Methods of Organization

[Capitalist Octopus]

I'm in a Radical Political Thought class in uni, and one of the question options for the first essay is on organization types. The question is below..

" 1. Anton Pannekoek begins his essay, “General Remarks on the Question of Organization,” by claiming that, “Organisation is the chief principle in the working class fight for emancipation. Hence the forms of this organisation constitute the most important problem in the practice of the working class movement.” Let’s assume that Pannekoek is right. Considering the range of texts we have read to date (through March 1), critically discuss two proposed answers to this problem of organisation. A critical comparison should address such questions as: How do these proposed organisations work? How do they differ from one another? Are they incompatible, complementary, or mutually indifferent? What are their most important strengths and shortcomings? In what sorts of situations (if any) are they most appropriate? Etc."




What we've looked at so far is essentially Leninism, and Left Communism.
So to think off the top of my head we've looked at the vanguard sort of organization, Bordiga's idea of the party being the main centre of revolutionary efforts, Pannekoek's idea of council communism, etc.




I have a pretty decent idea of the differences, but let's hear your opinions in response to the question, bring out some of the rev left knowledge?

S

[Caj]

That sounds like an awesome class! Do most universities offer classes like that?

"In what sorts of situations (if any) are they most appropriate?" I think this would be a fascinating question if you were going to compare and contrast Leninist vanguardism to left communist councilism. What's interesting about reading the works of the council communists around the German Revolution of 1918-1919 is how they actually supported Leninist vanguardism as an effective form of organization for the material conditions of Russia at the time. Councilism, far from being the only acceptable form of socialist organization, was simply the form of organization compatible with West European material conditions. This also addresses this question: "Are they incompatible, complementary, or mutually indifferent?" Although left communist councilism and Leninist vanguardism are prima facie incompatible, they were really just two different ways of adapting to vastly different material conditions. Now, whether or not they were successful adaptations to their respective material conditions is a different question. The council communists, although initially critically optimistic of Russian Leninism, began to reject use of vanguard parties and refer to Russia as state capitalist some time after the failure of the German Revolution.

If you wanted to do something more abstract, you could compare and contrast horizontalidad (non-hierarchical) forms of organization and vertical or hierarchical forms of organization; however, I'm not sure exactly how you could tie that in with the disputes between the Leninists and the left communists. Such a way of perceiving different forms of organization is upheld more by anarchists.

[Capitalist Octopus]

That sounds like an awesome class! Do most universities offer classes like that?

"In what sorts of situations (if any) are they most appropriate?" I think this would be a fascinating question if you were going to compare and contrast Leninist vanguardism to left communist councilism. What's interesting about reading the works of the council communists around the German Revolution of 1918-1919 is how they actually supported Leninist vanguardism as an effective form of organization for the material conditions of Russia at the time. Councilism, far from being the only acceptable form of socialist organization, was simply the form of organization compatible with West European material conditions. This also addresses this question: "Are they incompatible, complementary, or mutually indifferent?" Although left communist councilism and Leninist vanguardism are prima facie incompatible, they were really just two different ways of adapting to vastly different material conditions. Now, whether or not they were successful adaptations to their respective material conditions is a different question. The council communists, although initially critically optimistic of Russian Leninism, began to reject use of vanguard parties and refer to Russia as state capitalist some time after the failure of the German Revolution.



I think some definitely do, and yeah, it's been amazing thus far. Very useful.

I really like the idea you outlined there, vanguard vs council, and that's sort of what I was thinking.

I guess people can go into detail on differences/similarities now?

Only thing is though, we haven't focused too much on the idea of "material conditions" thus far, or at lest from what I remember. It's almost more theoretical I guess?

[Caj]

Only thing is though, we haven't focused too much on the idea of "material conditions" thus far, or at lest from what I remember. It's almost more theoretical I guess?

It's just taking into account the differences between Russian and West European society at the time. Russia was a semi-feudal, autocratic backwards country with a huge peasantry and a small working class. Meanwhile, West Europe was characterized by industrialized economies, developed working classes, and bourgeois democracies. Clearly the forms of organization adopted by revolutionary groups are going to differ in two regions like this based on what is most practical for the overthrow of existing society. In Russia, more authoritarian forms of organization such as vanguardism and "democratic" centralism were, rightly or wrongly, considered more practical. In West Europe, more egalitarian and libertarian forms of organization, workers' councils, were considered practical.

[Capitalist Octopus]

It's just taking into account the differences between Russian and West European society at the time. Russia was a semi-feudal, autocratic backwards country with a huge peasantry and a small working class. Meanwhile, West Europe was characterized by industrialized economies, developed working classes, and bourgeois democracies. Clearly the forms of organization adopted by revolutionary groups are going to differ in two regions like this based on what is most practical for the overthrow of existing society. In Russia, more authoritarian forms of organization such as vanguardism and "democratic" centralism were, rightly or wrongly, considered more practical. In West Europe, more egalitarian and libertarian forms of organization, workers' councils, were considered practical.

Right, but wouldn't many left communists be opposed to the vanguard structure regardless of the conditions present in society because of the way it is organized and the way power is distributed within it?

[Ostrinski]

Left communists believe in a vanguard, but have a different conception of it than the Leninist variants.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Can you go into more detail?

[Caj]

Right, but wouldn't many left communists be opposed to the vanguard structure regardless of the conditions present in society because of the way it is organized and the way power is distributed within it?

Probably. It's interesting to note, though, that the original left communists -- people like Gorter, Pannekoek, Pankhurst -- actually supported vanguardism in Russia initially. (I don't have access to my writings from these authors right now, but I'll give you some specific quotes once I do.) After the failure of the German Revolution, the left communists adopted the position more common among modern left communists: that Russia, from around the spring of 1918 onwards, was a state capitalist dictatorship and that this was the inevitable result of Leninist vanguardism. As far as your essay goes, you could really argue either way: that councilism and vanguardism are compatible or incompatible. For the latter, you would say that each is applicable to certain material conditions. You could quote some of the earlier works from say Gorter to support this. For the latter position, you could emphasize the differences between the two forms of organization and utilize quotes from the later writings of the left communists.

[Caj]

Left communists believe in a vanguard, but have a different conception of it than the Leninist variants.

This is true. The word "vanguard" used to not have Leninist connotations. Historically, all tendencies, including anarchism, had advocated some form of vanguardism. For the council communists, the vanguard was simply the class conscious section of the proletariat.

[Ostrinski]

Probably. It's interesting to note, though, that the original left communists -- people like Gorter, Pannekoek, Pankhurst -- actually supported vanguardism in Russia initially. (I don't have access to my writings from these authors right now, but I'll give you some specific quotes once I do.) After the failure of the German Revolution, the left communists adopted the position more common among modern left communists: that Russia, from around the spring of 1918 onwards, was a state capitalist dictatorship and that this was the inevitable result of vanguardism.I wasn't aware that left communists held this view? My understanding was that the failure of socialism in Russia was seen as because of the revolution's stagnation, loss of momentum, and isolation, and these were the conditions that gave rise to the authoritarianism that characterized the party thereafter. At least, this is what I've seen Bordigists say.


As far as your essay goes, you could really argue either way: that councilism and vanguardism are compatible or incompatible. For the latter, you would say that each is applicable to certain material conditions. You could quote some of the earlier works from say Gorter to support this. For the latter position, you could emphasize the differences between the two forms of organization and utilize quotes from the later writings of the left communists.They certainly are compatible. Councils for economic decisions, parties for political decisions.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Probably. It's interesting to note, though, that the original left communists -- people like Gorter, Pannekoek, Pankhurst -- actually supported vanguardism in Russia initially. (I don't have access to my writings from these authors right now, but I'll give you some specific quotes once I do.) After the failure of the German Revolution, the left communists adopted the position more common among modern left communists: that Russia, from around the spring of 1918 onwards, was a state capitalist dictatorship and that this was the inevitable result of Leninist vanguardism. As far as your essay goes, you could really argue either way: that councilism and vanguardism are compatible or incompatible. For the latter, you would say that each is applicable to certain material conditions. You could quote some of the earlier works from say Gorter to support this. For the latter position, you could emphasize the differences between the two forms of organization and utilize quotes from the later writings of the left communists.

I think it would be interesting to show that they aren't necessarily incompatible, since I think most people will do otherwise. The prof said he doesnt want the paper to be an editorial, but rather an open investigation into a thought we have, honest with the flaws too. So this would give me wiggle room. Im going to post the texts we've looked at thus far, since we cant really do outside research, and it's only 750 - 1000 words.

[Ostrinski]

I'm jealous. I want this class.

[Capitalist Octopus]

I'm jealous. I want this class.

Haha yes, I'm very happy I managed to get in to it.

[Caj]

I wasn't aware that left communists held this view? My understanding was that the failure of socialism in Russia was because of the revolution's stagnation, loss of momentum, and isolation, and these were the conditions that gave rise to the authoritarianism that characterized the party thereafter. At least, this is what I've seen Bordigists say.

Well, I meant more council communists than Bordigists. Bordigists may hold a different view; I'm not really sure.

Certainly the factors that you mentioned, stagnation, isolation, etc., also played a role, and I'm sure most left communists admit this, but from what I've read, the council communists eventually came to the conclusion that a revolution led by a Leninist vanguard would ultimately result in state capitalist dictatorship, regardless of whether or not there are the unfavorable conditions you mentioned (these would act as more of a catalyst).


They certainly are compatible. Councils for economic decisions, parties for political decisions.

If I remember correctly, however, the West European council communists wanted the workers' councils to take on administrative, and not just economic, functions. The sum of the councils would constitute the "workers' state."

[Capitalist Octopus]

This is what I have to work with in terms of readings.

First Strategy: Take Power (Leninism)

Jan 12 Karl Marx, “Notes on Bakunin,” “Political Indifferentism,” Speech at the Anniversary of the People’s Paper,” and “The Paris Commune”

Jan 17/19 Friedrich Engels, “The Program of the Blanquists”; Lenin, What Is To Be Done? (selection on WebCT), and “No Compromises?”; Rosa Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution? (SB, 48–68)

Jan 24/26 Lenin, The State and Revolution (Ch. III and V); Antonio Gramsci, “Workers’ Democracy,” and “The Conquest of the State”; Fanon, “On Violence” (on WebCT)

Jan 31/Feb 2 Mao Tse-tung, On Guerilla Warfare (Ch. 5 & 6); Louis Althusser, “Marxism and Humanism,” and “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” (excepts on WebCT); Julian Assange, “State and Terrorist Conspiracies” (pdf)

Second Strategy: Make Power (Left/Council/Anarcho-Communisms)

Feb 7/9 Luxemburg, “Organizational Questions” (SB, 83–102), “The Russian Revolution” (SB, 225–237); Anton Pannekoek, “General Comments on the Question of Organisation”; Amadeo Bordiga, “Seize Power or Seize the Factory?,” and “Is This the Time to Form Soviets?”

Feb 14/16 Luxemburg, “The Accumulation of Capital – An Anti-Critique” (SB, 179–203); David Graeber, “A Brief Treatise on the Moral Grounds of Economic Relations” (on WebCT); Walter Benjamin, “The Critique of Violence” (on WebCT)

Feb 21/23 Reading Week

Feb 28/Mar 1 Luxemburg, “The Mass Strike, the Political Party, and the Trade Unions (SB, 109–25); “The Crisis of German Social Democracy (The Junius Pamphlet)” (SB, 204–13); “Order Prevails in Berlin” (SB, 262–67); Voltairine de Cleyre, “Direct Action”; Martin Luther King, Jr., “The Sword that Heals” (on WebCT)

[Caj]

Friedrich Engels, “The Program of the Blanquists”

This one caught my eye. Have you considered comparing Leninist vanguardism to Blanquism? That would be interesting.

[Capitalist Octopus]

This one caught my eye. Have you considered comparing Leninist vanguardism to Blanquism? That would be interesting.

Not a bad idea.
Could be interesting and I think with the word limit I could do a decent job, since comparing something like left versus vanguard would take many more words.

The only thing is that we didn't focus on blanquists too much I don't think, but I guess that could only make it more interesting,

[Ostrinski]

Well, I meant more council communists than Bordigists. Bordigists may hold a different view; I'm not really sure.

Certainly the factors that you mentioned, stagnation, isolation, etc., also played a role, and I'm sure most left communists admit this, but from what I've read, the council communists eventually came to the conclusion that a revolution led by a Leninist vanguard would ultimately result in state capitalist dictatorship, regardless of whether or not there are the unfavorable conditions you mentioned (these would act as more of a catalyst).Ah, you're probably right. I don't know much about the councilists. I imagine that they do have differing opinions with the Bordigists on the Russian Revolution given their ideological differences.

[Blake's Baby]

The Council Communists came to believe that 'all parties are bourgeois' and 'the revolution is not a party affair'; Otto Ruhle was an early advocate of this idea (from 1920 onwards I think) but the idea gradually took hold in the Dutch and German lefts that only a bourgeois revolution was possible in Russia - thus they went back to a stagist conception more akin to Menshevism than anything else. But the early Left Communists in Germany and the Netherlands were 'partyists' and therefore didn't think that 'the party' was the problem. They also believed that the era of 'war and revolutions' had arrived, as in the theses of the Communist International, so at least from 1917-1925 or thereabouts they mostly supported both 'the party' and the proletarian nature of October.

They changed their minds on all of this later, after the failure of the revolution. Obviously, I think they were wrong, because (as a Left Communist, but not a Bordigist) I think they were right before 1925; the isolation of the revolution is what causes its degeneration, not the role of the party in it; to believe otherwise is to believe that a revolution can be 'successful' in an isolated country if it's not led by a party, and that brings the success or failure of an isolated revolution down to policy (should we have a party or not?), not material cicumstances (the world revolution).

Seems to me that the whole idea is a capitulation to Stalinism. If a 'successful outcome' depends on policy decisions not the world revolution, then 'socialism in one country' is possible (by finding the right policy). Conversely, if all that was on the table in Russia in 1917 was a bourgeois revolution to develop industry and the proletariat, then Stalin is the logical outcome of that process and really was only doing his job, rather than a counter-revolutionary butcher. Either way, Stalin was right to do what he did.

Obviously, I think the Council Communists are somewhat confused on this point (to say the least). But they were clear 'partyists' and supporters of the October Revolution in the early 1920s.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Very interesting Blake, thanks.

I think I'm going to go with Caj's idea and do the Blanquists vs Vanguardists.
From what I read on the Blanquists it seems like the blanquists essentially believe in

-Conspiracy, so keeping things secret outside of the party

-Disregard for the material conditions, so they believe a small group can organize and do the right things to achieve revolution at any time

-Dictatorship, but more so of party than proletariat, so they think this small group can seize power, and then bring communism to the working class with it ruling at first
-Skipping intermediate stations and compromises and get to communism right away
Now when looking at the vanguard structure, some things seem similar. There’s the idea that with the vanguard you can get a small group of individuals who make binding decisions that speak for the party as a whole. There’s the idea that you can push revolution and it doesn’t need to be spontaneous, that it can be lead. And there’s the idea that, at least in Russia, they could skip the “capitalist” stage and get right in to the process. I sort of see what the differences are of course, but does anyone want to expand further?


I think this basically gives me the crux of my essay, and it should be quite a good one actually.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Ok so I've worked at it a bit more and I think I'm going to make the clain that in ways they're indifferent and complementary even, but essentially in the end they are incompatible because the Blanquist method relies upon a dictatorship of the party, not of the proletariat as the lenninist model does. I'll explain why that is so. But then i'll also claim that this just may be in theory because Lenin's model has often lead to dictatorship of party instead of prole, and has been criticized by left coms exactly for this. I will also say that perhaps Lenin's model is trying to hide the Blanquist flaws, or naive of them, while the Blanquist model almost flaunts what Engels would consider to be flaws

What do you guys think/>

[Caj]

Sounds interesting. Do you think you can send me your essay once it's finished? I'd really like to read it once it's done.


I will also say that perhaps Lenin's model is trying to hide the Blanquist flaws, or naive of them, while the Blanquist model almost flaunts what Engels would consider to be flaws

What exactly do you mean here?

[Capitalist Octopus]

Yeah for sure. It's due on the 6th so it'll be a while but I'll certainly remember to send it.

And what I mean is that the Blanquists seem to be open and proud of the fact that a small group will come to power, act in it's own interests at first, and then eventually introduce socialism or communism to the people. Whereas with Lenin he is trying to get across the point that the vanguard party always acts in the interests of the working class, and when it sets up a dictatorship, it will be for the proletariat, not the party.

Yet evidence has shown that perhaps Lenin was wrong? Maybe this is inevitable with the vanguard structure and Lenin is naive of it will the Blanquists embrace it?>

[Blake's Baby]

No, Lenin wasn't wrong about that I'd argue, because Lenin wasn't attempting to sieze power 1-for the Bolsheviks 2-in Russia.

Lenin was convinced that the world revolution was happening. If the aim of Leninism had been to establish a revolutionary dictatorship of the party in one territory, it would have succeeded, yes? The October revolution can perhaps be seen in that sense as a successful Blanquist revolution.

But this wasn't the aim. Has nothing to do with the structure of the Bolsheviks and their naivitee or anything like that. Lenin's belief was that the world revolution would spread and Russia just had to hold on until it did. Nothing to do with 'evidence' that Lenin was wrong because you're comparing two different things; saying 'Lenin didn't think a revolutionary vanguard party would become a new oppressor of the working class' - you're right, he didn't, because he didn't consider beforehand (certainly not in 1903 when the fights in the RSDLP about organisation were going on) that the Bolsheviks would be left administering a revolutionary territory surrounded by hostile capitalist nations.

In that situation (can't 'build socialism', that can't be done until capitalism has been overthrown worldwide - can't surrendur to the Whites, that just means massacre for all involved - can't defend the revolutionary territory without compromising principles, militarising society, becoming the counter-revolution in fact) what is the revolutionary minority to do?

The early days (and years) of the Soviet Republic were a compromise; they were an attempt at a pragmatic adaption to a situation where the world revolution failed. No-one had ever been in that situation before. It's hardly 'naivitee' if you don't have a plan in advance for a situation that has never been experienced or even forseen.

[Capitalist Octopus]

I guess by naive I meant him not considering that the other countries might not follow the path of Russia.

But regardless, would you say then that the Blanquists and Lennists are incompatible, or not?

[Ostrinski]

On a theoretical level they are incompatible.

[Caj]

I guess by naive I meant him not considering that the other countries might not follow the path of Russia.

This was among the foremost criticisms of the Third International by the council communists -- that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were trying to impose tactics that were successful in Russia on Western European revolutionary organizations.


But regardless, would you say then that the Blanquists and Lennists are incompatible, or not?

I would say that Leninism was an extension of certain aspects of Blanquist thought that incorporated aspects of classical Marxism.

The question of whether or not they are compatible or incompatible seems meaningless to me; they were not contemporary ideologies. They originated, developed, and existed under different historical circumstances.