council communism

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

i wondered if anarchists and and lenninists could agree to compromise with something in the middle i.e council communism

[Whitten]

No. Any division within the revolutionary far-left is a direct result in differences in theory and ideology. A leninist isn't willing to support what they consider a flawd theory, and neither is an anarchist. The situation cant be improved by trying to get both sides to adopt what they view as a flawd theory.

[Goatse]

Isn't council communism very similar to anarcho-syndicalism?

[Janus]

Isn't council communism very similar to anarcho-syndicalism?
Yes, both focus on worker's self-management and control through worker's councils and oppose revolutionary parties.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I drift around in the spectrum of council communism and anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism, but not everyone has my flexibility.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Council-Communism is not a compromise between the two.

I think the main differences between the two, and I could be wrong-- is that council-communism there is infact a Communist Party, however the party only plays a role of propaganda, support, and education. It rules over NO ONE.

Anarcho-Syndicalism doesn't have any party, instead they have revolutionary unions. These unions can do the same thing as the party does for Council-Communism.

But on the otherhand, the IWW which is revolutionary-syndicalist (not openly Anarcho-Syndicalist, though an obvious amount of their membership is) is also considered to some as Council-Communist.

Theoretically speaking (I could be wrong):
Anarcho-Syndicalism rejects politics in favour of a social-revolution; the claim is that when workers make econominc demands, and take over their work-places they will have changed society. Anarcho-Syndicalists view politics as rigid, and something that can't take into account how humans really behave, and that its also an insitution which is separate from the working-class. Their argument for this, is that working people are weakest when they organize around political parties, their best strategie is to organize around economic institutions (i.e. at their workplaces, in unions). Another reason why they take to organizing economically is that its the way the economic institutions run, and the way that wealth is distributed which determines the politics of society-- its sort of like their cutting-out the middle-man when they don't organize politically.

Council-Communists believe that when the workers make economic demands, they'll form political demands and opinions along the way, and political demands gives power to economic demands-- these different demands fuel eachother.
They believe that with every strike the proletariat gets more class-conscious, and eventually all these strikes come to a head.

As for the Anarcho-Syndicalists, Rosa Luxemburg alleged the Anarcho-Syndicalists of believing that all the workers of a given area can stop working for a short time period, the bourgeosie wont harm the proletariat, and that will be revolution. Then Luxemburg critized how their view of revolution was incorrect, because revolution is an on going process not an act or series of events which end. Though, I read from an Anarchist, I think it was Kropotkin, who said that revolution isn't a single act, it comes in ebbs and flows.

To me anyways it just both seems to be a difference of semantics (Council-Communists certainly like to use Marxist concepts), and a way of looking at the same thing, although with different descriptions.

Historically speaking, Council-Communism was more popular in Germany, Poland, Turkey and other South-Eastern European countries-- whereas Anarcho-Syndicalism was popular in France, Italy, Spain, and Argentina (Great Britian?).

[Ander]

I identify with Luxemburgism mostly. Leninism is too authoritarian for my tastes.

PS: Not in the mood to hear *****ing from Leninists.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I've been doing some reading today on Autonomous Marxism. I have a good deal of congruency with it it seems, but the anarco-syndicalist tendancy is strongest with me.

[( R )evolution]

Comrade El Kablamo is correct to my limited knowledge of both council communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism. Council Communism is very political based while Anarcho-Syndicalism is very centered around economic organizations like revolutionary unions. But they both try to pretty much to achieve the same goals but different ways of gaining these goals. I personally like the idea of Anarcho-Syndicalism but there view of revolution doesn't sit with me very well and I doubt that a Anarcho-Syndicalism based revolution would be successful. I guess Rosa Luxemburg has really affected me on the issue.

[Janus]

Council Communism is very political based while Anarcho-Syndicalism is very centered around economic organizations like revolutionary unions.
Council communism certainly takes political organization into greater account than anarcho-syndicalism may but it's certainly no great difference. Council communists simply view a revolutionary party as a means to agitate and encourage the people to take control of their own struggles through worker's councils.