confused-Leninism or Council Communism?

[RedMarxist]

I'm in a point in my life where I really don't know what to believe. I admire the Maoist struggles worldwide, hell I even admire Mao's struggle in the 30's and 40's against right wing forces in China. I admire the Russian Revolution. I've read Lenin, Mao, and other writer's works that aren't necessarily Leninist or Maoist. But what bothers me is the authoritarian nature of Leninism in general. It always seems to lead to dictatorships that later abandon the revolution. One need only look at the China and how it claims to be socialist and seems to revere Mao, when It really is not doing either of those two things.

I'm reading Workers' Councils(1947) by Pannekoek, and after the spontaneous movements in Europe and the Mid-East against dictatorships and/or capitalism, I have begin to side more and more with council communism. People don't need a Marxist-Leninist 'vanguard party' to lead the revolution, they only need themselves and a bit of self-organization, and can topple a regime without a leader or party telling them what to do and how to do it. What do you think is the correct path? Can council communism even work, as it seems as if its only in thee theory stage even after all these years.

[RichardAWilson]

Well, wouldn’t that depend on how you define Vanguard? Marx and Lenin had two different definitions for “Vanguard.”

I happen to believe the Party should be the Vanguard: In the sense that it directs the working classes and provides them with the theoretical ideas and direction that they need. However: It should as open and democratic as possible and the power structure should be decentralized.

Council Communism can, of course, be a means of supplementing the Vanguard and providing a check-and-balance method for holding the Party accountable.:)

[Raightning]

The big issue I have with council communism is how feasible a genuine revolution is without the existence of a vanguard. For all the talk of "people power" and "self-organisation", if the proletariat are not fully conscious then communism cannot occur, and given the organised onslaught that comes out from the ruling class (in words rather than weapons in this case), I get the impression that a large and even centralised organisation is necessary to lay the groundwork for revolution.

You talk about the Middle East revolutions, but look at Libya. Many such 'councils' there particularly are entirely under the domination of neoliberalism and the West. Elsewhere across the Middle East, the people fight for nationalism and Islam. Self-organisation may be right for the first floor, but I don't see how you can lay the foundations with it.

The problem of the authoritarian political culture and all that is entirely another question, and I'd be interesting to hearing from Leninists and the like about that.

[RichardAWilson]

Marx and Lenin both understand: There needs to be a certain number of Professional Revolutionaries and Intellectuals to provide ideas and direction.

Lenin, unlike Marx, believed in a Centralized and Authoritarian Vanguard: Whereas Marx believed in a Decentralized Vanguard that maximized working class inclusion.

[RedMarxist]

my point. Lenin did not put much trust in his own people to lead themselves. Look at Greece and how quickly people organized the assemblies, which have become like a political body in themselves, making decisions and what not.

Council's can conceivably be set up during a revolution and soon run things just as well as a vanguard party can. The chances of a dictator rising to power would also be much lower, with our without a 'decentralized' vanguard. Read Workers' Councils(1947) on the Marxist Archive. It explains everything better then I can

Pannekoek was very much against vanguardism, admitting it in his book. He saw Soviet Russia as state-capitalist and is critical of leninism in his book. I agree with him. Its very interesting theory.

[Terminator X]

I understand your dilemma, as I have switched my ideology to anarchist, when I started out in leftist politics identifying as a Marxist-Leninist. Pannekoek contributed to this change (completely unintentional, as I was actually intending to just read his essay "Religion" as part of a debate on materialism and atheism, but ended up reading much more), as I started thinking about the bankruptcy of the "vanguard party" throughout history and its seemingly inevitable failures and usual transition into authoritarian/dictatorial regimes.

I now think it is much more likely that after the revolution, the people will form their own political body, or own councils/communes/independent workers syndicates, rather than following some mythical group of "professional revolutionaries" after they just overthrew the leadership they despised. I view the vanguard as insulting, as the workers obviously achieved "class consciousness" in order to start the revolution in the first place - they don't need a group teaching them or explaining class struggle after they just went through it. (This obviously differs from left/council communism in that they still promote a "vanguard" of some sort, led by workers councils.)

[RedMarxist]

totally agreed. I've made up my mind and have decided to put my faith in council communism. Are there any council communist/Anarchist groups I can join?

[Hebrew Hammer]

totally agreed. I've made up my mind and have decided to put my faith in council communism. Are there any council communist/Anarchist groups I can join?

You're going to say 'fuck Maoism' that quickly?

[RedMarxist]

woa, What I've seen of Maoism, it leads to dictatorship. What I've seen of Leninism, It leads to dictatorship. Not that quickly either. I've spent a long time pondering this question. It has bothered me for so long and now I feel vindicated to say that Yes, Fuck Maoism. I am in favor of the notion that people can organize themselves. They don't need a vanguard party to tell them what to do and how to do it.

[Hebrew Hammer]

woa, What I've seen of Maoism, it leads to dictatorship. What I've seen of Leninism, It leads to dictatorship. Not that quickly either. I've spent a long time pondering this question. It has bothered me for so long and now I feel vindicated to say that Yes, Fuck Maoism. I am in favor of the notion that people can organize themselves. They don't need a vanguard party to tell them what to do and how to do it.

Well, I just noticed that the time of this thread spanned maybe a day, there was really not to many responses or debate, just seemed rather sudden. Infact, when writing my last post, it said "proud MLMist," then when posted it, it then said "proud Council Communist," just seemed odd to me. I just would like to ask, have you ever read Lenins, Left Communism, An Infantile Disease?

[Book O'Dead]

I'm reading Workers' Councils(1947) by Pannekoek, and after the spontaneous movements in Europe and the Mid-East against dictatorships and/or capitalism, I have begin to side more and more with council communism. People don't need a Marxist-Leninist 'vanguard party' to lead the revolution, they only need themselves and a bit of self-organization, and can topple a regime without a leader or party telling them what to do and how to do it. What do you think is the correct path? Can council communism even work, as it seems as if its only in thee theory stage even after all these years.

Leninism, named after one of the great revolutionaries of all time, is overrated. It's been tried and tested and has failed to produce that which we desire: Socialism.

Anton Pannekoek was a De Leonist. According to some people, Deleonism has never been tried. Maybe it's time we did.

[Thirsty Crow]

This whole issue of vanguard vs. self-organization is a false dichotomy.
In every revlutionary period there will be (a) "vanguard(s)" - the theoretically most advanced section of the working class, proletarian intellectuals if you like, organized in one way or another.
What is at stake here is the function and role of vanguard(s).
Council Communists, as far as I know, do not reject the vanguard (since that would imply quite an idiocy on their behalf for underestimating the differentiation of knowledge, skills and experience within the working class), but they do reject the notion of the party-state.



Anton Pannekoek was a De Leonist. According to some people, Deleonism has never been tried. Maybe it's time we did.
A word of advice: don't try to sound all knowledgable when it comes to issues you're not so knowledgable about.

[RedMarxist]

I changed my sig yes, sudden but not too strange. This is not a I suddenly decided to change my mind affair. I've done my research, pondered for a long time. Leninism is flawed in that it naturally allows for a brutal dictatorship to rise to power. Council Communism has never been tried, and yes bout time we tried it. The ability for large groups of people go get organized and challenge something is well know to have occurred throughout history, but never on a national level. Workers councils have been formed and have been proven to work just fine, so why can't we have that on a national scale? Why are so many parties supporters of Leninism? I really can't call myself a leninist/maoist, It just feels wrong to say that I am one.

However, I am not a true anarchist. Too little authority and you have just that, Anarchy. Councils will naturally take over from a parliamentary government. already occurring in Greece. It can work, just hasn't been tried all the way through. Enlighten me Leninists, how would you keep a vanguard party from taking all the power and forming a top-down bureaucracy that oppresses the workers?

Yes I have read Lenin's Infantile Disorder. He drones on and on about how the party 'must be steeled' to survive. At how the proletariat 'need a vanguard to lead them through the revolution and post revolution' Bullshit.

[Book O'Dead]

A word of advice: don't try to sound all knowledgable when it comes to issues you're not so knowledgable about.

Such as? Otherwise, keep your advice to yourself.

[Die Rote Fahne]

There's more options beside council communist that promote something other than a vanguard.

[Book O'Dead]

There's more options beside council communist that promote something other than a vanguard.

Such as?

[Conscript]

I get the feeling you're just calling yourself whatever sounds nice.

[Thirsty Crow]

Such as? Otherwise, keep your advice to yourself.
It was so hard to guess? My bad, apparently.

Pannekoek was not a DeLeonist, neither by self description not by his politics analyticall counterposed to De Leon's.
Of course, I may be wrong. But you should provide some evidence in order thatI may take you seriously on the issue of A. Pannekoek.

[Paulappaul]

they only need themselves and a bit of self-organization, and can topple a regime without a leader or party telling them what to do and how to do it.
Anton Pannekoek disagrees with you,


The struggle is so great, the enemy so powerful that only the masses as a whole can achieve a victory—the result of the material and moral power of action, unity and enthusiasm, but also the result of the mental force of thought, of clarity. In this lies the great importance of such parties or groups based on opinions: that they bring clarity in their conflicts, discussions and propaganda. They are the organs of the self-enlightenment of the working class by means of which the workers find their way to freedom.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/party-class.htm


Marx and Lenin both understand: There needs to be a certain number of Professional Revolutionaries and Intellectuals to provide ideas and direction.Huh? Where? Wasn't it Marx who said “[t]he Communists know only too well ... that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily, but that everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes.” ... what you say doesn't seem to coherent with this.


There's more options beside council communist that promote something other than a vanguard. Council Communism does support a Vanguard. For the Council Communists the Workers' Councils are the Vanguard of the revolution for which the party and all other classes trailed behind.


Council Communism has never been triedArguably Communism has never been tried. Production founded on a system of Workers' Councils such has many times over been tried.


Anton Pannekoek was a De Leonist.HAHA wut

[Zanthorus]

Anton Pannekoek was a De Leonist.

There is no suggestion in Pannekoek's writings that I am aware of that he was familiar with De Leon or his followers (Although Lenin did borrow the phrase 'labour lieutenants of the capitalist class' from De Leon in LWC:AID), although he was certainly familiar with and a fan of the IWW. At a basic level, Pannekoek was against participating in parliamentary elections and thought that Industrial Unions were incapable of being the organs of workers' power and the reorganisation of production, both points which are antithetical to De Leonism.


I just would like to ask, have you ever read Lenins, Left Communism, An Infantile Disease?

That book adresses the phase of development of the Dutch-German Left when they were still organised as a party - the KAPD. This was the period look back on which Ruhle remarked that they had been more Bolshevik than the Bolsheviks themselves. 'Council Communism' only really developed after Lenin's incapacitation in 1923 so this is one area on which you can't just mindlessly quote Lenin at people.

[ZeroNowhere]

Leninism, named after one of the great revolutionaries of all time, is overrated. It's been tried and tested and has failed to produce that which we desire: Socialism.

Anton Pannekoek was a De Leonist. According to some people, Deleonism has never been tried. Maybe it's time we did.Pannekoek was certainly not a De Leonite.


Marx and Lenin both understand: There needs to be a certain number of Professional Revolutionaries and Intellectuals to provide ideas and direction.No, there don't. Marx was a 'mechanistic' Marxist, as they are sometimes called, and it's pretty clear that ethically enlightened spreaders of ideology are not a necessary prerequisite of proletarian struggle, which in any case needn't be taken (and probably won't) in the name of socialism.

[Book O'Dead]

There is no suggestion in Pannekoek's writings that I am aware of that he was familiar with De Leon or his followers (Although Lenin did borrow the phrase 'labour lieutenants of the capitalist class' from De Leon in LWC:AID), although he was certainly familiar with and a fan of the IWW. At a basic level, Pannekoek was against participating in parliamentary elections and thought that Industrial Unions were incapable of being the organs of workers' power and the reorganisation of production, both points which are antithetical to De Leonism.

I stand corrected.

Just the same, my previous point remains unchallenged: Leninism has been tried and found wanting.

[Paulappaul]

There is no suggestion in Pannekoek's writings that I am aware of that he was familiar with De Leon or his followers (Although Lenin did borrow the phrase 'labour lieutenants of the capitalist class' from De Leon in LWC:AID)I found a rare find in a local bookstore, it was a Socialist Labor Party pamphlet regarding their positions to the Russian Revolution, Lenin and the Soviet Union. It also gave a historical outline of the relationship between the Third International and the SLP. In it they coupled Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxemburg and Daniel De Leon together and situated themselves in line with the Communist Left on many issues. They talked about the possiblity of Workers' Councils basically being a lessor advance version of the Industrial Union, but still adhering to the same basic principles. If I recall their was a detailed description between the relationship between Lenin and Deleon as well. Lenin was not to inspired, but asked from some of his articles to be printed in Iskra. Pretty sure Bukharin was more inspired by Deleon.

Regardless, I think people tangle Pannekoek and Deleon for lack of understanding of their ideas and because the SLP has from what it seems, tied them together and mentioned them together.

[Commie73]

I changed my sig yes, sudden but not too strange. This is not a I suddenly decided to change my mind affair. I've done my research, pondered for a long time. Leninism is flawed in that it naturally allows for a brutal dictatorship to rise to power. Council Communism has never been tried, and yes bout time we tried it. The ability for large groups of people go get organized and challenge something is well know to have occurred throughout history, but never on a national level. Workers councils have been formed and have been proven to work just fine, so why can't we have that on a national scale? Why are so many parties supporters of Leninism? I really can't call myself a leninist/maoist, It just feels wrong to say that I am one.

However, I am not a true anarchist. Too little authority and you have just that, Anarchy. Councils will naturally take over from a parliamentary government. already occurring in Greece. It can work, just hasn't been tried all the way through. Enlighten me Leninists, how would you keep a vanguard party from taking all the power and forming a top-down bureaucracy that oppresses the workers?

Yes I have read Lenin's Infantile Disorder. He drones on and on about how the party 'must be steeled' to survive. At how the proletariat 'need a vanguard to lead them through the revolution and post revolution' Bullshit.

Theres a lot of baggage around this term vanguard, and what exactly it means. When we look at the leninist conception of the vanguard, and the history of the russian revolution, the vanguard party places itself in the role that really belongs to the revolutionary working class. In leninism it is the vanguard of the working class which is the revolutionary agent, and this is why it was possible for the party to simply seize control in russia.

Maoism is an explicitly class colaboratory ideology, I dont think serious marxists should have anything to do with it really.

However, I think its important to address the need for organization. Does the working class need revolutionary organizations in order to achieve a revolutionary communist conciousness? I would say yes it does. If we look at the struggles in Spain and Greece, the reality of class conflict and the material conditions for the unemployed has led to revolt, and it has led to the formation of the assemblies, however they lack a communist leadership that can move it away from either liberal reformism, or from a-political nihilism (which has been a defining characteristic of the syntagma protests.)

Revolutionary organization is essential in promoting communist conciousness, it is what gives the form of workers councils their revolutionary content. I think both anarchists and marxists would agree on this point, however the differences would be on the form of revolutionary organization as well as its relationship to the class organs - the councils.

For a good response to lenin, try Gorters "an open letter to comrade lenin."

[Paulappaul]

However, I think its important to address the need for organization. Does the working class need revolutionary organizations in order to achieve a revolutionary communist conciousness? I would say yes it does. If we look at the struggles in Spain and Greece, the reality of class conflict and the material conditions for the unemployed has led to revolt, and it has led to the formation of the assemblies, however they lack a communist leadership that can move it away from either liberal reformism, or from a-political nihilism (which has been a defining characteristic of the syntagma protests.)

Revolutionary organization is essential in promoting communist conciousness, it is what gives the form of workers councils their revolutionary content. I think both anarchists and marxists would agree on this point, however the differences would be on the form of revolutionary organization as well as its relationship to the class organs - the councils.


Really? I totally disagree. As to your first point " Does the working class need revolutionary organizations in order to achieve a revolutionary communist conciousness? " I would say no. The most powerful propaganda is not that of the small milieu of Communists with words, but of the real propaganda of events. Consider the Paris Commune, the real propaganda of events led to the working class establishing their own government. Consider the revolutionary situation in Hungary 1956. Where was the Revolutionary Organization that gave the workers "Communist Consciousness" or the will to form their own autonomous Workers' Councils?

As to your second point, "If we look at the struggles in Spain and Greece, the reality of class conflict and the material conditions for the unemployed has led to revolt, and it has led to the formation of the assemblies, however they lack a communist leadership that can move it away from either liberal reformism, or from a-political nihilism (which has been a defining characteristic of the syntagma protests.)" - the notion that there are the formation of autonomous assemblies by themselves shows a Communist Consciousness. I don't think you read the struggles well at all either, for one it is important to separate what the Proletarit says and what the Proletarit does. The Proletarit taken in its individual atoms, taken by its individual opinions, we find that the Proletariat is conservative and only pursues Liberal Reformism. However the Proletariat taken as a class and taken in its action has demonstrated in Greece and Spain in the autonomous formation of Assemblies, of Direct action and in General Strikes we see its revolutionary character, its Communist Consciousness.

To your third point, "Revolutionary organization is essential in promoting communist conciousness, it is what gives the form of workers councils their revolutionary content. I think both anarchists and marxists would agree on this point, however the differences would be on the form of revolutionary organization as well as its relationship to the class organs - the councils." My experience with Anarchists would lead me to believe that they would disagree with you. What you're implying is hierarchical and authoritative. As a Marxist, I disagree you. The existence of Workers' Councils by themselves, if legitimately proletarian, for me imply a Communist Consciousness. Not if a Revolutionary Organization separate from the working class says or puts up the slogan that they are.

[Commie73]

Really? I totally disagree. As to your first point " Does the working class need revolutionary organizations in order to achieve a revolutionary communist conciousness? " I would say no. The most powerful propaganda is not that of the small milieu of Communists with words, but of the real propaganda of events. Consider the Paris Commune, the real propaganda of events led to the working class establishing their own government. Consider the revolutionary situation in Hungary 1956. Where was the Revolutionary Organization that gave the workers "Communist Consciousness" or the will to form their own autonomous Workers' Councils?


I agree with you that it is the reality of class struggle that creates conciousness, but i am yet to see how this can translate into communist conciousness without revolutionary organizations within the class arguing for communism - providing some form of leadership. Without a concious minority of revolutionaries, what is to stop the councils being directed back towards bourgeois parliamentarianism or simply reformism.



As to your second point, "If we look at the struggles in Spain and Greece, the reality of class conflict and the material conditions for the unemployed has led to revolt, and it has led to the formation of the assemblies, however they lack a communist leadership that can move it away from either liberal reformism, or from a-political nihilism (which has been a defining characteristic of the syntagma protests.)" - the notion that there are the formation of autonomous assemblies by themselves shows a Communist Consciousness. I don't think you read the struggles well at all either, for one it is important to separate what the Proletarit says and what the Proletarit does. The Proletarit taken in its individual atoms, taken by its individual opinions, we find that the Proletariat is conservative and only pursues Liberal Reformism. However the Proletariat taken as a class and taken in its action has demonstrated in Greece and Spain in the autonomous formation of Assemblies, of Direct action and in General Strikes we see its revolutionary character, its Communist Consciousness.


The creation of the assemblies has been because of the intervention of revolutionaries, not despite it. It is only because some anarchists managed to se up these structures that syntagma is now devloping a political conciousness rather than simply a-political moaning.



To your third point, "Revolutionary organization is essential in promoting communist conciousness, it is what gives the form of workers councils their revolutionary content. I think both anarchists and marxists would agree on this point, however the differences would be on the form of revolutionary organization as well as its relationship to the class organs - the councils." My experience with Anarchists would lead me to believe that they would disagree with you. What you're implying is hierarchical and authoritative. As a Marxist, I disagree you. The existence of Workers' Councils by themselves, if legitimately proletarian, for me imply a Communist Consciousness. Not if a Revolutionary Organization separate from the working class says or puts up the slogan that they are.


What makes you think that Revolutionary organizations are seperate from the class? I dont understand how what I have said about the need for organization is "authoritarian and hierarchical", I have argued for the organization of revolutionaries within the class in order to promote a communist conciousness.

[RedMarxist]

your views are very authoritarian. What makes you believe that the Greek assemblies need a vanguard party consisting of only a handful of revolutionaries to tell them what to do and how. Sorry for my ignorance on Pannokeok, I've only just began reading him, but I truly have made up my min and believe that people can organize without a totally authoritarian party.

Im not just choosing what sounds cool for my sig.


These assemblies have already voted to my knowledge to encircle a tv station, Mega, cause it spews pro government propaganda. is that not revolutionary, hardly every day that happens? it be like blockading FOX because you don't agree with their views.

They've called for the removal of the police barriers at parliament on the 28th, one week from now with cranes(yes, really.)They plan to dissolve parliament if I've been reading correctly, as to prevent austerity measures and force through a default which the government wont do.

is that not revolutionary?


From the looks of it people can organize themselves without a vanguard party telling them what to do and how. All of these revolutionary decisions were taken up democratically based on everyone's vote/opinion. Is that not revolutionary?

"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"

-Panneokoek

so explain why a vanguard party is the only way.

[Commie73]

your views are very authoritarian. What makes you believe that the Greek assemblies need a vanguard party consisting of only a handful of revolutionaries to tell them what to do and how. Sorry for my ignorance on Pannokeok, I've only just began reading him, but I truly have made up my min and believe that people can organize without a totally authoritarian party.


Where have I said that the working class need a vanguard party? In fact i explicitly said the failure of the Russian revolution was because the party took on the role of the class. The point however remains, that without a minority of concious revolutionaries, argueing within the class for communism, then we wont be able to achieve a communist revolution, this is not an authoritarian party telling people what to do, this is organized revolutionaries participating in the struggle as workers and trying to provide a "leadership of Ideas" which can direct the class towards communism.



These assemblies have already voted to my knowledge to encircle a tv station, Mega, cause it spews pro government propaganda. is that not revolutionary, hardly every day that happens? it be like blockading FOX because you don't agree with their views.

They've called for the removal of the police barriers at parliament on the 28th, one week from now with cranes(yes, really.)They plan to dissolve parliament if I've been reading correctly, as to prevent austerity measures and force through a default which the government wont do.

is that not revolutionary?


I think if you actually read what has been happening in greece, you will find that it is only because of the concious intervention of revolutionaries (probably from within the anarchist milieu), that has actually moved the protests away from anti-political nihilism.

whilst I disagree with a lot of the analysis regarding a front, and the concept of multitude put forward in this article, it provides quite a good account of the situation in syntagma writen by a greek revolutionary. It is useful until around the section entitled the "rise of the multitude." (im not allowed to post links atm, but try typing it into the bar)

(criticalglobalisation.com/blogs/nikoss_rise_of_greek_multitude.html)




From the looks of it people can organize themselves without a vanguard party telling them what to do and how. All of these revolutionary decisions were taken up democratically based on everyone's vote/opinion. Is that not revolutionary.

Yeah people can organize themselves, the revolutionary organization can not be the class, it is up to the working class to create revolution, however the revolutionary organization is their to argue for a class perspective and to guide the class, not control it.



"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"

-Panneokoek


Pannekoek is one of my favorite marxist writers after Paul Mattick Sr, but his views on political organization changed over time. When he was a member of the KAPD (German Communist Workers Party), he argued that the party was the organization of the most concious workers, and had to have a programme "hard as steel, clear as glass", this is in clear contrast to the latter anti-organizationalism that came out of the dutch-german communist left.

But read further down into the piece you quoted by pannekoek you will find:



If, in this situation, persons with the same fundamental conceptions unite for the discussion of practical steps and seek clarification through discussions and propagandize their conclusions, such groups might be called parties, but they would be parties in an entirely different sense from those of today.

[Paulappaul]

he argued that the party was the organization of the most concious workers, and had to have a programme "hard as steel, clear as glass", this is in clear contrast to the latter anti-organizationalism that came out of the dutch-german communist left.

Pannekoek didn't argue that, Herman Gorter did in Open Letter to Comrade Lenin. Pannekoek was in the "Dutch-German communist left" and so was the KAPD. Pannekoek stood more in line with the AAU-E then the KAPD. Your point is void.


I agree with you that it is the reality of class struggle that creates conciousness, but i am yet to see how this can translate into communist conciousness without revolutionary organizations within the class arguing for communism - providing some form of leadership. Without a concious minority of revolutionaries, what is to stop the councils being directed back towards bourgeois parliamentarianism or simply reformism.

Dumbass did you not read what I wrote? The very thing you quoted I showed how Class Struggle can translate into the movement for Communism i.e. the Paris Commune, The Hungarian Workers' Councils, etc. all without a revolutionary organization "arguing for communism".


this is organized revolutionaries participating in the struggle as workers and trying to provide a "leadership of Ideas" which can direct the class towards communism.

The "leadership of ideas" is just as bad as a Political Programme of a Vanguard Party. This is why the Councilists, partculary Paul Mattick said it was the duty of the party not to have any sort of ideas which govern the thoughts and actions of the proletariat, but to simply say to the proletarit, only your ideas, only your self action can get you the goods. A "Leadership of Ideas" is just trading off one bad leadership for another.


The creation of the assemblies has been because of the intervention of revolutionaries, not despite it. It is only because some anarchists managed to se up these structures that syntagma is now devloping a political conciousness rather than simply a-political moaning.

If the Egyptian Revolution has taught us anything it is that these sort of Social - Political assemblies arise naturally in the heat of struggle. There are Anarchist Assemblies in Greece and there are General Assemblies in Greece. The Anarchist assemblies talk about the question of power, but because they represent a small milieu that can't seriously attempt to pose the question of taking power. The General Assemblies on the other hand don't really talk about the question of power, they stick to simple struggles, simple rallies in the hope they can take the peaceful way out. But when conditions are right, the Later can seriously rest power from the state and establish a government based upon such assemblies and councils.

Consider this, nobody saw the revolutionary potential in the Greek Proletariat until that Kid was shot. The Anarchists talked about taking power before that happened. Then when the kid was shot, the people took the street aganist the state on their. Their was spontaneous coordination between peoples, a spontaneous setting up neighborhood committees and organizations. The Greek Proletariat up to that point was fairly conservative, it talked and acted reformist, then the next day it was breaking windows and burning cars.


What makes you think that Revolutionary organizations are seperate from the class?

They carry their own ideology separate from that of the class. They will always be compelled to look and understand things differently from the Working Class.


I dont understand how what I have said about the need for organization is "authoritarian and hierarchical", I have argued for the organization of revolutionaries within the class in order to promote a communist conciousness.

You're talking about leadership implementing conciousness unorganically into the thoughts and minds of the working class.

[Rafiq]

Take what you like about Lenin's works, and that of Panenek and Ruhle, and identify with that. You don't have to just stick to one tendancy, you know.

I agree with a lot of things Lenin said. He is certainly someone I wouldn't dismiss.

[Commie73]

Dumbass did you not read what I wrote? The very thing you quoted I showed how Class Struggle can translate into the movement for Communism i.e. the Paris Commune, The Hungarian Workers' Councils, etc. all without a revolutionary organization "arguing for communism".


These things dont simply happen without the existence of a minority of revolutionaries, the paris commune for example was heavily influenced by the Proudhonists.



If the Egyptian Revolution has taught us anything it is that these sort of Social - Political assemblies arise naturally in the heat of struggle. There are Anarchist Assemblies in Greece and there are General Assemblies in Greece. The Anarchist assemblies talk about the question of power, but because they represent a small milieu that can't seriously attempt to pose the question of taking power. The General Assemblies on the other hand don't really talk about the question of power, they stick to simple struggles, simple rallies in the hope they can take the peaceful way out. But when conditions are right, the Later can seriously rest power from the state and establish a government based upon such assemblies and councils.


Yes again with egypt, the self organized form arrose organically, however look at where it was directed, at the overthrow of capitalist dicators and to replace them with liberal capitalism.

In Greece, it was revolutionaries and anarchists participating in the assemblies that actually started to raise the issue of class.



Consider this, nobody saw the revolutionary potential in the Greek Proletariat until that Kid was shot. The Anarchists talked about taking power before that happened. Then when the kid was shot, the people took the street aganist the state on their. Their was spontaneous coordination between peoples, a spontaneous setting up neighborhood committees and organizations. The Greek Proletariat up to that point was fairly conservative, it talked and acted reformist, then the next day it was breaking windows and burning cars.


The Greek movement is still fairly conservative and reformist. The radicalism of a movement isnt measured by number of windows smashed and cars burnt, but by the content of its politics. The form of self organization is their, but we need revolutionaries who can move it away from reformism, towards a class analysis of capitalism and towards communism.

Im finding it really confusing that someone who quotes Bordiga's line about workers councils arising from the branches of the communist party, seems to be argueing an anti-organizational line.

[RedMarxist]

Agreed. Anarchist influence within the protests in Greece no doubt influence the creation of the assemblies/idea that this is a class struggle...against the government and IMF.

I don't know why the Greek government continues onwards as if the people want it to. Why don't the supposedly democratic, elected leaders step down and yield power to the assemblies?

Why is the IMF completely ignoring the fact that Greece is experiencing a genuine revolution. Why does it continue onwards as if the people want it to?

Oh ya, now I remember silly me! Because representative democracy is a system wherein you elect someone into a 4 year power trip wherein they proceed to fuck up the system, ignore the people who apparently put them their, and become part of a blind bureaucracy

The IMF is the same way. Blind and Bureaucratic


all they care about is not losing their hard earned profits. All they care about is making Greece suffer to save their pet project, the Eurozone. Why can't people realize this? Why won't people just overthrow the American, European, Asian, African, and all the other world "democracies" and usher in true democracy?

we all saw what happened when the Egyptian and Tunisian people let a new party take over...dictatorship in sheep's clothing. The people must take over, and not hand their lives over to supposedly elected new leaders

that is why I cannot say honestly that I am a Leninist. Under Leninism, a new party will inevitably take over from the old, bourgeois party and do the same things its predecessor was doing to oppress the people. Hence why Leninism has been tried and failed.

[Commie73]

we all saw what happened when the Egyptian and Tunisian people let a new party take over...dictatorship in sheep's clothing. The people must take over, and not hand their lives over to supposedly elected new leaders

that is why I cannot say honestly that I am a Leninist. Under Leninism, a new party will inevitably take over from the old, bourgeois party and do the same things its predecessor was doing to oppress the people. Hence why Leninism has been tried and failed.


And this is why we need revolutionaries organizing within the class. We have to look at the reality of struggle now, many of these movements now are very heterogenous, they are influenced more by post modern individualism than by marxism or anarchism. The emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself, when the forms of emancipation arrise, they will not neccessarily be permanent bodies, they will not neccessarily be for communism, the role of revolutionaries in this situation is to show how the struggle is a class struggle, and how this can lead to communism. What the revolutionary organization is not is a new government in waiting, it is also not the revolutionary agent, the revolutionary organization can not take on the role that belongs to the working class.

[Leftsolidarity]

To the OP: I feel exactly the same way. I admire Lenin and Mao while at the same time admiring stuff that leans more anarchist. I find myself somewhere in the middle and comfortable with each.

[Tim Finnegan]

Marx and Lenin both understand: There needs to be a certain number of Professional Revolutionaries and Intellectuals to provide ideas and direction.
In what sense does that constitute the necessity of a politically hegemonic vanguard party?

[Paulappaul]

These things dont simply happen without the existence of a minority of revolutionaries, the paris commune for example was heavily influenced by the Proudhonists.

haha wut. There were only 2 "Proudhonists" in the Paris Commune.


Yes again with egypt, the self organized form arrose organically, however look at where it was directed, at the overthrow of capitalist dicators and to replace them with liberal capitalism.

That wasn't their goal, that was the outcome. Look at the real demands from the hearts of the proletariat coming out the Independent Unions and Neighborhood Assemblies they are communistic.


The Greek movement is still fairly conservative and reformist. The radicalism of a movement isnt measured by number of windows smashed and cars burnt, but by the content of its politics.

I disagree. What people may say they believe in is different from the way they may act. Consider Wisconsin and the number of right wingers which in spite of their Governor in office came out in support of Workers' Rights. Take a piece from history, when the Unions were asked to take up a no strike pledge during World War 2 the vast majority of workers agreed and voted for the no strike pledge. The next day following the vote, the same workers went on Wildcat Strike after a dispute with management. You have a black and white conception of Working Class Consciousness; my point with Greece was to show you that despite what the Greek Proletariat said, it acted quite differently. If you view things in very Bourgeois nature, in terms of Politics and Positions, in a fashion more entailed to the Ballot Box, you're going to have trouble understanding consciousness.


Im finding it really confusing that someone who quotes Bordiga's line about workers councils arising from the branches of the communist party, seems to be argueing an anti-organizational line.

I'm not Anti - Organizational, neither was the "Dutch-German Communist Left" or the so called Councilists. My understanding of the duty of organization and of revolutionaries is just much different then your own.

[Tim Finnegan]

haha wut. There were only 2 "Proudhonists" in the Paris Commune.
And didn't Marx say that they were, like the Blanquists, obliged by circumstance to abandon their program, making them in effect not so much a professional vanguard as particularly enthusiastic functionaries?

[Paulappaul]

Yes and the Anarchists too, they were basically subject to the Working Class and the material conditions at hand.

[RedMarxist]

In my opinion the Egyptian/Tunisian people got screwed over kind of in a way. The dictator is gone but now they have a new dictator(and in Egypt a military junta) and are still oppressed thanks to capitalism! hooray!

Greece is the best shot the working class have at winning their world, so to speak. you can bet your ass that if/when Greece parliamentarian falls to the assemblies the world media(esp. Europe's) will try to say that anti democratic forces within exploited the movement, and that we should condemn the Greek people's actions because they 'destroyed democracy'

That's why the assemblies are blockading Mega TV. it basically flat out said that they are enemies of democracy and that we can't let the protesters succeed. So ya its a mouthpiece of the government. Now all they have to do is break down the door, and broadcast their message via TV broadcast nationwide to keep on fighting the government!

I remember a conversation with my stupid friend. They were all like: well, if real democracy in Greece succeeds then Europe's leaders will be bound to allow more democracy

and i was like: But that is the point. They WONT allow for real democracy until they are forced from power at the end of a bayonet. And It'll take the might of the working class, with a combo of strikes, protests, an general strikes to get us there.

and my friend was like: Wow, I never thought about it that way. I thought Europe's leaders would do what was in the best interest of the people, by allowing for real democracy.

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes and the Anarchists too, they were basically subject to the Working Class and the material conditions at hand.
Right, he's very specific that material conditions, rather vanguardist programs, are what determine the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Revolution, as the heightened form of class struggle, a "natural phenomenon" in class society, cannot be ordered in a mechanical fashion. (Correct me if I'm off the mark, here.)

I would really recommend that the OP give The Civil War in France a good close read in regards to this topic. It fleshes out some very important points in Marx's conception of the revolutionary working class, and was a pretty big influence (along with Pannekoek, which you've already got a hold of) in leading me to question the received vanguardist wisdom, at least in its Leninist form (obviously, some libertarian programs, e.g. that of the CNT, are rather different in character, and I don't feel competent to comment on them).

[Commie73]

I disagree. What people may say they believe in is different from the way they may act. Consider Wisconsin and the number of right wingers which in spite of their Governor in office came out in support of Workers' Rights. Take a piece from history, when the Unions were asked to take up a no strike pledge during World War 2 the vast majority of workers agreed and voted for the no strike pledge. The next day following the vote, the same workers went on Wildcat Strike after a dispute with management. You have a black and white conception of Working Class Consciousness; my point with Greece was to show you that despite what the Greek Proletariat said, it acted quite differently. If you view things in very Bourgeois nature, in terms of Politics and Positions, in a fashion more entailed to the Ballot Box, you're going to have trouble understanding consciousness.



Im really confused here. Im not a leninist, I dont think that the party can replace the class in revolution or whatever and ive been arguing that consistantly. Also Its precisly because I dont have a black and white view of conciousness that I see the need for revolutionary organizations, either marxist or anarchist, organizing within the class. Conciousness doesnt arrive fully formed, it is up to revolutionaries to argue within the class to further develop conciousness. I just dont see how already concious workers arguing for a class analysis and self management, arguing against reformism and parliamentarism isnt providing some form of leadership. Leadership doesnt have to be the iron grip and centralized control of a leninist vanguard party, it doesnt mean the class delegating its role to some other group which is outside the class.

[HEAD ICE]

Well, I just noticed that the time of this thread spanned maybe a day, there was really not to many responses or debate, just seemed rather sudden. Infact, when writing my last post, it said "proud MLMist," then when posted it, it then said "proud Council Communist," just seemed odd to me. I just would like to ask, have you ever read Lenins, Left Communism, An Infantile Disease?

I am entirely convinced that 99% of the people who invoke Lenin's "Left Wing Communism" have never actually read it.

The most exploited and counterfeited text for over forty years by all opportunist swines, each swine being characterised and defined by the barefaced invocation of it.

[Paulappaul]

Im really confused here. Im not a leninist, I dont think that the party can replace the class in revolution or whatever and ive been arguing that consistantly

I never assumed or said you were. Non leninists suffer from the same mechanical and black and white conception of the working class that Leninists do.


Also Its precisly because I dont have a black and white view of conciousness that I see the need for revolutionary organizations, either marxist or anarchist, organizing within the class.

That to me is a very narrow perception of consciousness. You have all the answers, the class doesn't. You come in with premonitions on the level of class consciousness. The point which Marx gave us is that Class Consciousness is natural, that the proletariat will be thrown into revolutionary situations regardless of organization. I posted a quote to you from preamble piece to the Communist Manifesto regarding this.


Conciousness doesnt arrive fully formed, it is up to revolutionaries to argue within the class to further develop conciousness.

Again a very general and narrow conception.


Leadership doesnt have to be the iron grip and centralized control of a leninist vanguard party, it doesnt mean the class delegating its role to some other group which is outside the class.

I never said it was an Iron Grip or Centralized control. But actually I would probably prefer that in an organisation. Leftist organisations are usually to flimsy on the right aspects of organisations, to federated, and "Iron" on the wrong aspects of organizations, to centralized.

Nor do I think a Vanguard Party economically speaking is outside the class. Socially I think definatly. They call themselves the most "Advanced Resolute minority" - which basically translates into being the freaks of the working class. When you try to raise the working class to such a resolute minority, to ideas which are so often stuck in the conditions of old times you run into alot of problems. One the working class stops thinking for itself, it starts to rely on the organization and on leaders for that. Two very often the tactics provided are as I said, tactics of old conditions suited to the consciousness of old workers.

For someone who claims to like Paul Mattick and Anton Pannekoek you don't know anything about what they believe. Mattick for one said it was the job of his party (the United Workers' Party) was not to provide leadership or guidance, but to tell the workers that only their own thoughts and their actions, only their self - activity could get them the goods. They held the position that they couldn't understand the working class in its entirity, couldn't understand the gray in between the Black and White.