Luxemburgism vs Council Communism

[MrDoom]

So where do Council Communism and Luxemburgism separate? I was previously of the assumption that they were identical movements.

[Comrade Phil]

I've often wondered the major differences (if any) between them as well. This is the only thing I could find regarding the issue.

"The chief tenets of Luxemburgism are commitment to democracy and the necessity of the revolution taking place as soon as possible. In this regard, it is similar to Council Communism, but differs in that, for example Luxemburgists don't reject unions or elections by principle."

http://www.answers.com/topic/luxemburgism

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than I could provide some more information.

[Leo]

Hopefully those links will help :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxemburgism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_leftism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationism

As you will see, all those traditions are really very close, there are no major differences.

[More Fire for the People]

Luxemburgism is Leninism attempted to the conditions of early 20th century Germany. Council communism is the rejection of organisation of class consciouss workers into a political party.

[MrDoom]

I see. This helps a lot. Thanks!

[Comrade Phil]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 26 2006, 04:19 PM
Luxemburgism is Leninism attempted to the conditions of early 20th century Germany. Council communism is the rejection of organisation of class consciouss workers into a political party.
So how does Council Communism differ from say Anarcho-communism?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Comrade Phil+Aug 26 2006, 10:51 AM--> (Comrade Phil @ Aug 26 2006, 10:51 AM)
Hopscotch [email protected] 26 2006, 04:19 PM
Luxemburgism is Leninism attempted to the conditions of early 20th century Germany. Council communism is the rejection of organisation of class consciouss workers into a political party.
So how does Council Communism differ from say Anarcho-communism? [/b]
IIRC, council communists do not oppose a state but see that state as a decentralised confederation of workers’ councils. A council communist comrade may want to correct me.

[MrDoom]

While I knew what the council communist trend was, I wasn't certain how Luxemburgist ideals differed from it. I consider myself a council communist, and yes, you are correct. The local worker's unions are the form of state power advocated.

[Hit The North]

As a member of SDP and a founder of the German CP, Rosa was obviously committed to the idea of the Revolutionary Party as the means of organising the revolution. Where she intersects with the Council Communists is in her idea of the Mass Strike as the principle weapon in the overthrow of the Capitalist State and her criticism of the Bolsheviks treatment of the Soviets. Nevertheless her position is less developed than those of the Council Communists.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill
Luxemburgism is Leninism attempted to the conditions of early 20th century Germany. Council communism is the rejection of organisation of class consciouss workers into a political party.

What traditions are you counting as "council communist"?

Left-communists, like say the ICC and Leo's organisation Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol, unless I'm mistaken, don't "reject [the] organisation of class consciouss workers into a political party". Where they differ from the traditional Marxist-Leninist/Bolshevik-Leninist paradigm, is that they don't think said "political party" should aim to assume State power. Indeed, I think that they may reject the idea of a "mass party" outright.

People like Pannekoek however, unless memory deceives me, viewed the "political party" as obsolete and, instead, argued that the workers' council, which in their view had superseded the "political party", should be the primary vessel through which the working class should seek to attain political and economic power. Though the secondary organisations, which would exist mainly as vehicles for propaganda, could be classified as "political parties"....depending, of course, on ones definition of what constitutes a "political party".

Plus, it's a tad simplistic to term "Luxemburgism" as "just" "Leninism attempted to the conditions of early 20th century Germany". Mainly because it overlooks the major theoretical differences between the two. Luxemburg and Lenin had very different views on the workings of Imperialism, the right of self-determination, and so on and so forth.

Essentially, "Luxemburgism" is a political theory that neither falls into the council communist or the "Leninist" camp. Though that there's never really been a significant "Luxembergian" tradition, means that "Luxemburgism" is something that many traditions borrow from. Similar, in a way, to Situationism.

[More Fire for the People]

What traditions are you counting as "council communist"?
Pannekoek, Mattick, et al.


Left-communists, like say the ICC and Leo's organisation Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol, unless I'm mistaken, don't "reject [the] organisation of class consciouss workers into a political party". Where they differ from the traditional Marxist-Leninist/Bolshevik-Leninist paradigm, is that they don't think said "political party" should aim to assume State power. Indeed, I think that they may reject the idea of a "mass party" outright.
Perhaps then they are Bordigaist?


Plus, it's a tad simplistic to term "Luxemburgism" as "just" "Leninism attempted to the conditions of early 20th century Germany". Mainly because it overlooks the major theoretical differences between the two. Luxemburg and Lenin had very different views on the workings of Imperialism, the right of self-determination, and so on and so forth.
You actually caught me there. Though both never really put there views on imperialism into action [through anti-imperialism] but the Bolsheviks did put their view of rights of self-determation in practice. It would be interesting to see how a Luxemburgist Germany and Bolshevik Russia would have developed parallel to each other. However, I don't think we could say that Russia would have been the same à la Trotsky’s permanent revolution, no Hitler, and no East Germany.


Though that there's never really been a significant "Luxembergian" tradition, means that "Luxemburgism" is something that many traditions borrow from. Similar, in a way, to Situationism.
:lol: True, true. Even I take influence from Debord and Luxemburg.

[Leo]

Originally posted by Hopscotch+--> (Hopscotch)Perhaps then they are Bordigaist?[/b]

We are not, neither is the ICC. But we have Bordigist members in the EKS, and I personally like Bordiga despite his faults, but EKS is left communist. Of course, Bordiga is in the left communist tradition.


Originally posted by Hopscotch+--> (Hopscotch)Council communism is the rejection of organisation of class consciouss workers into a political party.[/b]

This statement is not true. The strongest council communist organization was KAPD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Wor...arty_of_Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Workers_Party_of_Germany)

Notice that it was a party.

Pannekoek did reject political parties in his later life, but even then, while taking inspirations from him, organizations like Socialism ou Barbarie, Situationist International etc. were de facto parties after all.


[email protected]
Luxemburgism is Leninism attempted to the conditions of early 20th century Germany.


Plus, it's a tad simplistic to term "Luxemburgism" as "just" "Leninism attempted to the conditions of early 20th century Germany". Mainly because it overlooks the major theoretical differences between the two. Luxemburg and Lenin had very different views on the workings of Imperialism, the right of self-determination, and so on and so forth.


AS
Left-communists, like say the ICC and Leo's organisation Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol, unless I'm mistaken, don't "reject [the] organisation of class consciouss workers into a political party". Where they differ from the traditional Marxist-Leninist/Bolshevik-Leninist paradigm, is that they don't think said "political party" should aim to assume State power. Indeed, I think that they may reject the idea of a "mass party" outright.

AS is quite right here, and this is where Luxemburg also differed from Lenin, so I would say it is wrong to say that Luxemburg applied Leninism in Germany, because Leninism was Kautskyism applied to Russia by taking inspirations on the militant vanguard party from Bakunin, Nechayev and Blanqui to a lesser degree, and by taking inspirations from Chernichevsky on the national question and by drawing conclusions from his ideas on the national question, imperialism.

The thing is, the role of the party is mainly intellectual for Left Communists, Councilists, Luxemburgists and Bordigists (who can be called un-orthodox Leninists), while for orthodox Leninism (Stalinists/Trotskyists), the party aims to take power by militant means, as a minority (or it becomes reformist if it's in a more liberal environment). Of course Lenin didn't choose this path because he was a mad man who wanted to rule the earth or something, he saw as the only possible way to organize a revolution in Russia at that time (of course it could be discussed if he was right or not and by looking at the strikes and the foundation of workers councils in Russia, it seems to me as if he was wrong) yet they had no idea on what to do after they took the power. It didn't work out.

[Alf]

I would say that the KAPD of the early 20s was left communist, but not council communist. I would define council communism as a response to the defeat of the revolutionary movements of 1917-23. It expressed a tendency to reject the party form, concluding that the party form itself had led to the degeneration of the revolution in Russia. Council communism was embodied more in groups like the GIK during the 1930s, in that it rejected the party form.

The ICC is not 'Bordigist'. We have tried to make a synthesis of the contributions of the various communist left traditions. We think that the party is vital to the success of the revolution, but its role is not to take political power - that was indeed a lesson of the Russian revolution. The Italian left fraction in the 30s was often referred to as Bordigist but they did not accept this definition. They put forward a contraditory view of the party - that it should exert the proletarian dictatorship but not become fused with the proletarian state. 'Bordigism' as such is more generally applied to some of the post world war 2 groups descended from the Italian left. They maintained the view that the party should take power, but without any of the nuances and 'fruitful contradictions' of the fraction in the 30s (in that sense 'Bordigism' was a step backwards). But there's a lot more to it than that. The ICC has produced books on both the Italian and Dutch/German lefts where these questions are gone into in much more depth.

Luxemburgism is a much vaguer term. Most of the groups of the German and Dutch communist left were influenced by her theories to a greater or lesser extent, whether on the national question (opposition to national struggles in the epoch of imperialism), the mass strike, the Russian revolution, or the economic foundations of the decline of capitalism. Luxemburg was certainly in favour of the party, but had differences with Lenin's view. I wouldn't share Leo's reduction of Lenin's view to Kautskyism or Nechayevism. In some aspects Luxemburg's understanding was clearer (eg on the role of the party as essentially a 'political leadership'), but in the 1904 debate Luxemburg tended to side with the Mensheviks against Lenin's vision of the 'narrow' party, which represented a break with the social democratic 'mass party' conception.

It's too late at night to get any further into the question of 'Leninism', however...

ICC's website is www.internationalism.org. Type in 'council communism' on the search engine and a number of articles will come up.

[Leo]

I wouldn't share Leo's reduction of Lenin's view to Kautskyism or Nechayevism.

I was mostly talking about his practical and organizational methods rather than his view actually.


We think that the party is vital to the success of the revolution, but its role is not to take political power - that was indeed a lesson of the Russian revolution. The Italian left fraction in the 30s was often referred to as Bordigist but they did not accept this definition. They put forward a contraditory view of the party - that it should exert the proletarian dictatorship but not become fused with the proletarian state. 'Bordigism' as such is more generally applied to some of the post world war 2 groups descended from the Italian left. They maintained the view that the party should take power, but without any of the nuances and 'fruitful contradictions' of the fraction in the 30s (in that sense 'Bordigism' was a step backwards). But there's a lot more to it than that. The ICC has produced books on both the Italian and Dutch/German lefts where these questions are gone into in much more depth.

Ah, I see... I think one of our comrades is translating the book on the Italian communist left to Turkish, hopefully I will read it soon.


but in the 1904 debate Luxemburg tended to side with the Mensheviks against Lenin's vision of the 'narrow' party, which represented a break with the social democratic 'mass party' conception.

She did indeed, and this might be the reason why she didn't denounce elections and unions as stated by the wikipedia:


Originally posted by Wikipedia
The chief tenets of Luxemburgism are commitment to democracy and the necessity of the revolution taking place as soon as possible. In this regard, it is similar to Council Communism, but differs in that, for example Luxemburgists don't reject unions or elections by principle.

I think the only problem with Luxemburg was that it was too difficult to break away from certain things for her. When Lenin was thinking about building a new international after the shameful position Second International took during WWI, Luxemburg was thinking of reconstructing it.

[Alf]

Agree with the last point: Lenin saw much more quickly than Luxemburg the necessity to leave the corpse of social democracy and create a new party.

Don't agree that Lenin's organisational methods/conceptions can be separated from his views. We think his organisational methods in 1904 were fundamentally proletarian: defence of the congress as the highest organ of the party; of a formal organisation supported by clear statutes; of rigorous criteria for membership. In short, of a party of revolutionary militants and not just of militant workers. Another way of putting this is the defence of the party spirit against the spirit of the circle or of the clan.

The debate on organisation between Luxemburg and Lenin is extremely rich, as with the other debates between them, for example on the national question.

Part three of our series on 'The birth of Bolshevism' deals specifically with the debate between L and L on organisation. http://en.internationalism.org/ir/118_1903.html

Mr Doom: have this and previous posts answered any of your questions?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Leo
She(Luxemborg) did indeed, and this might be the reason why she didn't denounce elections and unions...
Actually, I remember reading an article by Luxemborg where she says something like "On the question of the unions we are totally agreed. They are anti-working class by their very nature". Those sre not the exact words, but they contain the basics of her point. I will try to find the exact quote tomorrow.

devrim