Left Communism vs. Council Communism

[Marxaveli]

They seem virtually the same to me, from what I have read thus far. What are the differences between the two, if any?

[Azraella]

Council Communism is a specific kind of communism and left communism is an umbrella term for a wide range of ideas.

Let me dig up/research some information. But I think I got the gist of it.

[Manic Impressive]

There are probably two main people to read about in relation to the Left communism Antoine Pannekoek and Amadeo Bordiga. Pannekoek is also the main geezer behind council communism and personally I don't really consider Bordiga to be a Left Com as his politics where seriously whack. hope that helps ;)

[Jose Gracchus]

http://libcom.org/library/bordiga-versus-pannekoek

This is a great start.

[Rafiq]

Council Communism is the Dutch-German version of Left Communism and Borgida's less Libertarian and more pro-party pro-lenin was called Italian left communism.

But Left Communism was really an alternative to both Trotskyism and The currents of Marxism-Leninism, but I'm not so sure as to what their relation with Orthodox Marxism were.

[Marxaveli]

Thanks guys. So many different branches of Marxism it seems almost impossible to understand it all, lol. But my views seem closer to Panneokoek's than Bordiga's. In general I reject a vanguard party, as I believe the workers themselves must carry out the revolution, and I am one of those Commies who wants to distance it as far as possible from the Soviet Union.

[Rafiq]

I wouldn't say the Italian Left Communism was more distanced toward the Soviet Union, they were just more distanced toward Lenin's ideas.

Basically "Leninism" (really bad term to use but w/e) without the Trotsky or the Stalin

[ZeroNowhere]

There are probably two main people to read about in relation to the Left communism Antoine Pannekoek and Amadeo Bordiga. Pannekoek is also the main geezer behind council communism and personally I don't really consider Bordiga to be a Left Com as his politics where seriously whack. hope that helps ;)
To be honest, I tend to be more or less the opposite, and think that the council communists often (though not always) had questionable Marxist credentials, occasionally falling rather close to anarchism, while Bordiga was one of the most theoretically advanced of the left communists.

In any case, one difference between the two is that left communism describes a movement more than a coherent political tendency as such, while 'council communism' is a bit closer to a political tendency description. Left communism also, of course, included people like Bordiga, who was very much in favour of working class political organization and against the holding up of the democracy as a principle. For reference, I think that the whole 'ultra-Leninist' description of Bordiga is usually just a glorified way of calling him 'authoritarian' or some other nebulous anarchist term, quite apart from the fact that 'Leninism' doesn't exist as a coherent political or theoretical tendency and, if it did, Bordiga would not subscribe to it.

[promethean]

Council Communism is the Dutch-German version of Left Communism and Borgida's less Libertarian and more pro-party pro-lenin was called Italian left communism.

But Left Communism was really an alternative to both Trotskyism and The currents of Marxism-Leninism, but I'm not so sure as to what their relation with Orthodox Marxism were.Being pro-party does not mean being pro-Lenin. The advocacy of a party of the working class was actually seen in Marx's writings. Though their positions were not initially well formed with regard to Lenin or national liberation, the Italian left communists shared a common anti-parliamentarism and internationalism with the Dutch-German left communists.

Lenin's understanding of Marxism was through the ossified semi-reformism of the Second International (in spite of this reformist tendency, the theories formed among the leaders of the SDP, like Bebel, Kautsky etc are pretty useful and interesting to study). This type of Marxism was presented as "Orthodox" Marxism by the likes of Kautsky and this was appropriated by Lenin and modified to suit the peculiar backward conditions of Russia. The Marxism of the Second International arose in the midst of the expansionary progressive days of German capitalism, where reformism actually proved successful to a certain extent for the working class, hence the enormous strength and prestige of German social democracy and the SDP. However, after World War I, this facade fell through when the real nature of German social democracy was revealed, when it continued to stick to reformism and began supporting Germany in the war.

This was seen most clearly by people like Luxemburg, Pannekoek and Gorter. Though left communists did not agree on everything with Luxemburg when she was alive, they found her theories to be useful later on. Council communism was something that developed mainly in the Netherlands much after the failure of the German revolution. Most council communist groups died out some time in the eighties.

[Искра]

It’s common to think that Left-Communists “started to exist” after Russian Revolution when some of their groups spited from communist parties, but they existed for a long time within socialist and later communist parties as a factions. They were usually (but not always!) against parliamentary action (such as Russian Left-Communists who were against participation of Bolsheviks in Duma, or Bordiga who was against parliamentary action in 1919) and they were against national liberation struggle as they were internationalists. Right now I’m reading Bukharin’s biography and, as I’m still on the beginning of the book, he was known as one of Bolshevik Left-Communists (of course, later he changed his politics radically).

One of interesting Left-Communist fraction was one within Bolshevik party. I’m talking about Alexandra Kollontai’s fraction called Workers Opposition. Here you can find their document against Lenin and shutting up the soviets and stuff: http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/workers-opposition/index.htm

Left-Communist faction within German Communist Party (KPD) was first one to split from Commintern and KPD and they formed KAPD. KAPD later influenced on creation of council communism as they were close to their Dutch comrades: Pannenkoek and Gorter. KAPD was also party which was first to publish Workers Opposition’s document, because they were not able to do that in Russia. Frankly, I have to admit that I’m kind of surprised that Kollontai died of natural causes and that Stalin didn’t executed her.

Here’s KAPD’s view on Commitern: http://libcom.org/history/kapd%E2%80%99s-report-third-congress-communist-international

And here’s good interview with member of KAPD : http://libcom.org/library/meetings-kremlin-1921-reichenbach-kapd

And another one: http://libcom.org/library/bernard-reichenbach-kapd-retrospect-interview-member-communist-workers-party-germany

After KAPD split from KPD Lenin wrote his Left Wing Communism....and Gorter replayed with Letter To Comrade Lenin which basically sums all their differences: http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm

I don’t know much about Italian Left-Communism, but I’m also reading The Italian Communist Left 1926-1945 by ICC.

I hope I helped – somehow.

[black magick hustla]

also is important to remember the KAPD were not council communists. council communism appeared after more or less the death of the organized communist left in germany (KAPD). KAPD was pro party (obviously) and saw itself as a vanguard.

[Искра]

also is important to remember the KAPD were not council communists. council communism appeared after more or less the death of the organized communist left in germany (KAPD). KAPD was pro party (obviously) and saw itself as a vanguard.
Of course. I said that KAPD influenced creation of council communism, because it was a part of movement in which Pannenkoek participated :)

[Manic Impressive]

To be honest, I tend to be more or less the opposite, and think that the council communists often (though not always) had questionable Marxist credentials, occasionally falling rather close to anarchism, while Bordiga was one of the most theoretically advanced of the left communists.

In any case, one difference between the two is that left communism describes a movement more than a coherent political tendency as such, while 'council communism' is a bit closer to a political tendency description. Left communism also, of course, included people like Bordiga, who was very much in favour of working class political organization and against the holding up of the democracy as a principle. For reference, I think that the whole 'ultra-Leninist' description of Bordiga is usually just a glorified way of calling him 'authoritarian' or some other nebulous anarchist term, quite apart from the fact that 'Leninism' doesn't exist as a coherent political or theoretical tendency and, if it did, Bordiga would not subscribe to it.
I'm surprised you feel that way I thought De Leonists placed quite a bit of importance on organizing democratically. I would say Bordiga was more anti-democratic than Lenin. At least Lenin pretended that the working class were having a say in the revolution.
The concept of the proletariat's right to command its own class action is only an abstraction devoid of any Marxist sense.
That doesn't sound very Marxist to me. He advocates a select group of individuals take control of the revolution on behalf of the ignorant masses and force it upon them. Call that Authoritarian, call it ultra Leninist it doesn't matter, but it's not exclusively an anarchist position to despise and distrust a conspiratorial elite ruling over us. Just read Marx on Blanqui or Bakunin for that matter they're both guilty of doing the same thing as Lenin or Bordiga.

I do agree with you on Pannekoek his politics are very similar to syndicalist politics. Although, what is so important about him is his emphasis on democratically organizing within the proletariat and the proletariat creating revolution for themselves and it is that which makes him more of a Marxist than Bordiga was.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The advocacy of a party of the working class was actually seen in Marx's writings. Though their positions were not initially well formed with regard to Lenin or national liberation, the Italian left communists shared a common anti-parliamentarism and internationalism with the Dutch-German left communists.

Lenin's understanding of Marxism was through the ossified semi-reformism of the Second International (in spite of this reformist tendency, the theories formed among the leaders of the SDP, like Bebel, Kautsky etc are pretty useful and interesting to study). This type of Marxism was presented as "Orthodox" Marxism by the likes of Kautsky and this was appropriated by Lenin and modified to suit the peculiar backward conditions of Russia. The Marxism of the Second International arose in the midst of the expansionary progressive days of German capitalism, where reformism actually proved successful to a certain extent for the working class, hence the enormous strength and prestige of German social democracy and the SDP.

The advocacy may have been found in Marx's writings, but it was elevated to new levels by the partyists of the Second International.

"Ossified semi-reformism" is a woefully biased opinion of what was deemed the Marxist Center. I hardly consider the days of the Anti-Socialist Laws "expansionary progressive [...] German capitalism," considering that Germany was in the midst of the Long Depression. :glare:

[Savage]

I would say Bordiga was more anti-democratic than Lenin. At least Lenin pretended that the working class were having a say in the revolution.

That doesn't sound very Marxist to me. He advocates a select group of individuals take control of the revolution on behalf of the ignorant masses and force it upon them. Call that Authoritarian, call it ultra Leninist it doesn't matter, but it's not exclusively an anarchist position to despise and distrust a conspiratorial elite ruling over us. Just read Marx on Blanqui or Bakunin for that matter they're both guilty of doing the same thing as Lenin or Bordiga.

You seem to be confused as to Bordiga's position on democracy. He did not reject democracy on principle, but rather as a principle, as he did not see any form of organization as universally applicable. As Bordiga said, communist revolution is a question of content rather than form,

''We do not claim that these new criteria introduced into the representative mechanism, or codified in a constitution, stem from reasons of principle. Under new circumstances, the criteria could be different. In any case we are attempting to make it clear that we do not attribute any intrinsic value to these forms of organisation and representation. This is translated into a fundamental Marxist thesis: the revolution is not a problem of forms of organisation. On the contrary, the revolution is a problem of content, a problem of the movement and action of revolutionary forces in an unending process, which cannot be theorised and crystallised in any scheme for an immutable «constitutional doctrine».''

We support communism because we are practical materialists and support the class interest of the proletariat, not due to any eternal principles, such as ones which state that whatever the majority of an abstract population supports is correct. We do not claim to uphold ‘general’ interest; we only advocate the interest of a section of society as they are forced into antagonism with the opposing bourgeois section of society. To uphold the democratic principle, in saying that we support what ‘the people’ want is to ignore that capitalist society is divided into classes and to obscure our real support for only one class in particular, the proletariat.

Anyway, Bordiga accepted the democratic mode of organization when necessary, but did not uphold it as something which would apply to all situations,

''The democratic criterion has been for us so far a material and incidental factor in the construction of our internal organisation and the formulation of our party statutes; it is not an indispensable platform for them. Therefore we will not raise the organisational formula known as «democratic centralism» to the level of a principle. Democracy cannot be a principle for us. Centralism is indisputably one, since the essential characteristics of party organisation must be unity of structure and action. The term centralism is sufficient to express the continuity of party structure in space; in order to introduce the essential idea of continuity in time, the historical continuity of the struggle which, surmounting successive obstacles, always advances towards the same goal, and in order to combine these two essential ideas of unity in the same formula, we would propose that the communist party base its organisation on «organic centralism». While preserving as much of the incidental democratic mechanism that can be used, we will eliminate the use of the term «democracy», which is dear to the worst demagogues but tainted with irony for the exploited, oppressed and cheated, abandoning it to the exclusive usage of the bourgeoisie and the champions of liberalism in their diverse guises and sometimes extremist poses.''

[Искра]

Pannekoek was anti-party in his last years. His ideas are close to anarcho-syndicalism

[ZeroNowhere]

Bordiga was just arguing that we support the struggle of the working class in its own interests, regardless of what a statistical majority of the working class may favour or think about it. In other words, that democracy is not to be taken as a sectarian principle. There's nothing particularly shocking there, and he saw the revolution as a result of the working class' struggle in its own interests, so that he was hardly a Blanquist. Democracy is not a principle, it is a form of organization, and while it may be useful it is not sacred.

[promethean]

I'm surprised you feel that way I thought De Leonists placed quite a bit of importance on organizing democratically. I would say Bordiga was more anti-democratic than Lenin. At least Lenin pretended that the working class were having a say in the revolution. His anti-democratic stance is a bit more nuanced than that. His main point against considering democracy as an eternal rule was to stress the fact that democracy was just one form of organisation that developed under historical conditions. Fetishizing historically conditioned forms of social groups or parties is against historical materialism. This point is also to be found in Marx. Bordiga basically subjected democracy to historical materialism. The immediate reason for Bordiga's critique was probably to oppose bourgeois democracy and united fronts.

Call that Authoritarian, call it ultra Leninist it doesn't matter, but it's not exclusively an anarchist position to despise and distrust a conspiratorial elite ruling over us. Just read Marx on Blanqui or Bakunin for that matter they're both guilty of doing the same thing as Lenin or Bordiga.Bordiga did fetishize the party to an extent.

I do agree with you on Pannekoek his politics are very similar to syndicalist politics. Although, what is so important about him is his emphasis on democratically organizing within the proletariat and the proletariat creating revolution for themselves and it is that which makes him more of a Marxist than Bordiga was.One of Pannekoek's major weaknesses was his inability to see beyond the form of the workers councils. He considered that revolutions could be carried out by workers councils alone and in no other way. In many ways, he was conditioned by his experience in the German revolution. This stance was similar to the stance adopted by syndicalists towards unions.

[promethean]

I hardly consider the days of the Anti-Socialist Laws "expansionary progressive [...] German capitalism," considering that Germany was in the midst of the Long Depression. :glare:
The SPD gained in prestige and increased in number mainly after the long depression, which ended in 1879. What would Herr Junior Kautsky call the period following the repeal of the Anti-socialist laws in 1890?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Long Depression ended much later, not in 1879. Between the 1879 and the actual end there was a deflationary period.

Only in this context can one understand (though not sympathize with) and criticize the economic component of Bernstein's revisionism. Only in this context can one understand Marx's Capital and extrapolate appropriate conclusions for today (beyond Krugman's vulgarisms, for example).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

By far the best "councilist" materials in English came from Paul Mattick. Take a look: http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/index.htm