[Widerstand]

Alot of Marxist tendencies come into familiarity with Anarchism.

That's not surprising. They have common roots and similar ideals. Anarchists also often adopt Marx' analysis of capitalism.



I think Anarchist organisations generally adopt Left Communist policies and are more and more shifting towards a pseudo-Pannekoek/Mattick (two Council Communists) position.

Which Anarchist organization does/did this?


There is only one short answer for me......capitalism is the difference.....

You don't make any sense.

[Paulappaul]

Which Anarchist organization does/did this?Judging by the pamphlet into some of their key principles, and from folks in the group, the Anarchist Communist Federation (particularly in the east coast) is drifting towards Councilism.

Anarcho - Syndicalist more and more too I think is coming closer and closer to Council Communism.

[revolution inaction]

Judging by the pamphlet into some of their key principles, and from folks in the group, the Anarchist Communist Federation (particularly in the east coast) is drifting towards Councilism.

Anarcho - Syndicalist more and more too I think is coming closer and closer to Council Communism.

There is no organisation called the Anarchist Communist Federation, there was an ACF in the US but that broke up, and the Anarchist Federation in the UK used to be called the Anarchist Communist Federation.
Are you thinking of NEACF?

It appears to me that council communism is a parallel development of a lot of ideas previously developed by anarchists. Of cause many anarchists have read council communist theory, but i don't see that that makes them council communists.

[Paulappaul]

Are you thinking of NEACF?I thought it would be assumed.

But looking over Afed's 1995 pamphlet I see some Council Communists stuff in there as well.


It appears to me that council communism is a parallel development of a lot of ideas previously developed by anarchists. Of cause many anarchists have read council communist theory, but i don't see that that makes them council communists. No, it wasn't developed by Anarchists before. It's stress on revolutionary spontaneity, centralization of councils and unitary organization wasn't a part of the Anarchist tradition. The anti-statist aspect of it maybe.

Mostly the Mattick/Pannekoek (and the Johnson Forester group) tendency has become influential in Anarchist circles and within Anarchist writers - Noam Chomsky in particular has always said that Pannekoek and Mattick are a part of the greater Anarchist tradition.

Judging by the number of Left Communists which became Anarchists on the part of disillusioning with Marxism, one can't deny that its had a big role in Modern Anarchism. Especially with people like Cajo Brendel was active in alot of Anarchist struggles/papers right up into his death.

[Patchd]

There are major differences in regard to strategy since Left communists are anti-union whereas most social anarchists are not. Some Left communists blow up the role of the party to a degree that many libertarian socialists would disagree with.
Well, we can't really use Left Communist's criticism of the unions to be a distinguishing factor. I consider myself a libertarian communist, more in the Anarchist and councillist tradition, and I criticise the role that unions have to play within the revolutionary movement.

I'd say your second point was more important, that being the party question. Left Communists tend to see the party as the natural organisation of the working class, and some push for a mass party. On the other hand, we have social anarchists, who, depending on their tradition (syndicalist, communist etc. - not to say that anarcho syndicalists are not anarchist communist either!), advocate autonomous, but federalised organisation. For syndicalists, it's obviously the revolutionary union, and for others it may be the workers' councils that form in revolutionary periods. Either way, Left Communists and Social Anarchists share the same view that it is the working class that must conduct and carry on the revolution, not a party or a state.

In addition, as a more minor point, and definitely one which does not hold for all Left Communists; but I seem to see a tendency to wither down the importance of 'single issues' (if we could call it that) struggles within the class struggle as a whole, usually criticising them for deviating from the class war, instead choosing to focus on a side issue. For many Left Communists, they tend to take issue not with the focusing on single issues, but the lack of class analysis around those single issues. On the point of Anti-Fascism, many consider it to be an illusion from the actual problem of capitalism as a whole, and not just one tendency of it; fascism.

[Crux]

I would say that everybody who calls themselves a left communist today sees that there was a workers' revolution in Russia in 1979.
Wait, what?

Just as an aside vis a vis left communism and trotskyism, at least a couple of leftcom groups had their origin in trotskyism, for example Socialisme ou Barbarie and the Johnson-Forest tendency.

[syndicat]

Well, we can't really use Left Communist's criticism of the unions to be a distinguishing factor. I consider myself a libertarian communist, more in the Anarchist and councillist tradition, and I criticise the role that unions have to play within the revolutionary movement.



yeah, I know that for some in AF unions are "bourgeois" but that is not a majority position among social anarchists. and certainly was not the historically dominant view among social anarchists.

[Zanthorus]

I think OP was referring to all encompassing tendency of Left Communism and not just the Italian Factions.

The only surviving Left-Communist organisations are descended from the Italian Fraction in exile though. The ICT traces itself back to the PCInt, the ICC to the GCF and the various Bordigist parties all go back to the International Communist Party (Il Programma Comunista). The German-Dutch Left was organisationally obliterated. There may be isolated individuals calling themselves 'Left-Communist' who still adhere to a pure Councillist line, but I think they are a distinct minority.


Just as an aside vis a vis left communism and trotskyism, at least a couple of leftcom groups had their origin in trotskyism, for example Socialisme ou Barbarie and the Johnson-Forest tendency.

Neither of these groups was Left-Communist. Though there were some splinters like the Marxist Workers' Group in Mexico which came out of Trotskyism and aligned themselves with the International Communist Left.

[Devrim]

Wait, what?

Just as an aside vis a vis left communism and trotskyism, at least a couple of leftcom groups had their origin in trotskyism, for example Socialisme ou Barbarie and the Johnson-Forest tendency.

The groups that you refer to aren't considered to be left communist by most people though Paulappaul will undoubtedly disagree. You could say that the FOR, which was formed by Munis who had previously been the leader of the Bolshevik-Leninists in Spain came from Trotskyism, but its an exception. left communism pre-dates Trotskyism.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Oh right, sorry. The party was something that "grows out of class struggle" and represents the will/political action of the workers - did I get that right?

Yes, basically.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Are you thinking of NEACF?

It is actually NEFAC.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I disagree and I am a left communist.

To be honest I don't think you are. Left communists are people who are members, sympathisers and supporters of left communist organisations and as far as I know you are not.


The KAPD was a Council Communist party first of all, not a 'left communist party' as it advocated a federation of local chapters united on principle only practicing the theory of "unitary organization". Pannekoek wrote aganist the "elite vanguardism" before the KAPD's conception, furthermore, looking at the KAPD's programme I don't see Vanguardism or any major leadership role as compared to say, The Italian Left Communist party.

The KAPD refered to itself as a "left communist party" and talked about an "elite party" and a "vanguard party".


Except for you know, people like Cajo Brendel (who just died a couple years ago), who basically went right up against that conception. Not that disagree with you, just we need to face historical accuracy here. Paul Mattick and his descendants today to would probably agree with that assertion.

Basically anybody who was formally in the KAPD would be against the "centralized vanguard party"

Cajo was a council communist, not a left communist. The KAPD referred to itself as a "centralised vanguard party", and Jan Appal, who was a leading member of the KAPD was at the founding conference of the ICC, which is for a centralised vanguard party.


Council Communism is a part of the wider Left Communist tradition and Libertarian Marxist tradition.

'Libertarian Marxist' is a term mainly used by anarchists, not left communists.


Judging by the number of Left Communists which became Anarchists on the part of disillusioning with Marxism, one can't deny that its had a big role in Modern Anarchism.

Such as whom?


Especially with people like Cajo Brendel was active in alot of Anarchist struggles/papers right up into his death.

Would this be the same Cajo who said in 2000:


I am by no means an anarchist...Of the method of Marx which he applies in his analyses, of any dialectics or real understanding of what Marxism is all about, the anarchists haven't the least clue.

Devrim

[Niccolò Rossi]

I would say that everybody who calls themselves a left communist today sees that there was a workers' revolution in Russia in 1979.Wait, what?

Devrim of course means 1917, not 1979.

Nic.

[Paulappaul]

To be honest I don't think you are. Left communists are people who are members, sympathisers and supporters of left communist organisations and as far as I know you are not.No, I just don't consider the ICC or ICT to be liberating and to say the least, upholding of the Council Communist - a current of Left Communism - tradition which I associate and organize by.

Plus I don't see any branches in my area.


The KAPD refered to itself as a "left communist party" and talked about an "elite party" and a "vanguard party".I'd like to see a link, to say the programme of KAPD where it says it's an elite vanguard party?

Furthermore, by modern standards, no Bordigaist would agree with organization of the KAPD, as it wasn't a Vanguard in the traditional sense of the word, and it was extremely federated.

And Council Communism wasn't really a tendency apart from Left Communism till later.


'Libertarian Marxist' is a term mainly used by anarchists, not left communists.Chill, I never denied that, he asked me whether it was a part of the Libertarian Marxist tradition.


Cajo was a council communist, not a left communist.Wider Left Communist tradition i.e. the tradition which arose in opposition to 3rd International.


Would this be the same Cajo who said in 2000:Never said he was an Anarchist, I said he wrote for Anarchist Papers and was a part of Anarchist Movements as its system of organization was similar to that expressed by the KAPD and Pannekoek.

Much like Mattick in the I.W.W.


There may be isolated individuals calling themselves 'Left-Communist' who still adhere to a pure Councillist line, but I think they are a distinct minorityI wouldn't say Isolated, just not making a huge impression. I hear about of Councilist groups descending from the JFT in California particulary the Flying Picket (http://www.flyingpicket.org/). Here in Oregon I've worked with other Council Communists in small scale organizing. I've also heard from Anarchists in a Olympia conference that there are alot of Councilists in SeaSol - a flying picket which broke off from the I.W.W. - but I haven't much beyond that.

I work for the I.W.W. mostly because it's the closet thing I can get Left Communism in my area. Which isn't good enough for Devrim obviously since it isn't the ICC, but he can go fuck himself.

In the states, Italian Left Communism is just about as dead as Council Communism. I've never found any Italian Left Communists in America, but frankly I see alot more Post - Situationists aligning themselves with Council Communism. Until recently, our local radical bookstores weren't selling any Bordiga, ICT or ICC works till I started printing them out :/


Neither of these groups was Left-Communist. Though there were some splinters like the Marxist Workers' Group in Mexico which came out of Trotskyism and aligned themselves with the International Communist Left. There origins were defiantly in Left Communism, specifically Socialisme ou Barbarism who basically were saying that same stuff as Paul Mattick and Pannekoek plus a little bit more Centralisation (Cornelius in particular).

The Johnson Forester Tendency was clashed alot with Second Generation Councilists. In the end the more radical tendency in the JFT came to be basically Council Communism.

[Devrim]

Devrim of course means 1917, not 1979.

Yes, of course. I have edited it.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I work for the I.W.W. mostly because it's the closet thing I can get Left Communism in my area. Which isn't good enough for Devrim obviously since it isn't the ICC, but he can go fuck himself.

I am quite shocked, really, by the way you address people. It isn't really very nice, and I don't think I have ever been rude to you.

It is not because it isn't the ICC. It could be any left communist organisation.


No, I just don't consider the ICC or ICT to be liberating and to say the least, upholding of the Council Communist - a current of Left Communism - tradition which I associate and organize by.

It is true that both the ICC and ICT aren't council communists. They represent a synthesis of the German and Italian left. The fact is that there aren't really any 'councilist' groups around today, which is something that I personally think is not unconnected to their ideas about organisation.


I'd like to see a link, to say the programme of KAPD where it says it's an elite vanguard party?

Try people such as Otto Rühle even:


For the KAPD the revolution is the business of the whole proletarian class within which the communist party forms only the most mature and determined vanguard.

Source (https://www.marxists.org/archive/ruhle/1920/ruhle01.htm)

Or the GIK(H), Group of International Commun*ists of Holland, a councilist group, which contained many ex-members of the KAPD:


The KAPD rejected the idea of the Leninist party, such as prevailed after the Russian Revolution (a mass party) and held that a revolutionary party was essentially the party of an elite, based on quality not quantity.

Source (http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/peterloo4_workers_councils_germany.pdf)

Gorter refers to the party as a vanguard repeatedly in 'Open Letter', for example:


Uniting with the KPD would have meant dissolving the communist vanguard into a party which supported trade unions, parliament, and the social democratic parties.
...
That is what their vanguard did, just like the German one, the KAPD.
...
Except for Germany, there is no vanguard anywhere yet.


There is another text not on line where he uses the term 'elite vanguard party'. Also the minutes of the KAPD congresses repeatedly refer to a vanguard.


Furthermore, by modern standards, no Bordigaist would agree with organization of the KAPD, as it wasn't a Vanguard in the traditional sense of the word, and it was extremely federated.

The Bordigists certainly didn't agree with the organisation of the KAPD then, nor do they now, but the KAPD was certainly for centralism. KAPD leader Karl Schroder stated it very clearly:


the more centralised communist society is, the better it will be

Source (http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/peterloo4_workers_councils_germany.pdf)


And Council Communism wasn't really a tendency apart from Left Communism till later.

Yes, but the KAPD described itself as 'left communist':


A crystallised kernel must be formed to which those elements and groups which are opposed to the Moscow International and are comprised of what is known as "Left" Communism.

Source (http://libcom.org/library/why-fourth-international-herman-gorter)


Never said he [Cajo Brendel]was an Anarchist, I said he wrote for Anarchist Papers and was a part of Anarchist Movements as its system of organization was similar to that expressed by the KAPD and Pannekoek.

I knew Cajo, and I don't remember him being involved in anarchist movements.


I work for the I.W.W. mostly because it's the closet thing I can get Left Communism in my area.
...
Plus I don't see any branches in my area.

Does that mean that you can't write to them, or get involved with them if you wanted to?


Until recently, our local radical bookstores weren't selling any Bordiga, ICT or ICC works till I started printing them out :/

If you wanted to put our stuff in local bookshops, we would send it to you, and I am sure the ICT would too. I could put you in touch with them if you wanted.


I hear about of Councilist groups descending from the JFT in California particulary the Flying Picket (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.flyingpicket.org/).

I am not sure just how 'councilist' they are. I know that Lauren Goldner was involved in setting it up, and that he is for a party. I imagine that the others are too. We have contacts and they have organised a couple of meetings for us.


There origins were defiantly in Left Communism, specifically Socialisme ou Barbarism who basically were saying that same stuff as Paul Mattick and Pannekoek plus a little bit more Centralisation (Cornelius in particular).

The Johnson Forester Tendency was clashed alot with Second Generation Councilists. In the end the more radical tendency in the JFT came to be basically Council Communism.

I think that there is a real gulf between us on this question. Certainly these groups origins weren't in left communism, but in Trotskyism. For us, the ideas of the communist left are not just a fetishism of councils.. You can speak to many Trotskyists who will say very similar things to us, but incorporate a whole consistent set of politics. Many of the positions of these groups, for example SouB's rejection of Marxism, and James' support for national liberation movements put them outside of this.

I think it is fair to say that they were influenced by the communist left, but I don't think they were in any way left or council communists.

Devrim

[Paulappaul]

Try people such as Otto Rühle even:Who describes in the same context that Vanguard is not, for purposes sake lets take look at the entirety of the whole quote.

"Centralism is the organisational principle of the bourgeois-capitalist age. With it the bourgeois state and the capitalist economy can be built up. Not however the proletarian state and the socialist economy. They demand the council system. For the KAPD—contrary to Moscow—the revolution is no party matter, the party no authoritarian organisation from the top down, the leader no military chief, the masses no army condemned to blind obedience, the dictatorship no despotism of a ruling clique; communism no springboard for the rise of a new Soviet bourgeoisie. For the KAPD the revolution is the business of the whole proletarian class within which the communist party forms only the most mature and determined vanguard. The rise and development of the masses to political maturity of this vanguard doesn’t await the tutelage of the leadership, discipline and regulation. On the contrary: these methods produce in an advanced proletariat such as the German exactly the opposite result. They strangle initiatives, paralyse the revolutionary activity, impair the combativeness, reduce the personal feeling of responsibility. What counts is to trigger the initiative of the masses, to free them from authority, to develop their self-confidence, to train them in self-activity and thereby to raise their interest in the revolution. Every fighter must know and feel why he is fighting, what he is fighting for. Everyone must become in his consciousness a living bearer of the revolutionary struggle and creative member of the communist build-up. The necessary freedom therefore will however never be won in the coercive system of centralism, the chains of bureaucratic-militaristic control, under the burden of a leader-dictatorship and its inevitable accompaniments: arbitrariness, personality cult, authority, corruption, violence. Therefore transformation of the party-conception into a federative community-conception on the line of councilist ideas. Therefore: supercession of external commitments and compulsion through internal readiness and willingness. Therefore: elevation of communism from the demagogic prattle of the paper cliche to the height of one of the most internally captivating and fulfilling experiences of the whole world."

So, the KAPD is a "Vanguard" not in the most modern sense of the word, but in this sense of the it's 'masses coming to political maturity' through a system of party which is a 'federative community'


The Bordigists certainly didn't agree with the organisation of the KAPD then, nor do they now, but the KAPD was certainly for centralism. KAPD leader Karl Schroder stated it very clearly:Except not in the context you just gave me. I don't deny there is Centralist tactics, and Centralist Goals (Centralized Council apparatus) within the Council Communism. Sylvia Pankhurst for one was much more sympathetic to Centralism then Pannekoek or Ruhle, much like Schroder.

Plus your quote is in the context of a post revolutionary time, not in the heat of a struggle.

Really though, look at the organization of the KAPD, it was highly federated, united on principles only participating as more a wing to the radical Unions.


Yes, but the KAPD described itself as 'left communist':Because Council Communism hadn't been really invented yet. It doesn't really matter though cause I see Council Communism in the bigger picture with Italian tactics into what we call "Left Communism".


I think that there is a real gulf between us on this question. Certainly these groups origins weren't in left communism, but in Trotskyism. For us, the ideas of the communist left are not just a fetishism of councils.. You can speak to many Trotskyists who will say very similar things to us, but incorporate a whole consistent set of politics. Many of the positions of these groups, for example SouB's rejection of Marxism, and James' support for national liberation movements put them outside of this.Good point.


Such as whom?Karl Korsch (http://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/index.htm) for one.


If you wanted to put our stuff in local bookshops, we would send it to you, and I am sure the ICT would too. I could put you in touch with them if you wanted.

That would be useful.

[Zanthorus]

James' support for national liberation movements

To play devils advocate here, if we were to reject James from the Left-Communist tradition for supporting national liberation struggles, we would also have to eject the post-1949 Bordiga, and indeed the whole of the International Communist Party (Programma Comunista) and all the groups that split from them, as one of the issues on which they split from Battaglia was wether or not to support anti-colonial struggles.

[Devrim]

Who describes in the same context that Vanguard is not, for purposes sake lets take look at the entirety of the whole quote.

I used Rühle first as he is know for being amongst the most councilist in the KAPD. I didn't use it to argue his ideas, but that even he recognised that the KAPD saw itself as a vanguard. Also, he spoke for a minority in the party, which soon found itself outside.


So, the KAPD is a "Vanguard" not in the most modern sense of the word, but in this sense of the it's 'masses coming to political maturity' through a system of party which is a 'federative community'

What is 'the modern sense of the word' though? Of course the communist left today, and historically has a completely different conception of a vanguard party from the leftists, which is connected to its ideas on mass parties and elite parties.


Really though, look at the organization of the KAPD, it was highly federated, united on principles only participating as more a wing to the radical Unions.

In what way? It never claimed to be 'federalist'. It had a 'central committee'.

Also the KAPD's factory organisations weren't unions.


Because Council Communism hadn't been really invented yet. It doesn't really matter though cause I see Council Communism in the bigger picture with Italian tactics into what we call "Left Communism".

Yes, but 'left communism' as a term can describe two things. It can describe the left in the third international, or it can describe the descendants of the synthesis of the Italian and german lefts carried out by the Italian left in exile, the ICC, ICT and similar groups today. Nowadays the other two expressions of the left in the international are generally refered to as Bordigists and Councilists. In a way the term today is used to describe the cross-over.


Karl Korsch (http://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/index.htm) for one.

I don't think that Korsch ever became an anarchist.


That would be useful.

I will write to the relevant people when I come home from work tonight.

Devrim

[Patchd]

yeah, I know that for some in AF unions are "bourgeois" but that is not a majority position among social anarchists. and certainly was not the historically dominant view among social anarchists.
What do you mean by us viewing unions as 'bourgeois'? Do you think we don't agitate within unions themselves? (I am just curious btw) Also, its not just AFed members who are the only anarchists to have criticised the role of unions.

[black magick hustla]

To play devils advocate here, if we were to reject James from the Left-Communist tradition for supporting national liberation struggles, we would also have to eject the post-1949 Bordiga, and indeed the whole of the International Communist Party (Programma Comunista) and all the groups that split from them, as one of the issues on which they split from Battaglia was wether or not to support anti-colonial struggles.

I guess if one uses left communism as a term to call a current with a certain history and with certain principles, but that they were of course not always static (case in point, the bordigists and nationalo liberation) James is still out of the current. James came out of trotskyism and the forrest johnson tendency was made up of people organically linked with the fourth international (atleast for a period of time). All the bordigist groups came out of the struggles of the left wing of the Comintern. James clearly did not. That does not mean there is no value of CLR James, I love CLR James. I think he was wrong on some issues though, but I think it is particularly understandable to the specificities of the american millieu, where the race question is much more binding and difficult to engage than in other industralized countries.

[Paulappaul]

In what way? It never claimed to be 'federalist'. It had a 'central committee'.

Also the KAPD's factory organisations weren't unions.Source?

The AAUD the most important part of the party, was a federalist organ. All ideological factions which culminated into the KAPD, whether it be the Bremen Left, Pannekoek's faction, the IKD or Ruhle's faction were advocating a federalized styled party of which was not a 'party in the traditional sense of the word'.

Source: John Gerber's "Left Radicalism to Council Communism (http://libcom.org/files/left%20radicalism.pdf)"


What is 'the modern sense of the word' thoughIn a Defacto centralized organ of the Working Class Party.


Also the KAPD's factory organisations weren't unions.Yes, but they called them Workers' Unions.


I don't think that Korsch ever became an anarchist.He went so far as to reject Marxism as it adheres unconditionally to the political forms of the bourgeois revolution.

[Devrim]

Source?

What would you like a source for, that the KAPD had a central committee?


Report presented at the meeting of the KAPD Central Committee on July 31, 1921, by a KAPD delegate to the Third Congress of the Third International.

Source (http://libcom.org/history/kapd%E2%80%99s-report-third-congress-communist-international)

That it never claimed to be 'federalist'?

It is pretty much impossible to give sources for negatives.


The AAUD the most important part of the party, was a federalist organ.

I don't understand why you see the AAUD as the 'most important part of the party'. The AAUD, unlike the KAPD did not see itself as centralist. However, it did not see itself as federalist either, but rather as going beyond both concepts:


Centralism and federalism are both bourgeois forms of expression. Centralism is more typically big bourgeois, while federalism is more petit-bourgeois. Both are anti-proletarian and stand in the way of the purification of the class struggle.

Source (http://libcom.org/history/extracts-guidelines-aaud)


All ideological factions which culminated into the KAPD, whether it be the Bremen Left, Pannekoek's faction, the IKD or Ruhle's faction were advocating a federalized styled party of which was not a 'party in the traditional sense of the word'.

In which case it should be possible for you to provide a quote from Pannokeok arguing for a federalised party from the period that he was in the KAPD. I don't think that an article by somebody who repeatedly refers to 'federations' really counts here. It isn't a primary source, and anybody can put their own slant on things.


That the KAPD's factory organisations weren't unions?

Take a look at their programme:


8.But the AAUD is particularly opposed in the most violent possible manner to the trade unions because they are the principal obstacles to the continuation of the proletarian revolution in Germany. They are the principal obstacles standing in the way of the unification of the proletariat as a class.

Source (http://libcom.org/history/program-aaud)


Yes, but they called them Workers' Unions.

No they didn't. They called them Unionen. However, the word for union in German is Gewerkschaftsbund.


He went so far as to reject Marxism as it adheres unconditionally to the political forms of the bourgeois revolution.

That doesn't make Korsch an anarchist though. Castoriadis rejected Marxism too, but didn't become an anarchist.

Devrim

[Paulappaul]

What would you like a source for, that the KAPD had a central committee?

Frankly, that's a poor source. When the revolutionaries of an organization come together and draw up a programme or sent a representative to an international meeting that isn't a 'central committee' in a Vanguard sense of the word. If it was, any Anarchist organization could be Centralized.


I don't understand why you see the AAUD as the 'most important part of the party'. The AAUD, unlike the KAPD did not see itself as centralist. However, it did not see itself as federalist either, but rather as going beyond both concepts:

Because generally more stress was laid on the workers self liberation via their own means rather then KAPD leading a struggle.

Thanks for that source by the way it was insightful.


In which case it should be possible for you to provide a quote from Pannokeok arguing for a federalised party from the period that he was in the KAPD. I don't think that an article by somebody who repeatedly refers to 'federations' really counts here. It isn't a primary source, and anybody can put their own slant on things.

It's a sourced a document and frankly, it comes from the Journal of Contemporary history and the international institute of Social History in Amsterdam (where Pannekoek lived) and furthermore comes from larger book on Pannekoek's life. (http://books.google.com/books?id=WSDK3lyJGbIC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=Anton+Pannekoek,+Theoretikus+van+het+Socialisme&source=bl&ots=Lu9r0gC6fb&sig=vXA0zFrzSRZQEcVeCOXH1j9T74s&hl=en&ei=TWPXTKT5PIWssAPF4M2NCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Anton%20Pannekoek%2C%20Theoretikus%20van%20het%2 0Socialisme&f=false)

I can't quote Pannekoek, mainly cause he didn't talk to much about the organization of a party in his main documents (other then adhering to organization of the KAPD, which was Federalist), other then there shouldn't be one outside of a propaganda source.

In John Gerber's piece he talks about Pannekoek's conception of the party a bit though although it's from a German piece by Cajo Brendel which I can't find now the Council Communist archive is down.


Take a look at their programme:

I never said they were unions, only that they were called unions.


No they didn't. They called them Unionen. However, the word for union in German is Gewerkschaftsbund.

Arbeiter Unionen, a term used by Syndicalists as well which means Workers' Union. Gewerkschaftsbund means trade union.

[Devrim]

Frankly, that's a poor source. When the revolutionaries of an organization come together and draw up a programme or sent a representative to an international meeting that isn't a 'central committee' in a Vanguard sense of the word. If it was, any Anarchist organization could be Centralized.

What does 'in the vanguard sense of the word' mean? Most of the concepts that you are using seem to come from anarchism. They don't come from Marxism at all. The discussion seems to go along the lines of, you state something, I show an original source showing that it isn't how the KAPD saw itself, and you say something like "that isn't a 'central committee' in a Vanguard sense of the word" or "the KAPD is a "Vanguard" not in the most modern sense of the word,".

You don't attempt to understand the words in the way that the communist left themselves used them, which is profoundly different from both the anarchist and later Leninist concepts.


It's a sourced a document and frankly, it comes from the Journal of Contemporary history and the international institute of Social History in Amsterdam (where Pannekoek lived) and furthermore comes from larger book on Pannekoek's life. (http://www.anonym.to/?http://books.google.com/books?id=WSDK3lyJGbIC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=Anton+Pannekoek,+Theoretikus+van+het+Socialisme&source=bl&ots=Lu9r0gC6fb&sig=vXA0zFrzSRZQEcVeCOXH1j9T74s&hl=en&ei=TWPXTKT5PIWssAPF4M2NCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Anton%20Pannekoek%2C%20Theoretikus%20van%20het%2 0Socialisme&f=false)

So what. It comes from an academic writing at the end of the 1980s. It represents his analysis of the KAPD. Different people have different analysis. If you were to read the ICC's book on the German/Dutch communist left, you would find a very different one.

To show what the KAPD actually thought themselves surely you need to go back to original sources, which I have done consistently throughout this discussion, and you have done on precisely zero occasions.


I can't quote Pannekoek, mainly cause he didn't talk to much about the organization of a party in his main documents (other then adhering to organization of the KAPD, which was Federalist), other then there shouldn't be one outside of a propaganda source.

Please provide just one original source that says the KAPD was federalist. The reason you can't quote Pannekeok on this is that at the time, he didn't believe in it.


In John Gerber's piece he talks about Pannekoek's conception of the party a bit though although it's from a German piece by Cajo Brendel which I can't find now the Council Communist archive is down.

Later council communist analysis are not original sources.


I never said they were unions, only that they were called unions.

You did refer to them as unions. I was merely pointing out that they were not:


Really though, look at the organization of the KAPD, it was highly federated, united on principles only participating as more a wing to the radical Unions.


Arbeiter Unionen, a term used by Syndicalists as well which means Workers' Union. Gewerkschaftsbund means trade union.

The term was taken up by the syndicalists after the emergence of the first communist factory organisations. Previously the syndicalists were called trade unions, Freie Vereinigung deutscher Gewerkschaften. Here you seem to be looking at the discussion through the eyes of the US based IWW, and the syndicalists who developed an argument around industrial vs trade unions. It is an argument which isn't really a part of the toolbox of the German communist left though.

Devrim

[Paulappaul]

What does 'in the vanguard sense of the word' mean? Most of the concepts that you are using seem to come from anarchism. They don't come from Marxism at all. The discussion seems to go along the lines of, you state something, I show an original source showing that it isn't how the KAPD saw itself, and you say something like "that isn't a 'central committee' in a Vanguard sense of the word" or "the KAPD is a "Vanguard" not in the most modern sense of the word,".First of all, what sources? I have yet to see a piece where the KAPD says, "we adhere to Centralist party with an elite vanguard".

I brought you the fact that Otto Ruhle called for Federalist style party, the Bremen Left - inspired by the paper which Pannekoek edited - called for a Federalist style party. The IKD the forerunner of the KAPD in KPD called for a more federalised styled party against Rosa Luxemburg.

The "central committee" was not leading any struggle. It was so acknowledged that within the factory organizations which it presumed to be the heart of the struggle, that it didn't do anything but put up slogans for them and educate inside them.

The central committee was for as I said, to draw up programmes and send out representatives. Not to lead the party or the working class.

They shared with the other Communist left that the purpose of the party was to draw together the most class conciseness sections of the class, but not to have them lead the struggle, but to have them work alongside the working class. Contray to other political parties which saw themselves as leading a struggle through a centralized means, the KAPD saw themselves as not a party in this traditional sense.

This conception was down right rejected by Italian Communist Party, take theses 5 in the "role Communist Party in the Proletarian Revolution" by Bordiga,


The declaration of the "Left" Communists of Germany (KAPD) at their founding congress in April, that they were founding a party, but "not a party in the traditional sense of the word", is an ideological surrender to these reactionary views of syndicalism and industrialism.It was not a Vanguard in the sense of the other Communist left. It was not an elite party.



To show what the KAPD actually thought themselves surely you need to go back to original sources, which I have done consistently throughout this discussion, and you have done on precisely zero occasion.
Except for you know actually quoting the Programme of the KAPD, Ruhle and now Bordiga.

What did you source? A description created by Libcom?


The reason you can't quote Pannekeok on this is that at the time, he didn't believe in it.No, because we don't have any documents where Pannekoek talks to much about parties other then critiquing formal Political Parties.

Please find me a document by Pannekoek during or before the KAPD which says he believes in Centralism.

Because we don't have every piece of literature created by Pannekoek, most of the time we must rely on Biographies and writtings on Left Wing Radicalism in Germany.


You did refer to them as unions. I was merely pointing out that they were not:Your right, I did and I apologize for the inaccuracy of my statement, I was calling them what the German Left called them, i.e. Unions.


The term was taken up by the syndicalists after the emergence of the first communist factory organisations. Previously the syndicalists were called trade unions, Freie Vereinigung deutscher Gewerkschaften. Here you seem to be looking at the discussion through the eyes of the US based IWW, and the syndicalists who developed an argument around industrial vs trade unions. It is an argument which isn't really a part of the toolbox of the German communist left though.
Actually it was really the FAUD which first started using the word the word Arbeiter Unionen. The AAUD split from this from the willingness to align with the KAPD later. They were called Unions, but in actuallity they were really closer to Soviets, at least in Pannekoek's mind, although Gorter used the term union alot over soviet for some reason.

[Devrim]

First of all, what sources? I have yet to see a piece where the KAPD says, "we adhere to Centralist party with an elite vanguard".

Well I quoted a Dutch councilst source the GIK discussing the KAPD:


The KAPD rejected the idea of the Leninist party, such as prevailed after the Russian Revolution (a mass party) and held that a revolutionary party was essentially the party of an elite, based on quality not quantity.

and Gorter from 'Open letter'.


Uniting with the KPD would have meant dissolving the communist vanguard into a party which supported trade unions, parliament, and the social democratic parties.
...
That is what their vanguard did, just like the German one, the KAPD.
...
Except for Germany, there is no vanguard anywhere yet.

I think that it is quite clear that it is for an 'elite vanguard party'. As I said there is also a piece by Gorter which uses the term. Unfortunately it is not on-line.

I think that perhaps you should be asking yourself what the german left meant by an elite party, as opposed to a mass party, and how they understood the idea of the vanguard.


I brought you the fact that Otto Ruhle called for Federalist style party,

My mistake, I looked back through your posts and didn't notice the Rühle quote as it wasn't in a quotation box.

I think that you have to accept though that Rühle was in a minority within the KAPD that soon found itself outside it. It is not the conception of the party as a whole.

This is from an ICC text and not a primary source. I feel though that it might be worth your timje as it discusses some of the divergences within the party:


Otto Ruhle and his group split on the basis of ideas that were the exact opposite of Pannekoek’s. Ruhle abandoned the party in favor of the Union, which he saw as the real unitary organization which did away with any need for a party. Ruhle saw the party as an enormous apparatus which sought to direct the struggle from above, down to its last details. This is the conception of the party that Rosa Luxemburg reproached Lenin for holding.

The same text goes on to quote Karl Schroder, who was a central committee member and party spokesman, on federalism:


The KAPD majority defended centralism from below, as opposed to Ruhle’s federalism. “Federalism is sheer nonsense if it means separating enterprises or districts when they actually represent a whole” (Karl Shroder: Vorn Werden Einer Neuen Gesellschaft). In the pamphlet Die Klassenkampf-Organisation des Proletariats (The Organization of the Proletariat’s Class Struggle), Gorter defended the idea of the distinct existence of the KAPD in relation to the ‘Union’.

the Bremen Left - inspired by the paper which Pannekoek edited - called for a Federalist style party. The IKD the forerunner of the KAPD in KPD called for a more federalised styled party against Rosa Luxemburg.

This you haven't supported by any quotations except the opinion of a 'libertarian' academic writing in the 1980s.


The "central committee" was not leading any struggle. It was so acknowledged that within the factory organizations which it presumed to be the heart of the struggle, that it didn't do anything but put up slogans for them and educate inside them.

The central committee was for as I said, to draw up programmes and send out representatives. Not to lead the party or the working class.

Again, I think that you should consider how the German left saw leadership, and the task of a central committee.


They shared with the other Communist left that the purpose of the party was to draw together the most class conciseness sections of the class, but not to have them lead the struggle, but to have them work alongside the working class. Contray to other political parties which saw themselves as leading a struggle through a centralized means, the KAPD saw themselves as not a party in this traditional sense.

But what did they mean by this? I think if you go back and examine what they were trying to say, they opposed the idea of a 'mass party' with an 'elite party'.


This conception was down right rejected by Italian Communist Party, take theses 5 in the "role Communist Party in the Proletarian Revolution" by Bordiga,

This is totally true. The Italian left saw the German left as "an ideological surrender to these reactionary views of syndicalism and industrialism". The German left saw the Italian left as ultra-Leninists.

Interestingly in the light of this discussion, I think that perhaps one of the reasons that the KAPD stressed 'centralism' and the 'vanguard nature of the party', was because they were constantly accused of 'syndicalism', and 'semi-anarchism' by the Leninists and Bordigists. Even if they had held those positions, and I don't think they did, they wouldn't have articulated them in that way, as it would open the way to more of the sort of criticisms they were defending themselves against. Rühle, of course, did openly defend those positions, but then he found himself outside the party very quickly, and whilst he was still inside his lack of party discipline was on occasion shocking.


It was not a Vanguard in the sense of the other Communist left. It was not an elite party.

Then why the the GIK say it saw itself as such?


What did you source? A description created by Libcom?

'An open letter to Comrade Lenin', 'Why we need the Fourth Communist Workers' International', 'Extracts from the guidelines of the AAUD', 'Program of the AAUD'...


What did you source? A description created by Libcom?

I think that the fact that a report to the central committiee exists tends to suggests that the central committee did too, unless you think that the anarchists at Libcom have changed the description of the committiee to make the KAPD look more centralised.


No, because we don't have any documents where Pannekoek talks to much about parties other then critiquing formal Political Parties.

Please find me a document by Pannekoek during or before the KAPD which says he believes in Centralism.

Try Marxist Theory and Revolutionary tactics:


What Kautsky has to say about the powers which the organisation has at its disposal is all very well: the quality of the arms which the proletariat forges for itself gives it self-confidence and a sense of its own capabilities, and there is no disagreement between us as to the need for the workers to equip themselves as well as possible with powerful centralised associations that have adequate funds at their disposal.

Source (http://marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/tactics.htm)


Because we don't have every piece of literature created by Pannekoek, most of the time we must rely on Biographies and writtings on Left Wing Radicalism in Germany.

We have to accept that the writers of these pieces also have their own political positions, and they are not primary sources. Why not quote from the ICC's book on the subject which has a very different position?


Actually it was really the FAUD which first started using the word the word Arbeiter Unionen. The AAUD split from this from the willingness to align with the KAPD later. They were called Unions, but in actuallity they were really closer to Soviets, at least in Pannekoek's mind, although Gorter used the term union alot over soviet for some reason.

No, the FAUD started using the term in September 1919, whereas the first of the unionen date to the spring of that year. the first AAU sections were formed in the late summer. Of course it represents the emergence of real organisations of the class, and the anarchists responded to that, and played a part in it.

Devrim