Anarchism and Left/Council Communism

[Cult of Reason]

I am wondering: is there any meaningful difference between the two? Are they mutually exclusive (as Leninism and Anarchism are) or are the differences just that of where the underlying teory comes from?

Is there much point to distinguishing the two, and why?

Have I missed something obvious?

[Storming Heaven]

From my (admittedly limited) understanding, the biggest difference is one of scope.

There are may different varients of anarchism (e.g. anarcho-communism, individualist anarchism, anarcho-syndicism), whilst Council Communism is a particular varient of Marxism. From some hastily done research it appears to have originated with Rosa Luxemburg, a Marxist, although I have also seen Council Communism attributed to Anarchism.

Beyond this, it seems to me that the difference between (Marxist) Council Communists and many Anarcho-communists has more to do with language than any fundamental theoretical difference. The Marxist faction of course want a proletarian 'State' based around workers councils that operate through direct democracy. Anarchists of course want to abolish the 'State' - however, many anarcho-communists would be quite happy with a world organised as a free federation of directly democratic community and worker's councils... so long as it's not called a 'State'!

[Djehuti]

Well, first of all Council communists are marxists while anarcho-communists are anarchists. ;) As you said, there are: "differences just that of where the underlying teory comes from". But even if they dirive from somewhat different traditions, the platformist (Makhno, NEFAC etc) anarchist branch of the anarchist tree is close to the council communist (Pannekoek, Mattick etc) branch of the marxist tree. And today council communists read anarchist thinkers and anarchists read Marx. There is still some differences though. As "Storming Heaven" pointed out Council communist advocates a state, anarchists don't (SH is also right that some anarchists advocate somthing that some marxists probably would call a state).


The council communist view on the state is not very far from Marx' own (I would say that council communism is very close to Marx in general, orthodox without being dogmatic.). They were enemies to the idea that parties (such as the bolshevik party) should posess the power of the state, instead they ment that a system of workers councils (soviets) should constitute the proletarian state. Well, council communists very often pointed out that the working class itself had decide its way of organization, (no one should tell them how to organize; in a party, council, union, etc) but by studying revolutionary events around the world and how the working class had chosen to organize itself, the council communists believed that the workers councils were the working class' most prefered way of organization.

The council communists saw that the task of the parties or socialist/communist minorites were to spread propaganda, learnings, experiences and information within the class, not to seize the political power. They also meant that it was totally wrong for socialists/communists to work within the bourgeoise parliaments, and they did also reject the unions as a way of offensive class struggle. They view the unions as a capitalist phenomenon, an organization for the selling of the commodity labour power; an organization for the workers in their function as variable capital, but against the workers in their function as the revolutionary subject.

Council communists are also against all forms of nationalism (including all nationalist liberation movements). They advocace the direct struggle of the working class (and are thus against all struggle through representatives, like most parties and unions, etc), and they put all focus on communist class struggle.

Put short, the council communists advocate a very strong proletarian state/dictatorship based on workers councils.


But there is one big difference between the platformist anarchists and the council communists. Platformists have has a very strong emphasis on the need for active involvement as an organisation in the day to day organisations of the working class. This is sometimes refered to as "social insertion" but it includes working in the mass unions. Council communists on the other hand rejects such work.

[enigma2517]

Thats really interesting....well articulated buddy :)

It's been said before, but I think most differences between "ultra-left" marxists such as council communists and anarchists can be rather small and based entirely on semantics.

If you discount all of the life stylist trends of anarchism and look at only the class struggle variants then you will find a lot of similarities.


But there is one big difference between the platformist anarchists and the council communists. Platformists have has a very strong emphasis on the need for active involvement as an organisation in the day to day organisations of the working class. This is sometimes refered to as "social insertion" but it includes working in the mass unions. Council communists on the other hand rejects such work.

I never knew that. It sounds almost as if platformists are more authoritarian. I don't want to get this confused with organization, because groups could be about hyper-organization and actually end up being less authoritarian, because the more people are involved in the decision making process the better. So I guess the platformist position is just more...centralist? Perhaps, I don't know. Semanitcs again.

But really, both pretty much advocate grassroots, horizontal organization of the proletariat. Both essentially reject hierarchy, parties, and the State in its traditional form.

This actually brings up an interesting question and I'm going to make a new thread about it so as to avoid hijacking this one. :)

[Cult of Reason]

Put short, the council communists advocate a very strong proletarian state/dictatorship based on workers councils.

So, that is what they think the dictatorship of the proltariat would be? That seems very similar to what my (mis?)understanding of Communism is. What would Communism then look like?


Platformists

What are Platformists? Are they similar to Syndicalists (as you mentioned Unions)?

Would a revolution where Council Communists were the predominant movement be muh different to one where Anarcho-Communists were predominant?

[Revolution 9]

I believe that while the Anarchists reject the idea of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" all Communists (including Council Communists) accept the idea.

The Anarchists believe in essentially no government, besides a democratic government through trade unions (in which nothing would be forced onto anyone) while all Communists believe that there should be some form of a dictatorship by the proleterians, which would most likely be through proletarian militias that could exercise their power when it comes to defence, law, et cetera. However, some Communists believe that this dictatorship of the proles should come through a powerful leader or a powerful party.

Matters on your opinion, really.

[Storming Heaven]

What are Platformists? Are they similar to Syndicalists (as you mentioned Unions)?


'Platformism' is an anarcho-communist tradition based around developing organisational structures similar to those outlined in The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists, by a group of Russian Anarchists exiled to France after the Russian Revolution. Platformists embrace syndicism as a method of working class struggle (hence their enthuasium for unions) but believe Syndicism in itself is not sufficient to bring about the desired revolution.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Street [email protected] 4 2006, 08:26 PM
I believe that while the Anarchists reject the idea of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" all Communists (including Council Communists) accept the idea.

The Anarchists believe in essentially no government, besides a democratic government through trade unions (in which nothing would be forced onto anyone) while all Communists believe that there should be some form of a dictatorship by the proleterians, which would most likely be through proletarian militias that could exercise their power when it comes to defence, law, et cetera. However, some Communists believe that this dictatorship of the proles should come through a powerful leader or a powerful party.

Matters on your opinion, really.
This is not true. I know many anarchists, including myself, who want the dictatorship of the proletariat. By having workers councils and communitie councils running the communes, this in itself is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Before we reach communism, a task of these organizations is to root out any counterrevolutionaries and destroy whats left of the bourgeois (symbols, structures, people :lol: ). The proletariat would be IN CONTROL, therefore it would be the dictatorship of the proletariat.