Engels, 1873: The Bakuninists at Work

[l'Enfermé]

An interesting article about the role of the Bakuninists in Spain by Engels, and how they were responsible for the military dictatorship and the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy following the Spanish bourgeois revolution of 1868-74.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm

Engels ends his article with this summary:



What then is the result of our whole investigation?

As soon as they were faced with a serious revolutionary situation, the Bakuninists had to throw the whole of their old programme overboard. First they sacrificed their doctrine of absolute abstention from political, and especially electoral, activities. Then anarchy, the abolition of the State, shared the same fate. Instead of abolishing the State they tried, on the contrary, to set up a number of new, small states. They then dropped the principle that the workers must not take part in any revolution that did not have as its aim the immediate and complete emancipation of the proletariat, and they themselves took part in a movement that was notoriously bourgeois. Finally they went against the dogma they had only just proclaimed -- that the establishment of a revolutionary government is but another fraud another betrayal of the working class -- for they sat quite comfortably in the juntas of the various towns, and moreover almost everywhere as an impotent minority outvoted and politically exploited by the bourgeoisie.
This renunciation of the principles they had always been preaching was made moreover in the most cowardly and deceitful manner and was prompted by a guilty conscience, so that neither the Bakuninists themselves nor the masses they led had any programme or knew what they wanted when they joined the movement. What was the natural consequence of this? It was that the Bakuninists either prevented any action from being taken, as in Barcelona, or drifted into sporadic, desultory and senseless uprisings, as in Alcoy and Sanlúcar de Barrameda; or that the leadership of the uprising was taken over by the intransigent bourgeois, as was the case in most of the revolts. Thus, when it came to doing things, the ultra-revolutionary rantings of the Bakuninists either turned into appeasement or into uprisings that were doomed to failure, or, led to their joining a bourgeois party which exploited the workers politically in the most disgraceful manner and treated them to kicks into the bargain.
Nothing remains of the so-called principles of anarchy, free federation of independent groups, etc., but the boundless, and senseless fragmentation of the revolutionary resources, which enabled the government to conquer one city after another with a handful of soldiers, practically unresisted.
The outcome of all this is that not only have the once so well organised and numerous Spanish sections of the International -- both the false and the true ones -- found themselves involved in the downfall of the Intransigents and are now actually dissolved, but are also having ascribed to them innumerable atrocities, without which the philistines of all nationalities cannot imagine a workers' uprising, and this may make impossible, perhaps for years to come, the international re-organisation of the Spanish proletariat.


It's a good read. Perhaps it's worth a discussion? I'm sure Anarchists will object to Engel's analysis.

[l'Enfermé]

Looks like I mis-spelled the title by accident, writing 1879 instead of 1873 in the subject, could a mod fix that please?

[l'Enfermé]

Doesn't look like Bakunin will be defended by any of his flock...

[A Marxist Historian]

Doesn't look like Bakunin will be defended by any of his flock...

Engels definitely a smart guy. The best thing about this piece is that if you just fast forward to 1936, Engels is pretty much describing the role of the anarchists in Spain then too. The world had changed, everything else was very different, but the anarchists ... nah.

In fact, if the anarchist wing of Occupy Wall Street really had fulfilled all their wildest fantasies and somehow taken over Oakland or Seattle, putting the ruling class to flight ... it'd be the same story all over again.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

Doesn't look like Bakunin will be defended by any of his flock...

The real issue here is how this original line got passed down uncredited to Sorel and diluted by the likes of Luxemburg, Gorter, Korsch, Pannekoek, etc. This is the time-and-failed-again strategy of the insurrectionary mass strike. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205)

[Paulappaul]

Welp I don't think Bakunin really represents anything in the Anarchist movement today and had Marxists participated in that Bourgeois revolution, it would have turned out much the same: Bourgeoisie. What Engels is rejecting is the principled rejection of Bakunin and his Spanish followers of Hierarchy, Absenteeism, federalism and insurrectionary politics which didn't have any sort of historical truth in a Bourgeois Revolution. Whilst there attempt is admirable, it ran aganist the cold truth of history, that such is impossible without the conditions render it plausible.

What's important is the connection between this revolution and the Spanish revolution of 1936.

[andyx1205]

Why create this thread and create divisions amongst the left?

[Deicide]

create divisions amongst the left?

To be fair, divisions have existed since... ever.

[Grenzer]

Why create this thread and create divisions amongst the left?

Because Borz is an opportunist and only goes for cheap straw men.

The truth is that Bakunin is pretty damn irrelevant. Furthermore, those anarchists didn't really represent anyone's views but their own. It's kind of like when bourgeois anti-communists say "Look, Pol Pot! COMMUNISM! It sucks." Typically not worth dignifying garbage like this with a response. Sectarianism is fine, but you should at least say something witty or make a good point, but this thread is just kind of fail.

In another thread he claimed a vast Anarchist conspiracy that murdered hundreds of Bolsheviks before the October revolution.. it would be funny if it wasn't such a pathetic attempt at sectarianism.

[Comrade Jandar]

I consider Bakunin relevant. He predicted the "red bureaucracy" that characterized the revolutionary socialism of the 20th century.

[Brosip Tito]

The real issue here is how this original line got passed down uncredited to Sorel and diluted by the likes of Luxemburg, Gorter, Korsch, Pannekoek, etc. This is the time-and-failed-again strategy of the insurrectionary mass strike. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205)Could you do some explaining?

[Paulappaul]

I consider Bakunin relevant. He predicted the "red bureaucracy" that characterized the revolutionary socialism of the 20th century.

He didn't predict crap. Marx and Proudhon were saying that crap ever since 1848 after the failed workers' attempts at nationalization.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because Borz is an opportunist and only goes for cheap straw men.

The truth is that Bakunin is pretty damn irrelevant. Furthermore, those anarchists didn't really represent anyone's views but their own. It's kind of like when bourgeois anti-communists say "Look, Pol Pot! COMMUNISM! It sucks." Typically not worth dignifying garbage like this with a response. Sectarianism is fine, but you should at least say something witty or make a good point, but this thread is just kind of fail.

In another thread he claimed a vast Anarchist conspiracy that murdered hundreds of Bolsheviks before the October revolution.. it would be funny if it wasn't such a pathetic attempt at sectarianism.

Borz highlighted a more underrated aspect of Bakunin's politics or, rather, non-politics: an uncredited forerunner of syndicalism. :confused:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Could you do some explaining?

This video says it all, without too many details: http://vimeo.com/6249441

And welcome to the board.

[l'Enfermé]

Welp I don't think Bakunin really represents anything in the Anarchist movement today and had Marxists participated in that Bourgeois revolution, it would have turned out much the same: Bourgeoisie. What Engels is rejecting is the principled rejection of Bakunin and his Spanish followers of Hierarchy, Absenteeism, federalism and insurrectionary politics which didn't have any sort of historical truth in a Bourgeois Revolution. Whilst there attempt is admirable, it ran aganist the cold truth of history, that such is impossible without the conditions render it plausible.

What's important is the connection between this revolution and the Spanish revolution of 1936.
Bakunin is the founder of the non-Proudhonian Anarchist movement. He is still one of the main figures of Anarchism.

What Engels is saying is that the Anarchists were directly responsible for the fall of the left government, the restoration of monarchy and military dictatorship, which strangled progress and greatly slowed down the development of the productive forces and the Proletariat.


I consider Bakunin relevant. He predicted the "red bureaucracy" that characterized the revolutionary socialism of the 20th century.
He also predicted that Communism is a Jewish Banking conspiracy that wants to enslave the world under centralized Nationalized Jewish Banks. Red bureaucracy didn't characterize revolutionary socialism of the 20th century, it characterized the counter-revolution.


Because Borz is an opportunist and only goes for cheap straw men.

The truth is that Bakunin is pretty damn irrelevant. Furthermore, those anarchists didn't really represent anyone's views but their own. It's kind of like when bourgeois anti-communists say "Look, Pol Pot! COMMUNISM! It sucks." Typically not worth dignifying garbage like this with a response. Sectarianism is fine, but you should at least say something witty or make a good point, but this thread is just kind of fail.

In another thread he claimed a vast Anarchist conspiracy that murdered hundreds of Bolsheviks before the October revolution.. it would be funny if it wasn't such a pathetic attempt at sectarianism.
You don't understand what "opportunist" and "straw men" means.

Bakunin is the father of Anarchism. Anarchism did not exist outside of the Socialist Movement until Bakunin and his followers tried to destroy the First International, first from the outside, and then from the inside, and were expelled and formed their own movement. Bakunin there is the Marx of Anarchism. He's not "irrelevant".

Pol Pot was not a Communist. He was a Maoist. Maoism is a peasant movement that refuses any working class involvement(one only has to read the history of the Chinese Revolution to understand this, not only did Mao not seek help from the Proletariat of the urban centers in China, he actually refused it.) Socialism/Communism is the revolutionary movement that represents the interests of the working class, the proletariat. This is elementary stuff that everyone here should know.

What in the hell do you mean by "In another thread he claimed a vast Anarchist conspiracy that murdered hundreds of Bolsheviks before the October revolution."...that's a blatant lie. It's a ridiculous thing to claim, I never wrote such a stupidity and would never imply it.

"Sectarianism"? Generally, sectarianism is conflict between 2 factions within a group. Like say, conflict between Christian Protestants and Christian Catholics. Anarchists have split from the Socialist movement during the times of the First International. Anarchists and Socialists are not members of one group...even if I did say that evil anarchists killed a billion Bolsheviks prior to the October Revolution, it wouldn't be sectarianism. Anarchism is not a Socialist or Marxist sect, it's a movement in it's own, and Marxism and Socialism are not an Anarchist sect either.

[Ted Lawrence]

Anarchism is not a Socialist or Marxist sect, it's a movement in it's own, and Marxism and Socialism are not an Anarchist sect either.
Wouldn't Anarchism still be considered part of the broader Socialist movement? I mean, it isn't like after the First International Bakunin hitched a ride on the Tardis and went into the future to pick up Rothbard and they started to formulate Anarcho-capitalism, and all the Anarchists went along with it.

[Comrade Jandar]

You have to be kidding me. Anarchism is most definitely a sect or tendency of socialism that shares close ties with Marxism in both the time of its founding and its social theory.

[Dire Helix]

The truth is that Bakunin is pretty damn irrelevant.

For what it`s worth, a number of Russian anarchists still swear by the guy`s name.

[l'Enfermé]

You have to be kidding me. Anarchism is most definitely a sect or tendency of socialism that shares close ties with Marxism in both the time of its founding and its social theory.
"Shares close ties with Marxism" meaning that Anarchists and Marxists generally killed each other during revolutionary upheavals, unless they were busy killing some other enemy. Anarchism is a tendency of the Left, sure, but it's not a Socialist sect, with the exception of say "Anarcho-Communists". Anarchism is too big a thing to be a Socialist sect, I'd say. Individualist anarchism for example, is such a long way from being Socialism...

[gorillafuck]

Furthermore, those anarchists didn't really represent anyone's views but their own.except in this instance in spain, and ukraine, and again in 1930's spain, anarchists have always given up the ideals of anarchism. so it's pretty relevant if it always happens.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The real issue here is how this original line got passed down uncredited to Sorel and diluted by the likes of Luxemburg, Gorter, Korsch, Pannekoek, etc. This is the time-and-failed-again strategy of the insurrectionary mass strike. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205)

As opposed to, say, the incredibly successful model of the SPD and the parlimentarian Left?

[Os Cangaceiros]

It is true that Bakunin is the intellectual forefather of anarchism. But it's also true that today's anarchists don't really care much about him, except maybe as an historical curiousity. Those anarchists who are enamoured with all things class usually take people like Malatesta or Rocker as their historical role models.

[Zealot]

No surprises here.

Just don't bring up Bakunin, one of the most seminal thinkers of Anarchism, because he and his followers have done some pretty embarrassing things. A large number of self-proclaimed Anarchists have disowned him and tried to hide him away. Unfortunately, the blunders of Anarchism and its antisemitic thinker are clear for all to see.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As opposed to, say, the incredibly successful model of the SPD and the parlimentarian Left?

Those are two distinct things. Without the pre-war SPD model, there would have been no Bolshevik revolution.

Without adapting the pre-war SPD model to the circumstances of today's world, there can be no actual revolutionary period for the working class.

Anyway, the syndicalist line of Bakunin was not credited by Sorel when the latter furthered the left-syndicalist cause (before a couple of notable left-syndicalists became fascists - Benito Mussolini and Robert Michels), and from there it was brought into the Marxist left by Gorter, Korsch, Luxemburg, Pannekoek, etc. (and further diluted by the likes of Trotsky).

[Hermes]

You also have to realize that Marx and Engels really hated Bakunin. This article is most likely incredibly biased, even if the majority of the actual facts are true.

[l'Enfermé]

Those are two distinct things. Without the pre-war SPD model, there would have been no Bolshevik revolution.

Without adapting the pre-war SPD model to the circumstances of today's world, there can be no actual revolutionary period for the working class.

Anyway, the syndicalist line of Bakunin was not credited by Sorel when the latter furthered the left-syndicalist cause (before a couple of notable left-syndicalists became fascists - Benito Mussolini and Robert Michels), and from there it was brought into the Marxist left by Gorter, Korsch, Luxemburg, Pannekoek, etc. (and further diluted by the likes of Trotsky).
Die Neue Zeit is correct. If the pre-war SPD model wasn't abandoned then Capitalism would long have been eradicated from this good planet of ours.

[Comrade Jandar]

"Shares close ties with Marxism" meaning that Anarchists and Marxists generally killed each other during revolutionary upheavals, unless they were busy killing some other enemy. Anarchism is a tendency of the Left, sure, but it's not a Socialist sect, with the exception of say "Anarcho-Communists". Anarchism is too big a thing to be a Socialist sect, I'd say. Individualist anarchism for example, is such a long way from being Socialism...

I don't consider individualist or lifestyle anarchists to have any relation to the tradition of anarchism that developed out of the First International. In fact I would say that the terms anarchist and libertarian communist are synonymous.

[Paulappaul]

Bakunin is the founder of the non-Proudhonian Anarchist movement. He is still one of the main figures of Anarchism.

Lol wut. Yeah you don't know anything about Contemporary Anarchism. Noam Chomsky is the only "anarchist" which like Bakunin.


What Engels is saying is that the Anarchists were directly responsible for the fall of the left government, the restoration of monarchy and military dictatorship, which strangled progress and greatly slowed down the development of the productive forces and the Proletariat.

Except that's totally unmarxian, for one. Second actually research what anarchist were doing in Spain in 1873: I dunno building huge trade unions, a 2000 member assembly.

[Grenzer]

Borz highlighted a more aspect of Bakunin's politics or, rather, non-politics: an uncredited forerunner of syndicalism. :confused:

It's true, but at the same time it would be disingenuous to imply that all modern anarchists draw their politics from Bakunin, which is what seems to be the implication here; equally as it would be to say that they get their ideas from Kropotkin. Some do, but many do not. The thing about anarchism is that you can't take one, or two, or even three thinkers, and state "This is what anarchists think."

I know that Marxist denominations are usually based on a personality cult of an individual, and that arguments between Marxists tend to take the form of slander against the individual who founded the school of thought; but anarchism doesn't really work like that. It's unsurprising; however, to see that a Marxist would attempt to do so anyway out of habit.

As Os Cangaceiros stated, many of us tend to see Bakunin more as a historical curiosity; a part of our historical origins rather than a figure from whom we take our cue in a contemporary sense. As such, the entire point of this thread seems to be little more than a pathetic trolling attempt against anarchists. You could try to use the anarkiddies of anarchistnews.org, but that would be a poor straw man. In the end, the only thing you can judge an anarchist on is what he(or she, as the case may be) believes on an individual level. A refusal to do so is reductionism and opportunism.

[Grenzer]

Unfortunately, the blunders of Anarchism and its antisemitic thinker are clear for all to see.

lol

Doctors' plot much?

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's true, but at the same time it would be disingenuous to imply that all modern anarchists draw their politics from Bakunin, which is what seems to be the implication here; equally as it would be to say that they get their ideas from Kropotkin. Some do, but many do not. The thing about anarchism is that you can't take one, or two, or even three thinkers, and state "This is what anarchists think."

Of course. I'm only referring to the strategic line. I could care less about Bakunin's anti-Semitism or the caricatured line of "propaganda of the deed," for instance.

I also don't think that Utopian Anarchism (not lifestylist, hooliganist, insurrectionist, or syndicalist tendencies in anarchism) originated from Bakunin. I honestly don't know why James Turley calls Occupy London a "utopian" movement (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004760) or stressed "prefigurative models."

I mean, if a mass party-movement needs to be democratic in its internal organization, any charge of "prefigurative model" is a bit hypocritical, in my book.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Those are two distinct things. Without the pre-war SPD model, there would have been no Bolshevik revolution.

There also may not have been a betrayed revolution in Italy in the period 1919-1920. Or betrayed insurrections in any number of other areas.


Without adapting the pre-war SPD model to the circumstances of today's world, there can be no actual revolutionary period for the working class.

Translation: if you don't think like I think, you aren't supporting revolution!


Anyway, the syndicalist line of Bakunin was not credited by Sorel when the latter furthered the left-syndicalist cause (before a couple of notable left-syndicalists became fascists - Benito Mussolini and Robert Michels), and from there it was brought into the Marxist left by Gorter, Korsch, Luxemburg, Pannekoek, etc. (and further diluted by the likes of Trotsky).

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but Sorel wasn't a very important figure in revolutionary syndicalism. He was a writer who was interested in it for a time, but that time lasted about four years, before which the French CGT had already experienced a decade of syndicalist praxis. :rolleyes:

It's pretty simple in that both the mass radical union and the party form have had periods as the dominant mode of socialist organization, and both have been revealed to be profoundly wanting. The difference is that whenever there was a real insurrectionary strike, whether in Italy or the USA or Spain or Argentina, armed force is always brought out in a panicked attempt to crush it. That's because the threat to capital is visceral and immediate. The party form is not an immediate threat, usually, and can be (and has been) co-opted time and time and time again. "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes!?"

Unless there were mitigating circumstances in all of those cases in which parties pimped out their constituents to capital. In which case there were mitigating circumstances involved with the failure of industrial unionism and radical syndicalism. :closedeyes:

As far as the article in question, I actually agree with Engels on some things. I, too, have become very much skeptical in regards to federalism and anarchism's rather grandiouse phrase-mongering in regards to "authority" etc. But I think there's undeniably an element there of Engels just being butthurt over the fact that one of the largest and best organized sections of the international was more under the sway of some nutjob named Bakunin. FORE's membership in 1873 was 60,000 people. FORE's successor (FTRE) claimed to have 70,000 in 1882.

[Grenzer]

Of course. I'm only referring to the strategic line. I could care less about Bakunin's anti-Semitism or the caricatured line of "propaganda of the deed," for instance.

I also don't think that Utopian Anarchism (not lifestylist, hooliganist, insurrectionist, or syndicalist tendencies in anarchism) originated from Bakunin. I honestly don't know why James Turley calls Occupy London a "utopian" movement (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004760) or stressed "prefigurative models."

I mean, if a mass party-movement needs to be democratic in its internal organization, any charge of "prefigurative model" is a bit hypocritical, in my book.

Interesting. The people over at CPGB seem to have something interesting to say on any given number of subjects. This article kind of seems to go along with what I was saying in the "Is Marxism Reformist" thread: communists can go on about "Communism is a movement rather than an idea..." all they want, but the fact is that most people are going to find some vague conception of what should be done after the complete overthrow of existing society too persuasive, and I don't blame them.

To be clear I wasn't accusing you of anything, but speaking more of Marxists in general. Your criticisms of Anarchism are pretty astute and valid in my opinion; I wouldn't expect you to fall back on the hackneyed tripe that we have seen some other people in this thread do.

I would agree that "utopian" brands of Anarchism don't come from Bakunin, but most of us do have many problems with him. Strategically, didn't he secretly advocate conspiratorial organizations to take over the revolution and control it? It's worth putting him in the garbage for that alone, but it's also worth mentioning that his simplistic conception of autonomy and his constant cries of "liberty, liberty, liberty!" aren't that persuasive, one might even say that they are idealistic and liberal.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Strategically, didn't he secretly advocate conspiratorial organizations to take over the revolution and control it? It's worth putting him in the garbage for that alone, but it's also worth mentioning that his simplistic conception of autonomy and his constant cries of "liberty, liberty, liberty!" aren't that persuasive, one might even say that they are idealistic and liberal.

Yes, he did. But that's what Bakunin had in common with Trotskyist and Luxemburgist groups (even Luxemburg and Dzerzhinsky themselves during their activism in Poland and Lithuania): the little cog moving the wheel. The small group sloganeers around plain economic issues within the sphere of mere labour disputes, then tries to "transitionally" politicize that more and more, until councils are set up to give the small group the opportunity to explode its membership size but, more importantly, seize power through its now-multiple cogs moving various wheels (like union leadership).


Unless there were mitigating circumstances in all of those cases in which parties pimped out their constituents to capital. In which case there were mitigating circumstances involved with the failure of industrial unionism and radical syndicalism. :closedeyes:

That's parroting the line of Robert Michels, who became a fascist.

Councils have emerged to fail time and again, more times than mass political parties. By the way, mass political parties that are reformist at the outset don't count.

[Bronco]

You also have to realize that Marx and Engels really hated Bakunin. This article is most likely incredibly biased, even if the majority of the actual facts are true.

Well yes and no, at times they certainly held a great deal of animosity towards each other and there were irreconcilable differences, but they did also hold a mutual respect I think, Bakunin said of them:


As far as learning was concerned, Marx was, and still is incomparably more advanced than I. I knew nothing at that time of political economy, I had not yet rid myself of my metaphysical aberrations, and my socialism was only instinctive. Although younger than I, he was already an atheist, a conscious materialist, and an informed socialist. It was precisely at this time that he was elaborating the foundations of his system as it stands today. We saw each other often. I greatly respected him for his learning and for his passionate devotion- thought it was always mingled with vanity- to the cause of the proletariat. I eagerly sought his conversation, which was always instructive and witty when it was not inspired by petty hate, which alas! was only too often the case. There was never any frank intimacy between us- our temperaments did not permit it. He called me a sentimental idealist, and he was right; I called him vain, perfidious, and cunning, and I also was right.


Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, by Karl Marx; Erster Band. This work will need to be translated into French, because nothing, that I know of, contains an analysis so profound, so luminous, so scientific, so decisive, and if I can express it thus, so merciless an expose of the formation of bourgeois capital and the systematic and cruel exploitation that capital continues exercising over the work of the proletariat.

(That is a far more favourable review than given by Kropotkin who was actually quite mocking when talking about it)

And Marx speaking of Bakunin described him as "capable and cool headed" and said in 1864 "On the whole he is one of the few people whom I find not to have retrogressed after 16 years, but to have developed further."

But it is true that Marx and especially Engels were keen to demonise Bakunin and his followers, and vice versa, in my copy of Conquest of Bread it included a hitherto untranslated work by Kropotkin in which he spoke with real venom about Marx and blamed him and Engels for the problems with the International, i'll try and get my hands back on it because it should be an interesting alternate account to that traditionally given by Marxists

[A Marxist Historian]

lol

Doctors' plot much?

Why yes, good comparison. Just as all those slanderers of poor Stalin accuse him of being anti-Semitic, merely because he was justly suspicious of those Jewish doctors trying to poison him, you have the slanderers of poor Bakunin accusing him of being anti-Semitic on almost equally weak grounds.:lol:

-M.H.-

[AmericanRed]

Anyway, the syndicalist line of Bakunin was not credited by Sorel when the latter furthered the left-syndicalist cause (before a couple of notable left-syndicalists became fascists - Benito Mussolini and Robert Michels), and from there it was brought into the Marxist left by Gorter, Korsch, Luxemburg, Pannekoek, etc. (and further diluted by the likes of Trotsky).

I think you're too hard on Rosa, DNZ. Her practice in the Spartacus League wasn't particularly "left-syndicalist," was it? Wasn't she in conflict with those went on to found the KAPD?

[Os Cangaceiros]

That's parroting the line of Robert Michels, who became a fascist.

And that's an association fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy).


Councils have emerged to fail time and again, more times than mass political parties.

I don't think so. The peak of radical syndicalism/councilism was around the last decades of the 19th century/early decades of the 20th century. From then on their influence on radical politics has been marginal. Whereas ostensibly left-wing political parties have had the entire 20th century to sabotage struggle, continuing right up to the present day with the KKE.

[Le Socialiste]

Why create this thread and create divisions amongst the left?

The divisions were already present comrade - our role is to simply perpetuate them. :D

In all seriousness, while I still greatly identify with key elements of Anarchism, there's a reason I revisited Marx and Engels. A lot of it has had to do with my experiences working with self-proclaimed Anarchists in the Bay Area, who - while I think of them as comrades - can be frustrating to no end. Just last week I got into an argument with one who asserted that union rank-and-file members weren't really a part of the 99% because they have "greater rights and benefits, and therefore don't identify with Occupy."

I think Engel's concluding points are more or less correct, and they still hold true today.

[A Marxist Historian]

I think you're too hard on Rosa, DNZ. Her practice in the Spartacus League wasn't particularly "left-syndicalist," was it? Wasn't she in conflict with those went on to found the KAPD?

Indeed. If there is one thing Rosa was not, was a syndicalist. She never had a terribly high opinion of unions in general.

She firmly believed that a revolutionary party should be the axis of organizing workers, not unions. Her idea of "mass strikes" was not union action, but party action by revolutionary Social Democrats.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think you're too hard on Rosa, DNZ. Her practice in the Spartacus League wasn't particularly "left-syndicalist," was it? Wasn't she in conflict with those went on to found the KAPD?

Not the Spartacus League, comrade, but the Social Democracy in the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (SDKPiL) which was sectarian enough not to liquidate into the RSDLP.

[PhoenixAsh]

I am going to interject here with a general warning. No sectarian flame war.


Though this thread has some great contributions both argumentative and contentual, very much to the credit of some posters pro and con, I also see a lot of sectarian flame baiting. Which is logical gven the nature of the thread and the attitude on this board but I do not think have a place in the history subforum.

OP posed a valid opening thesis by Engels. Attack and discredit or support it by posting arguments based on the text and the historic situation/analysis. NOT on the basis of character assassinations, "they did it too" or "look at the vaults of your own sect/group/party" arguments.

Thank you.