"Council communist"

[Lamanov]

:huh:

[Djehuti]

You have recently posted in this thread: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35073
And a few posts above your, I've made a small contribution on Council communism.

The forstmost Council communist theorist are Paul Mattick and Anton Pannekoek.
You can read some of their shorter works on council communism at:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-pa...l-communism.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1939/council-communism.htm)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/councils.htm

[OleMarxco]

RedApollo.org (http://www.redapollo.org/cgi-bin/crimson.pl#CouncilCom) sure has one of them REALLY-REALLY short ones definin' it, among others - P.S. I'm too becoming an admin at 'eir sites ;)

[shadows]

A dash of anarchism in a stew of Marxism, what Lenin railed against as ultra-leftism, as infantile leftism: Bordiga, Pannekoek, et al. Also, Situationists (or the taboo 'situationism' - today, Loren Goldner's good site Break Their Haughty Power has up-to-date articles in this tradition.

[Djehuti]

I too like Goldner, though I have just read Communism is the Material Human Community: Amadeo Bordiga Today (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Elrgoldner/bordiga.html) and a few shorter texts.
The webpage is: http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/

[Paradox]

Why has no one mentioned Luxemburg?

Rosa Luxemburg archive:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/index.htm

[Lamanov]

Thanks for the info.. I have few more questions though:
[just so i don't start a new thread]
- What about DeLeon ? [does he fit in there, and can I get few thoughts on him, and are there any significant works?]
"Helped create the IWW. Developed one of the most detailed outlines of how Socialist society should function. Believed that democratic control of all industries and services must be held by workers organised into industrial unions." [sounds similar with my primal formulations]
- What about the trade unions [syndicates, and how do they fit in] ?
- How vast is the ideological connection between the councilists, left comms, left opposition and the early workers opposition?

[Morpheus]

DeLeon wasn't a council communist. He created his own version of Marxism, Marxist-DeLeonism. Council communists don't care too much for unions because they think unions always or almost always end up reformist, so they have some disagreements with DeLeonists & syndicalists over that issue. DeLeon was a bigger supporter of state power & centralization than most Councilists, too.

Personally, I think the councilists make some good points on unions but that those points only apply to hierarchical unions. There are non-hierarchical syndicalist unions that avoided that trap. I disagree with DeLeon over his advocacy of centralization & a "workers' state" since that will just create a new ruling class. The revolution should do away with both capitalism & state state, instead of doing away only capitalism and hoping the state will wither away in however many decades.

The term "left communist" applies to many different tendencies to the left of Lenin. One of these tendencies was the Russian version which was opposed to making peace with Germany in 1918 on the grounds of not giving into imperialism and advocating world revolution. They also called for more state planning and condemned what they saw as capitalistic elements in the Soviet economy. They were defeated but the later workers' opposition could be seen as inheriting their struggle. The WO wanted to give unions control over the economy (or at least the industrial part of it). Some members of the WO later joined Trotsky's left Opposition. Allexandra Kollontai, probably the most famous leader of the Workers' Opposition, was part of the Left Opposition for a while IIRC.

Russian Left Communism, the Workers' Opposition and the Left Opposition are all very connected. They often advocated similar things, in some cases had the same members/leaders, and criticized Soviet policy from the left and from within the part. Council Communism is very different from those three. Those three didn't opposed the one-party state; they basically sought to reform the Soviet system, to fix particular policies or practices they thought were erroneous. Council Communists want a completely different system with power to workers' councils and no political parties. Within those three the workers' opposition and the left communists have the greatest connection; their positions were closer and they shared more members. The left opposition was a much less radical opposition basically made up of people who didn't like Stalin but otherwise didn't have a huge difference with the soviet state.

[workersunity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 12:29 PM
Why has no one mentioned Luxemburg?

Rosa Luxemburg archive:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/index.htm
ya i know for real, i was about to say that, check her stuff out before all those other people

[workersunity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 03:39 PM
DeLeon wasn't a council communist. He created his own version of Marxism, Marxist-DeLeonism. Council communists don't care too much for unions because they think unions always or almost always end up reformist, so they have some disagreements with DeLeonists & syndicalists over that issue. DeLeon was a bigger supporter of state power & centralization than most Councilists, too.

Personally, I think the councilists make some good points on unions but that those points only apply to hierarchical unions. There are non-hierarchical syndicalist unions that avoided that trap. I disagree with DeLeon over his advocacy of centralization & a "workers' state" since that will just create a new ruling class. The revolution should do away with both capitalism & state state, instead of doing away only capitalism and hoping the state will wither away in however many decades.

The term "left communist" applies to many different tendencies to the left of Lenin. One of these tendencies was the Russian version which was opposed to making peace with Germany in 1918 on the grounds of not giving into imperialism and advocating world revolution. They also called for more state planning and condemned what they saw as capitalistic elements in the Soviet economy. They were defeated but the later workers' opposition could be seen as inheriting their struggle. The WO wanted to give unions control over the economy (or at least the industrial part of it). Some members of the WO later joined Trotsky's left Opposition. Allexandra Kollontai, probably the most famous leader of the Workers' Opposition, was part of the Left Opposition for a while IIRC.

Russian Left Communism, the Workers' Opposition and the Left Opposition are all very connected. They often advocated similar things, in some cases had the same members/leaders, and criticized Soviet policy from the left and from within the part. Council Communism is very different from those three. Those three didn't opposed the one-party state; they basically sought to reform the Soviet system, to fix particular policies or practices they thought were erroneous. Council Communists want a completely different system with power to workers' councils and no political parties. Within those three the workers' opposition and the left communists have the greatest connection; their positions were closer and they shared more members. The left opposition was a much less radical opposition basically made up of people who didn't like Stalin but otherwise didn't have a huge difference with the soviet state.
and thats why anarchism doesnt work, no detailed plans for the future, you cant just destroy the state in one big swoop, it takes time and procedure, not to mention analysis

[Lamanov]

Most of the stuff you said I allready know. hmmm.... there's a reason I would like to compare and abstract all of these ideologies...
...here's a thing: I think we should get into a deeper, constructive discussion on one [new] thread where we can all talk about and share our visions, formulas and conceptions about the post-revolutionary organisation. [Sharing ideas might be refreshing to us all]

> Thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35340)

[workersunity]

I agree with you

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 05:43 PM

and thats why anarchism doesnt work, no detailed plans for the future, you cant just destroy the state in one big swoop, it takes time and procedure, not to mention analysis
and the r-r-revolutionary DeLeonists get to sit around doing nothing because they think everyone should be following their grand plan.

It's foolish to have such a detailed blueprint of post-capitalist society when there are so many unknown factors, not to mention the fact that different areas may not agree to adopt their structure.

[Social Greenman]

It's foolish to have such a detailed blueprint of post-capitalist society when there are so many unknown factors, not to mention the fact that different areas may not agree to adopt their structure.

That is true cosidering that socialist don't agree on every issue or plan of action and the same holds true with every individual. However, some sort of basic blue print has to be offered up to the general public to what method(s) is socialism going to follow. SIU is one and so is Labor Time Vouchers. You have free acess, democratic centralism and anarchy. By the way, that's the SLP that sits around and I am not thinking grand plan. The Nazi's are.

[workersunity]

didnt mean to offend ya sam, i just have grievances that i hope someone should clear up

[mikelepore]

Morpheus, May 12 -- Your post contains serious errors.

De Leon ... "a supporter of state power". No. De Leon's position was in the opposite direction, saying that the only reason for socialists to have a political party and run for office is so that if they are elected they can abolish their own offices, that they would have nothing else they need to do except for one thing -- to immediately adjourn and never reconvene. He proposed the abrupt adoption of a stateless society.

De Leon's ... "advocacy of a workers' state" ... "hoping the state will wither away". He never said anything remotely similar to that. Your description of De Leon's position is the opposite of De Leon's position.

Whatever you've been reading has seriously misled you.


Mike Lepore
http://www.deleonism.org/

[mikelepore]

Excerpt from Daniel De Leon, "Socialist Reconstruction of Society", 1905

__________________


It does not lie in a political organization, that is, a
party, to "take and hold" the machinery of production.
Both the "reason" for a political party and its
"structure" unfit it for such work. I have at
considerable length dealt with some of the aspects of
this question in the address I delivered last year in
Newark, N.J., "The Burning Question of Trades
Unionism." I shall now take it up somewhat more in
detail.

The "reason" for a political party unfits it to "take
and hold" the machinery of production. As shown when I
dealt with the first sentence of this clause - the
sentence that urges the necessity of political unity -
the "reason" for a political movement is the exigencies
of the bourgeois shell in which the social revolution
must partly shape its course. The governmental
administration of capitalism is the State, the
government proper (that institution is purely
political). Political power, in the language of Marx,
is merely the organized power of the capitalist class
to oppress, to curb, to keep the working class in
subjection. The bourgeois shell in which the social
revolution must partly shape its course dictates the
setting up of a body that shall contest the possession
of the political robber burg by the capitalist class.
The reason for such initial tactics also dictates their
ultimate goal - the razing to the ground of the robber
burg of capitalist tyranny. The shops, the yards, the
mills, in short, the mechanical establishments of
production, now in the hands of the capitalist class -
they are all to be "taken," not for the purpose of
being destroyed, but for the purpose of being "held";
for the purpose of improving and enlarging all the good
that is latent in them, and that capitalism dwarfs; in
short, they are to be "taken and held" in order to save
them for civilization.

It is exactly the reverse with the "political power."
That is to be taken for the purpose of abolishing it.
It follows herefrom that the goal of the political
movement of labor is purely destructive.

Suppose that, at some election, the classconscious
political arm of labor were to sweep the field; suppose
the sweeping were done in such a landslide fashion that
the capitalist election officials are themselves so
completely swept off their base that they wouldn't, if
they could, and that they couldn't, if they would,
count us out; suppose that, from President down to
Congress and the rest of the political redoubts of the
capitalist political robber burg, our candidates were
installed - suppose that, what would there be for them
to do? What should there be for them to do? Simply to
adjourn themselves, on the spot, sine die. Their work
would be done by disbanding.

The political movement of labor that, in the event of
triumph, would prolong its existence a second after
triumph, would be a usurpation.

It would be either a usurpation or the signal for a
social catastrophe. It would be the signal for a
social catastrophe if the political triumph did not
find the working class of the land industrially
organized, that is, in full possession of the plants of
production and distribution, capable, accordingly, to
assume the integral conduct of the productive powers of
the land. The catastrophe would be instantaneous. The
plants of production and distribution having remained
in capitalist hands, production would be instantly
blocked.

On the other hand, if the political triumph does find
the working class industrially organized, then for the
political movement to prolong its existence would be to
attempt to usurp the powers which its very triumph
announces have devolved upon the central administration
of the industrial organization.

The "reason" for a political movement obviously unfits
it to "take and hold" the machinery of production.
What the political movement "moves into" is not the
shops but the robber burg of capitalism - for the
purpose of dismantling it.

[workersunity]

ya ive read that before, its a good read, although i still have some doubts about the whole voting and getting into office, hey mike could you clear this up?

[mikelepore]

Why not have socialists attempt to get elected to publc office? There's nothing to lose. In fact, it doesn't even cost anything, since the real effort has to go toward the task of educating the working class about the need to scrap capitalism, which would have to be done anyway, with or without an attmept to get elected to public office. Of course, while the movement is small, the ballot fees and restrictions may be prohibitive, but if millions of workers were acquiring class consciousness, the fees and other difficulties to get on the ballot would be negligible. So why not?

There are many potential advantages. What are these advantages?

First of all, to give public office to capitalist candidates by default, because socialists didn't even try, would be to say, in effect, okay, go ahead and have a commander in chief of the army and a local police chief who have openly admitted that they would give orders to massacre the workers, in the event that the workers rebel. How could socialists let that stand by default, by not even trying to challenge them?

Another advantage of using the political process is that socialists who declare the intention to use the constitutional method, such as the amendment clause of the constitution, to enact a mandate for socialism, are immune from legal prosecution. During past legal crackdowns, such as the Palmer Raids and McCarthyism, when syndicalists and others rotted in prison on sedition charges, prosecutors couldn't indict the DeLeonists.

But consider this advantage of using the political process: The working class already considers elections to be a measurement instrument for determining the will of the majority of the people. Any kind of gauge or "thermometer" which most people feel is a representation of popular opinions should be considered carefully. By using the political process, socialists will be publicly perceived as the civilized ones, and then if the ruling class tries to overturn socialist political action, then the ruling class will be publicly perceived as the barbarians.

There are many pragmatic advantages in the socialist movement having a political aspect, even those as simple as generating more opportunites to send speakers to debates, etc.

Therefore, although the One Big Industrial Union must actually take hold of the industries in the name of society, the political side of the socialist program is also necessary.

[workersunity]

ya, but i dont see the need of electoral actions, because in the US, it will always be that a democrat or republican gets president unless some serious education is done and more and more class conscious workers come about

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 05:05 AM
ya, but i dont see the need of electoral actions, because in the US, it will always be that a democrat or republican gets president unless some serious education is done and more and more class conscious workers come about

That's a point to raise when advancing the position that, as a practical consideration, electoral politics should be omitted right now.

I only assert strongly that the workers' movement will need electoral politics eventually, at least during the few years immediately before a revolution can occur.

[workersunity]

Can you explain to me how this will work, i would like to know more, of why we need electoral action

[mikelepore]

As long as it's the case that socialists never get elected, then I DON'T think that socialists need to participate in elections. I'm talking about a time in the future, when many working class people will think differently and therefore vote differently.

Ultimately, the workers cannot take possession of the industries and services without also having a political movement. This is because a political office under the control of any ruling class will always give the orders to use violent force to defend the institution of private property. The police and the military never do anything except upon receiving their orders from publicly elected offices.

[rkn]

Surely this political movement will be grounded in their workplaces and communities though rather than as an abstract removed electoral system?

[bunk]

I made a post on Libcom and after that thread and a lot of literature online i must say there is no major difference between anarchist communism and council communism

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by mikelepore
Why not have socialists attempt to get elected to public office?

I have regrettably overlooked this thread up to now...only to discover that considerable nonsense has been spoken.

So, time to clear away the rubbish.


There's nothing to lose.

There are two kinds of campaigns that one can run in capitalist "elections".

The first is symbolic...you know you have no chance of winning, but you want to use an election campaign to "spread your message".

The second is credible...you think you have a real chance to win and you want to do exactly that.

Symbolic Campaigns

You can say anything you want -- you don't have to worry about "turning off" any portion of the electorate because you're not going to win no matter what you say.

You can even say that capitalist "elections" are a meaningless farce, if you want to. (Something that happens to be true.)

These campaigns are relative inexpensive...at least for a local contest. And if you're willing to ask people to "write-in" your name (that is, don't even bother to go through the formalities of getting on the ballot), then you can even "run for President" without spending much.

The message that people receive: you're not serious...and probably nutballs.

Effect of the campaign on the politics of your group: negligible.

What you will accomplish in public office: N/A

Credible Campaigns

Now you must be very careful about what you say...people are listening! You must retain your appeal to your "core constituency" and "reach out" to "undecided voters" to maximize your chance of victory. You must be careful not to appear "too extreme" and yet also appear to offer "a real alternative". This is a "delicate" balance to achieve.

Credible campaigns are very expensive and labor intensive. You must have or acquire the funds for major media purchases or you must have large numbers of people willing to go "door-to-door" with your campaign.

Careful bookkeeping is a must -- should you win, your rivals may seek to nail you with campaign financing irregularities.

The message that people receive: you are serious politicians and possibly better than your rivals...you might win public office (local or state-wide).

Effect of the campaign on the politics of your group: you move rightwards in order to win. And your group cannot do anything besides electoral politics...you lack any additional resources or people. As soon as you win one election, you must start preparing for the next.

What you will accomplish in public office: nothing.

------------------------------

A sensible revolutionary would look at these options and simply say "fuck it!"

But let's look at the arguments offered in support of participating in capitalist "elections".


First of all, to give public office to capitalist candidates by default, because socialists didn't even try, would be to say, in effect, okay, go ahead and have a commander in chief of the army and a local police chief who have openly admitted that they would give orders to massacre the workers, in the event that the workers rebel. How could socialists let that stand by default, by not even trying to challenge them?

You cannot stop that from happening -- army or police massacres -- regardless of what public office you hold. Even if you were "the president", the ruling class would "go around you" and hire some generals to overthrow you and massacre your supporters if they thought that necessary.

Your big mistake here is that you think that the bourgeois political system is "neutral" -- like a car that anyone can drive.

That's not true. It is a system that was designed to serve a capitalist ruling class...most of its personnel believe in that "mission". They would not obey a "socialist President" or a "socialist mayor" or even a "socialist police chief"...unless they were completely confident that the "socialist office holder" would never do anything to actually implement socialism.


Another advantage of using the political process is that socialists who declare the intention to use the constitutional method, such as the amendment clause of the constitution, to enact a mandate for socialism, are immune from legal prosecution.

They certainly are not. Eugene V. Debs, of the perfectly legal Socialist Party, went to prison for the crime of verbally opposing World War I.


The working class already considers elections to be a measurement instrument for determining the will of the majority of the people.

Not any more. At least half of all potential voters no longer bother with elections...and the non-participation of the working class (especially its lowest sections) is much higher.

"Politicians are all crooks!" is the opinion of the most conscious sections of the working class today. If you were to create a successful "socialist" electoral party, they'd think the same thing about you...probably justifiably. Once you are actually elected to public office in a capitalist country, the big money begins to take an interest in you...and you in it.


By using the political process, socialists will be publicly perceived as the civilized ones, and then if the ruling class tries to overturn socialist political action, then the ruling class will be publicly perceived as the barbarians.

Perhaps...but if you think the masses are going to pour into the streets to defend your right to hold public office, better think again. (Unless you're the next Hugo Chavez, of course. :lol:)

Don't forget: you've publicly told people that real change is possible by voting for you...there is no reason for them to exert themselves any further on your behalf. You can't go back to them now and say "oh, and by the way, would you make a revolution for me, please."

Well, you can say it...but people will just shrug their shoulders in response.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[mikelepore]

redstar2000,

In addressing "this would happen" and 'that would happen", it's necessary to clarify (1) whether you're talking about the way people think and behave TODAY, when it's true that, as you said, people running for public office are concerned about not sounding too radical lest they scare off undecided voters, when running for office is very expensive, when many qualified voters are apathetic because politicians are crooks, etc.; or, (2) whether you're talking about the way people will be thinging and behaving at some future time when the working class is actually on the verge of enacting a socialist revolution in the near future, when it's getting close to becoming a majority who are class conscious and organized and really ready to do it.

Because if we're talking about case (2), as I am, then, NO, it won't be true that the political movement of socialism has to go spend money that it doesn't have to go door-to-door, to dilute its speeches with euphemisms, and all the rest. One announcement in the revolutionary organization's newspaper endorsing a socialist political campaign would be sufficient. To educate the working class to the point where we will be organized in a revolutionary way is the hard part. When that's achieved, almost all of the uphill climb being already done, then the task that's under debate, a socialist takeover of elected public offices, would be trivially easy to achieve.

Trivially easy, and yet absolutely necessary, because if the workers seize the means of production, while conservatives still control the public offices, then the workers' popular and industrial organization would literally have to engage in military conflict with the military branch of government. The workers could not avoid facing machine guns and rocket launchers and flame throwers. The workers would be defeated, and those who are left alive would go back to work under the condition of fascism.

To prevent this massacre and defeat, all the worker' organization has to do is to place labor delegates into the elected offices from which all police and military branches take their orders. Only by this method can the violent agencies of the state be diverted toward some harmless place, or sent on vacations, or distracted in any way possible, while the workers' organization seizes control of the industries and makes a social revolution.

Mike Lepore
http://www.deleonism.org/

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by mikelepore
In addressing "this would happen" and 'that would happen", it's necessary to clarify (1) whether you're talking about the way people think and behave TODAY,...or, (2) whether you're talking about the way people will be thinking and behaving at some future time when the working class is actually on the verge of enacting a socialist revolution in the near future, when it's getting close to becoming a majority who are class conscious and organized and really ready to do it.

Of course. I gathered from the context of your earlier posts that you were indeed "talking about TODAY".

But since that's not the case, let's talk about "the eve of the revolution"...


...because if the workers seize the means of production, while conservatives still control the public offices, then the workers' popular and industrial organization would literally have to engage in military conflict with the military branch of government. The workers could not avoid facing machine guns and rocket launchers and flame throwers. The workers would be defeated, and those who are left alive would go back to work under the condition of fascism.

That is certainly a plausible scenario. Much depends on what proportion of the working class is conscious of what they're really fighting for. If it is a relatively small proportion, than the outcome that you suggest becomes quite likely. If it is a very high proportion (say, over 40% of the class is openly communist), then the scenario of military repression becomes impractical.

There are too many of us.

In addition to which, massacre is a tactic that immediately polarizes people one way or the other; if the ruling class in its last extremity resorts to such a measure, they risk converting a revolution supported by 40% of the working class into a revolution supported by 80% of the entire population.


To prevent this massacre and defeat, all the workers' organization has to do is to place labor delegates into the elected offices from which all police and military branches take their orders.

I think that's problematical for a number of reasons. In the period leading up to proletarian revolution, there will likely be considerable social turmoil...the whole "election" process may have already been suspended for "national emergency" reasons. Even if it still functions, it won't be "an honest count".

But most of all, the electoral strategy at that point in time is just a diversion. If a large section of the working class is "ready" to seize the means of production, then there's no reason not to directly occupy government buildings and "shut down" the bourgeois state apparatus altogether.

Every police chief or military commander is left "on his own" because the capitalist "chain-of-command" has been broken. Some may indeed resort to massacre...but others (and I think most) will throw up their hands in despair. And, of course, some orders to massacre may be given that the rank-and-file will refuse to carry out...preferring to desert to the side of the revolution. That's especially likely if the revolution takes place immediately after a catastrophic military defeat or series of defeats in an imperialist war.

To be a realistic possibility, a revolution must be in such overwhelming demand that a substantial portion of the military defects to its side and an additional substantial portion opts for neutrality.

Experience suggests that the police will fight against the revolution "to the bitter end"...but armed workers can defeat the police in battle.

So the real decisive occasion revolves around what proportion of the military is willing to defect to our side. I suspect as little as 15-20% would be sufficient...because that proportion of the military defecting to our side would generate so much uncertainty in the remainder that an effective military counter-revolution would be impossible to "pull off".

In the midst of all of this upheaval, bourgeois elections -- even if they were held -- would be completely irrelevant.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[mikelepore]

then the scenario of military repression ecomes impractical.

If there is a period of systematic violence and then the workers win, that's better than if there is a period of systematic violence and then the workers lose. Hewever, I believe that careful use of the political process increases the likelihood that any violence will be incidental and not systematic.

[mikelepore]

If a large section of the working class is "ready" to seize the means of production, then there's no reason not to directly occupy government buildings and "shut down" the bourgeois state apparatus altogether

The political program I have described is what I consider most likely to result in the working class every becoming psychologically "ready".

However, if events occur as you describe them, I will, naturally, support the process.