vox
19th June 2002, 23:24
(I received this from a mailing list I'm on and thought some here might find it interesting.)
"Suppose the central leadership is able to distribute all of what
has been produced in a righteous way. Even then the fact
remains, that the producers don't have at their disposal the
machinery of production. This machinery is not theirs, it is one
used to dispose of them. The inevitable consequence is that
those groups that oppose the existent leadership will be
oppressed with force. The central economic power is in the
hands of those who, at the same time, exercise the political
power. Any opposition thinking in a different way about political
and economic problems will be oppressed with any possible
means. This means that instead of an association of free and
equal producers, as defined by Marx, there is a house of
correction as no one has seen before."
This quotation, freely translated from a seventy year old text,
explains that the relations of production as they were developed
in Russia after October 1917, have nothing to do with what Marx
and Engels understood as communism. At the time the
just-quoted pamphlet was published the terror of the thirties lay
ahead. It was only prophecy. There was not any political event
which had caused this criticism of Soviet society; this criticism
arose from an economic analysis. On this base the rising
Stalinism was understood as the political expression of an
economic system that belonged to a state capitalist exploitation,
and this counted not only for Stalinism.
The just-mentioned text was the work of a group whose authors
belonged to a current that arose in the years after the First World
War and won permanent meaning. This current was
characterized by a sharp criticism of social democracy as well as
Bolshevism. It was a current that carefully analyzed the daily
experiences of the working class, and so it came to new ideas
about the class struggle. The current saw social democracy and
Bolshevism as the "old labour movement" ; the contradiction of
this was "a new movement of the workers."
Among the earliest representatives of this current were German
and Dutch Marxists who had always stood on the left wing of
social democracy. In the course of their years long permanent
struggle against reformism they became more and more critical
of social democracy. The best known of this current were two
Dutchmen, Anton Pannekoek (1872-1960) and Herman Gorter
(1864-1927) and also two Germans, Karl Schroder (1884-1950)
and Otto Ruhle (1874-1943). Later the much younger Paul
Mattick (1904-1980) became one of its most important theorists.
Pannekoek's ideas drew attention shortly after the turn of the
century for some Marxist reflections on philosophy. From 1906
up to the outbreak of the First World War he worked in Germany.
First for a year as a teacher in the SPD party school then after he
was threatened with expulsion from Germany, he worked in
Bremen and wrote articles for different left papers. While in
Bremen Pannekoek witnessed a very important wildcat strike by
the dockers there. This experience influenced his ideas about
the class struggle, and his interpretation of Marxism as well. As
a consequence he rejected Bolshevik theories about
organization, strategy and policy at a very early date.
Otto Ruhle never identified himself with a current in the German
labour movement; however, he never neglected the general
interests of the working class. Like Pannekoek he rejected
Bolshevism in the 1920's and was one of the first to argue that
the proletarian revolution was something completely different
from a bourgeois revolution and as a consequence required
completely different forms of organization. For this reason he
rejected the fallacy that the proletarian revolution should be the
case of a party. "Revolution" he said "is not a party affair;
politically and economically it is the affair of the whole working
class."
These ideas, which would become far more detailed, were
characteristic of the current which became known as Council
Communism. Council Communism, from the beginning of the
twenties was based on the experiences of the Russian and
German Revolutions, and defended the councilists' democracy
and rejected the power of the party. It sought to distinguish itself
from Bolshevism and the Bolsheviks, and those who claimed
the name communist. Nevertheless at its origin it was very far
away from the opinions it later developed.
2
In the beginning Council Communism was hardly different from
Leninism. Ruhle however did not regard the parties of the Third
International as communist ones. A few years later the Council
Communists were to distinguish themselves much more clearly
from Bolshevism. The so-called October Revolution finished
Czarism and put an end to feudal relations and cleared the way
for capitalist ones.
The Council Communists went further. They pointed to the fact
that an economy such as the Russian one, based on wage
labour , that is to say an economy where the labour force is a
commodity, wants nothing more than the production of surplus
value and the exploitation of the workers; It doesn't matter
whether the surplus value goes to private capitalists or to the
state as the proprietor of the means of production. The Council
Communists remembered that Marx had taught that
nationalization of the means of production has nothing to do with
socialism. The Council Communists pointed to the fact that in
Russia, production obeyed the same laws that exist in classical
private capitalism. Exploitation can only come to an end - so said
Marx - when wage labour no longer exists. The Council
Communists explained, referring to Moscow, what communism
was not. The differences between Council Communism and
Bolshevism became clearer and more complete.
3
What has been said before should not be understood as
meaning that Council Communism is a special critique of
Stalinism. It is a critique of Bolshevism in general. Council
Communists don't see Stalinism as a sort of `counter-revolution'
that deprived October of its fruits. Rather they see Stalinism just
as a fruit of this revolution, one that opened the door for
capitalism in Russia. Stalin was the heir of Bolshevism and the
Bolshevik Revolution. The development of this theory went
slowly, just as the case was with social development. In their
course the Council Communists changed their opinion and their
own practice. Initially in Germany and Holland Council
Communist parties were founded. This contradicted the opinion
of some like Ruhle who, as stated previously, thought that
parties were not an affair of the working class. Ruhle however,
saw these organizations as parties "of a completely new
character - a party that wasn't a party anymore."
Four years later in 1924 Ruhle spoke a different language. "A
party with a revolutionary character in the proletarian meaning of
the word" he said "is an absurdity. Its revolutionary character can
only be in a bourgeois meaning and only when the question is
the changing of feudalism into capitalism." He was perfectly right
and for this reason the so-called absurdities disappeared from
the proletarian theatre within ten years. There was little exception
and soon after the Second World War the expression was no
longer used.
At the same time the Council Communists grew up. They had
learned that the Russian Revolution was nothing more than a
bourgeois revolution and that the Russian economy was nothing
more than state capitalism. They had a clearer understanding of
things which were ripe for new research. Other things not
analyzed before, stood now in a clearer light.
The most important analysis in this respect was completed by
Pannekoek in 1938. He published a pamphlet on Lenin's
philosophy and produced a more profound analysis of
Bolshevism. Pannekoek pointed to the fact that Lenin's Marxism
was nothing more than a legend and contradicted real Marxism.
At the same time he explained the cause: "In Russia," he said
"the struggle against Czarism resembled in many aspects the
struggle against feudalism in Europe long before. In Russia
church and religion supported the existing power. For that
reason a struggle against religion was a social necessity." For
this reason what Lenin regarded as historical materialism hardly
distinguished itself from the French bourgeois materialism of
the 18th century, a materialism that, in those times , was used
as a spiritual weapon against the church and religion. In the
same way, that is to say, pointing to the similarities of the social
relations in Russia before the revolution and those in the
pre-revolutionary France, the Council Communists pointed to the
fact that Lenin and the members of his party claimed the name
Jacobins for themselves. They meant that their party in the
Russian bourgeois revolution had the same function as the
French Jacobins.
That Bolshevism in March 1918, only five months after October
1917, robbed the Soviets from their already minimalized power
was - as the Council Communists said - a logical consequence
of the October Revolution. Soviets were not suitable with a
system that was the political superstructure of state capitalist
productive relations.
What the council Communist movement mean by communism
is a completely different thing from that system. The dictatorship
of a party doesn't fit with social relations based on the abolition
of wage-labour and the end of exploitation of the workers. A
society in which the producers are free and equal can't be
something different from the democracy of the producers.
Originally published in Red & Black Notes #8, Spring 1999
"Suppose the central leadership is able to distribute all of what
has been produced in a righteous way. Even then the fact
remains, that the producers don't have at their disposal the
machinery of production. This machinery is not theirs, it is one
used to dispose of them. The inevitable consequence is that
those groups that oppose the existent leadership will be
oppressed with force. The central economic power is in the
hands of those who, at the same time, exercise the political
power. Any opposition thinking in a different way about political
and economic problems will be oppressed with any possible
means. This means that instead of an association of free and
equal producers, as defined by Marx, there is a house of
correction as no one has seen before."
This quotation, freely translated from a seventy year old text,
explains that the relations of production as they were developed
in Russia after October 1917, have nothing to do with what Marx
and Engels understood as communism. At the time the
just-quoted pamphlet was published the terror of the thirties lay
ahead. It was only prophecy. There was not any political event
which had caused this criticism of Soviet society; this criticism
arose from an economic analysis. On this base the rising
Stalinism was understood as the political expression of an
economic system that belonged to a state capitalist exploitation,
and this counted not only for Stalinism.
The just-mentioned text was the work of a group whose authors
belonged to a current that arose in the years after the First World
War and won permanent meaning. This current was
characterized by a sharp criticism of social democracy as well as
Bolshevism. It was a current that carefully analyzed the daily
experiences of the working class, and so it came to new ideas
about the class struggle. The current saw social democracy and
Bolshevism as the "old labour movement" ; the contradiction of
this was "a new movement of the workers."
Among the earliest representatives of this current were German
and Dutch Marxists who had always stood on the left wing of
social democracy. In the course of their years long permanent
struggle against reformism they became more and more critical
of social democracy. The best known of this current were two
Dutchmen, Anton Pannekoek (1872-1960) and Herman Gorter
(1864-1927) and also two Germans, Karl Schroder (1884-1950)
and Otto Ruhle (1874-1943). Later the much younger Paul
Mattick (1904-1980) became one of its most important theorists.
Pannekoek's ideas drew attention shortly after the turn of the
century for some Marxist reflections on philosophy. From 1906
up to the outbreak of the First World War he worked in Germany.
First for a year as a teacher in the SPD party school then after he
was threatened with expulsion from Germany, he worked in
Bremen and wrote articles for different left papers. While in
Bremen Pannekoek witnessed a very important wildcat strike by
the dockers there. This experience influenced his ideas about
the class struggle, and his interpretation of Marxism as well. As
a consequence he rejected Bolshevik theories about
organization, strategy and policy at a very early date.
Otto Ruhle never identified himself with a current in the German
labour movement; however, he never neglected the general
interests of the working class. Like Pannekoek he rejected
Bolshevism in the 1920's and was one of the first to argue that
the proletarian revolution was something completely different
from a bourgeois revolution and as a consequence required
completely different forms of organization. For this reason he
rejected the fallacy that the proletarian revolution should be the
case of a party. "Revolution" he said "is not a party affair;
politically and economically it is the affair of the whole working
class."
These ideas, which would become far more detailed, were
characteristic of the current which became known as Council
Communism. Council Communism, from the beginning of the
twenties was based on the experiences of the Russian and
German Revolutions, and defended the councilists' democracy
and rejected the power of the party. It sought to distinguish itself
from Bolshevism and the Bolsheviks, and those who claimed
the name communist. Nevertheless at its origin it was very far
away from the opinions it later developed.
2
In the beginning Council Communism was hardly different from
Leninism. Ruhle however did not regard the parties of the Third
International as communist ones. A few years later the Council
Communists were to distinguish themselves much more clearly
from Bolshevism. The so-called October Revolution finished
Czarism and put an end to feudal relations and cleared the way
for capitalist ones.
The Council Communists went further. They pointed to the fact
that an economy such as the Russian one, based on wage
labour , that is to say an economy where the labour force is a
commodity, wants nothing more than the production of surplus
value and the exploitation of the workers; It doesn't matter
whether the surplus value goes to private capitalists or to the
state as the proprietor of the means of production. The Council
Communists remembered that Marx had taught that
nationalization of the means of production has nothing to do with
socialism. The Council Communists pointed to the fact that in
Russia, production obeyed the same laws that exist in classical
private capitalism. Exploitation can only come to an end - so said
Marx - when wage labour no longer exists. The Council
Communists explained, referring to Moscow, what communism
was not. The differences between Council Communism and
Bolshevism became clearer and more complete.
3
What has been said before should not be understood as
meaning that Council Communism is a special critique of
Stalinism. It is a critique of Bolshevism in general. Council
Communists don't see Stalinism as a sort of `counter-revolution'
that deprived October of its fruits. Rather they see Stalinism just
as a fruit of this revolution, one that opened the door for
capitalism in Russia. Stalin was the heir of Bolshevism and the
Bolshevik Revolution. The development of this theory went
slowly, just as the case was with social development. In their
course the Council Communists changed their opinion and their
own practice. Initially in Germany and Holland Council
Communist parties were founded. This contradicted the opinion
of some like Ruhle who, as stated previously, thought that
parties were not an affair of the working class. Ruhle however,
saw these organizations as parties "of a completely new
character - a party that wasn't a party anymore."
Four years later in 1924 Ruhle spoke a different language. "A
party with a revolutionary character in the proletarian meaning of
the word" he said "is an absurdity. Its revolutionary character can
only be in a bourgeois meaning and only when the question is
the changing of feudalism into capitalism." He was perfectly right
and for this reason the so-called absurdities disappeared from
the proletarian theatre within ten years. There was little exception
and soon after the Second World War the expression was no
longer used.
At the same time the Council Communists grew up. They had
learned that the Russian Revolution was nothing more than a
bourgeois revolution and that the Russian economy was nothing
more than state capitalism. They had a clearer understanding of
things which were ripe for new research. Other things not
analyzed before, stood now in a clearer light.
The most important analysis in this respect was completed by
Pannekoek in 1938. He published a pamphlet on Lenin's
philosophy and produced a more profound analysis of
Bolshevism. Pannekoek pointed to the fact that Lenin's Marxism
was nothing more than a legend and contradicted real Marxism.
At the same time he explained the cause: "In Russia," he said
"the struggle against Czarism resembled in many aspects the
struggle against feudalism in Europe long before. In Russia
church and religion supported the existing power. For that
reason a struggle against religion was a social necessity." For
this reason what Lenin regarded as historical materialism hardly
distinguished itself from the French bourgeois materialism of
the 18th century, a materialism that, in those times , was used
as a spiritual weapon against the church and religion. In the
same way, that is to say, pointing to the similarities of the social
relations in Russia before the revolution and those in the
pre-revolutionary France, the Council Communists pointed to the
fact that Lenin and the members of his party claimed the name
Jacobins for themselves. They meant that their party in the
Russian bourgeois revolution had the same function as the
French Jacobins.
That Bolshevism in March 1918, only five months after October
1917, robbed the Soviets from their already minimalized power
was - as the Council Communists said - a logical consequence
of the October Revolution. Soviets were not suitable with a
system that was the political superstructure of state capitalist
productive relations.
What the council Communist movement mean by communism
is a completely different thing from that system. The dictatorship
of a party doesn't fit with social relations based on the abolition
of wage-labour and the end of exploitation of the workers. A
society in which the producers are free and equal can't be
something different from the democracy of the producers.
Originally published in Red & Black Notes #8, Spring 1999