Role of the state in council communism

[Goatse]

[in] Council-communism there is infact a Communist Party, however the party only plays a role of propaganda, support, and education.

Who makes the party up? Workers who are voluntary party members? How do you become a party member? And does the state still seek to dissolve itself like in Leninism?

[Rawthentic]

First of all, the dissolving of the state is not a "Leninist" term but a Marxist one, originally. The Party must be made up of workers, and workers only. I assume that you become a Party member by being proletarian and showing that you understand Marxist theory and are dedicated as well.

[Goatse]

I never stated that it was a Leninist term, only that it occurred in Leninism. But regardless, thanks. Who would decide who had and who had not got a good understanding of Marxist theory?

[KptnKrill]

Perhaps it's made up of workplaces?

For example let's say you have three printing shops, and a radio station. Two of the printing shops make posters and the other makes pamphlets. The two that print posters and the pamphlet printers could belong to a Council of Printers, and the radio station to a Council of Broadcasters. But all of these could also belong to a Party Council since they could all be involved in the dissemination of information.

But that's just a guess, I've never read anything about council communism :) Too statist.

[Boriznov]

each counsil would have it's chairman that is elected in the counsil itself. then each chairman would be in this party but the party would not lead anything. only discuss idea's of each council and for example to discuss with other countries

[Tower of Bebel]

I call myself a Trotskyist, but I guess it's because I joined the CWI. I prefer council communism, and in my opinion a party can excist. On certain conditions. One is that it must be democratic, second it must must not be morep owerful than the councils or soviets.

[Boriznov]

The only thing the party's role is in council communism is for propaganda and publicity

[Leo]

I call myself a Trotskyist, but I guess it's because I joined the CWI. I prefer council communism

Why did you join CWI if you prefer council communism?

[Tower of Bebel]

The CWI in Belgium gets the closer to council communism than any other organsaton I know of. And I'm still in the learning proces, so when I joined I did not know which 'type' of communism suited me the best.

[Boriznov]

The CWP is the lsp ?
I'm from belgium too:)

NEVERMIND :)

[Devrim]

There seems to have been a bit of speculation as to what council communism is/was on these boards recently.

Council communism developed from the Dutch/German left, the most prominent theoriticans of which were Anton Pannekoek, and Herman Gorter.

Council communism doesn't exist today in any organise form. The last council communist group was the Dutch 'Daad en Gedachte', which ceased to exist in 2004. The closest current to it today is the left communist one, which traces its roots to the Dutch/German left, but also to the Italian left.

A good introduction to the positions of the council communists is Gorter's 'Open letter to comrade Lenin' http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/192...etter/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm) , which refutes Lenin's argument in Left wing communism an infantile disorder.

More modern stuff by Cajo Brendel, a leading militant in 'Daad en Gedachte' can be found here:
http://www.kurasje.org/arksys/archset.htm
http://libcom.org/tags/cajo-brendel

Devrim

[Leo]

The CWI in Belgium gets the closer to council communism than any other organsaton I know of.

Well, I would be very surprised to be honest, I know that they are very, not the most but very right-wing Trotskyists and are quite far away from council communism.

If you are interested in council communism, perhaps you should also check out the ICC (internationalism.org), they are left communists but I am quite sure that they will be closer to council communism that the CWI. I know that they have a presence in Belgium.

[Janus]

Council communists agree that a revolutionary party can be helpful towards the revolution but the revolution must be undertaken by the people themselves rather than a substitutionist party.


and who had not got a good understanding of Marxist theory?
The term state is a loose system in council communism because of the strong autonomous currents in it as well as the decentralization created by the worker's councils.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Janus
The term state is a loose system in council communism because of the strong autonomous currents in it as well as the decentralization created by the worker's councils.
Not wanting to pick on you in particular Janus, but I think that this is an example of why people should actually find out about the subject before commenting. Council communists were advocates of centralism.
Devrim

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:25 am
Not wanting to pick on you in particular Janus, but I think that this is an example of why people should actually find out about the subject before commenting. Council communists were advocates of centralism.
Devrim
What do you mean by centralism, and what/ where is the most prominent refferene for this advocacy?

[ExpansiveThought]

is it safe to say that centralism is basically statism or in otherwords the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty? Im confused though, because i thought communism should innately entail the eventual dissolution of the state as a result of the initial dissolution of capital through the liberation of the means of production.
Even still from what i gather here, the role of the workers counsels should effectively decentralize descision making while still maintaining an ever important sense of communitarianism.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO
What do you mean by centralism, and what/ where is the most prominent refferene for this advocacy?

I am not sure that I really understand this question. By centralism I mean centralism. I think that the word is very clear.

It is also quite strange to talk about the 'most prominent reference'. It comes across in the vast majority of the theoretical works of the current. I would even say that it is specifically stressed to distinguish the current from anarchism as it was accused of being anarchistic. If you want I can find you some references though.

The German communist left from which council communism emerged was not a current with its roots in anarchism. Its origins were in the Third international. It may have been bastardised by anarchist, but in doing this they also dropped most of its political content.

Devrim

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:02 am
Council communists were advocates of centralism.

Council communists believe in democratic worker's councils may not be fully anarchist but I fail to see how they can anything but decentralised.
What do you mean? That they have a links to other councils and send representatives to meetings of regional and even national councils, this is hardly centralised.


The German communist left from which council communism emerged was not a current with its roots in anarchism. Its origins were in the Third international. It may have been bastardised by anarchist, but in doing this they also dropped most of its political content.Anarchism and libertarianism (not the american kind.) are traits in human history and thought and don't have to trace their roots back to the classical anarchist movement.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:51 am
is it safe to say that centralism is basically statism or in otherwords the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty?
Yes. Although it's contended by some left-Marxists that the state can take any form providing it is one class organised to suppress another class. Hypothetically, according to them, decentralised workers councils could also be described as a state.

This of course is not the case. 'The State' developed from specific political, economic and even cultural events, which saw the need for the centralisation of political control. This manifested itself in the state. Although a state has a specific purpose (not solely class domination) it is not defined by its purpose but by its structure.


Im confused though, because i thought communism should innately entail the eventual dissolution of the state as a result of the initial dissolution of capital through the liberation of the means of production.

This is where it becomes confusing.

Marx was a centralist, which is evident from his own political activism; although he never specifically talked about the state in terms of structure it is reasonable to assume, regardless of his followers conjecture and the realities of what the state actually is, that he envisaged a centralised structure.

This, I feel, makes the whole left-Marxist argument moot on both accounts. Their theoretical founder was in fact a centralist not to mention the premise is false. Baring this in mind it then starts to become clearer that the "withering away" theory is flawed (which history has clearly demonstrated).

A state i.e. the centralisation of political authority is a self-perpetuating structure. The structure exists to control. It is able to control because it is designed to remain in control. Although the means of production may come into the hands of the workers, the state will exist as long as political authority is centralised.

Taking this into a situation of such proportion that an entire nation of millions is involved; and as we can see from our current situation in bourgeois society, the centralisation of control on the scale is incredibly difficult to get rid of.

How can a self-perpetuating structure wither away when its sole purpose is to exist? This dichotomy is not explored or answered by Marxists. They simply have “faith” that it will. The state structure does not, nor can it take into consideration a future scenario of dissipating. It simply exists to exact political authority and there will always be political authority to exact.

The only way to decentralise political authority (power going horizontally), i.e. destroy the state (an alleged Marxist objective) is to destroy it.


Even still from what i gather here, the role of the workers counsels should effectively decentralize descision making while still maintaining an ever important sense of communitarianism.

That's the hypothesis of all ultra-left and left communists. Taking Spain as an example and on a much smaller scaler the anti-capitalist movement, this theory has been applied and has proved to be workable.

[ExpansiveThought]

Thanks alot for those clarifications, TAT. It seems that communiatrianism is the key factor in a classless society, yet on a large, national scale this is prevented by centralism, since people are less in touch with the 'greater good' on a daily basis. So ideally, in a decentralised model people will know that they are working for the good of their smaller, tighter, tribe-like community, which they are in constant interaction with, hence cementing a sense of ideological communitarianism. If I'm not mistaken, this plays an important role in an anarchist model of society?
Also does anarchism aim to achieve the reverse of this communist 'withering away' meaning to destroy capitalism THROUGH the destruction of the state?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by devrimankara+--> (devrimankara)I am not sure that I really understand this question. By centralism I mean centralism. I think that the word is very clear.[/b]

Does the highest co-ordinating body, which is voted on by all the workers have represenatives that are revokable at all times, surely doesn't have absolute authority ?


It is also quite strange to talk about the 'most prominent reference'. It comes across in the vast majority of the theoretical works of the current. I would even say that it is specifically stressed to distinguish the current from anarchism as it was accused of being anarchistic. If you want I can find you some references though.

Please find me refference when the Council-Communists talk of centralism.


TAT
How can a self-perpetuating structure wither away when its sole purpose is to exist? This dichotomy is not explored or answered by Marxists. They simply have “faith” that it will. The state structure does not, nor can it take into consideration a future scenario of dissipating. It simply exists to exact political authority and there will always be political authority to exact.

How do we know we wont get to a point when in post-revolutionary society, Anarchists are claiming there isn't a state, but the Council-Communists claim there is?

[Janus]

but I think that this is an example of why people should actually find out about the subject before commenting.
Which I have done.


Council communists were advocates of centralism.
How so? Council communism opposes bureaucratic state socialism and was a reaction against the centralization and control that was manifesting itself in Russia.

[Leo]

Council communism opposes bureaucratic state socialism and was a reaction against the centralization and control that was manifesting itself in Russia.

So do you think centralism means bureaucratic state "socialism"?


Please find me refference when the Council-Communists talk of centralism.

This is from the KAPD program:


Everything is oriented towards the supreme class interest, not towards the craze for founding organisations, and the particular job interests are reduced to the measure which is due to them. Such an organisation, the dorsal fin of the factory councils, becomes an infinitely more supple instrument of the class struggle, always an organism receiving fresh blood, owing to the permanent possibility of re-elections, revocation, etc. Going forward in the mass actions and along with them, the factory organisations will naturally have to create for themselves the centralised organs which correspond to their revolutionary development.

After all, KAPD did have a "central committee". Although I think the wing around Otto Rühle did oppose centralism, I would imagine that they were in the minority, and they were rather "councilist" than "council communist".

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:38 pm
So ideally, in a decentralised model people will know that they are working for the good of their smaller, tighter, tribe-like community, which they are in constant interaction with, hence cementing a sense of ideological communitarianism.
Yes, I suppose so.


If I'm not mistaken, this plays an important role in an anarchist model of society?

Yes and we live in a more technologically sophisticated world so our interaction/commuication would be much easier, which obviously allows us to organise more efficiently as a decentralised federated organisation of people.


Also does anarchism aim to achieve the reverse of this communist 'withering away' meaning to destroy capitalism THROUGH the destruction of the state?

Not really.

Social anarchists assert that although capitalism will take time to "witheraway", which is why we advocate a transitional period known as collectivism; but that the state (centralised political authority) must be decentralised as soon as the working class take control of the means of production.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+March 21, 2007 11:42 pm--> (EL KABLAMO @ March 21, 2007 11:42 pm)
TAT
How can a self-perpetuating structure wither away when its sole purpose is to exist? This dichotomy is not explored or answered by Marxists. They simply have “faith” that it will. The state structure does not, nor can it take into consideration a future scenario of dissipating. It simply exists to exact political authority and there will always be political authority to exact.

How do we know we wont get to a point when in post-revolutionary society, Anarchists are claiming there isn't a state, but the Council-Communists claim there is? [/b]
I don't really understand what you mean? I could take a guess, but I'm too tired to. Could you clarify it a bit clearer?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 22, 2007 11:21 pm
I don't really understand what you mean? I could take a guess, but I'm too tired to. Could you clarify it a bit clearer?
From my understanding, Anarchists believe that when the workers take control of the means of production, the state is already smashed.

Council-Communists on the otherhand believe that state will still exist once the worker take control, because they'll still have to pay rent (maybe though with LTVs), and depending on the circumstances they may need to be easily mobilized into militias if the bourgeoisie gathers forces and prepares to attack-- the see such action as like a state, one class imposing its rule over the other through force.

[Devrim]

Thanks for finding the quote from the KAPD programme, Leo.

I too think that it is strange that people associate centralism with bureaucracy.


Originally posted by Janus+--> (Janus)Council communism opposes bureaucratic state socialism and was a reaction against the centralization and control that was manifesting itself in Russia. [/b]

EL Kablamo expressed a similar idea:

El kablamo
It is my understanding that Left-Communism and Council-Communism aren't advocators of centralism, because there isn't such a bureaucracy-- instead there are representative bodies. The representatives come from areas of work, and regions too. The bodies of representatives range to town, to regional, to national, to maybe even international levels. These representatives can be replaced at anytime, and are held accountable to their members.

I think that the system he oulines there doesn't have any contradiction with centralism.

Devrim

[Janus]

I think that the system he oulines there doesn't have any contradiction with centralism.
In a centralist system, power is concentrated within a select group and thus promotes a hierarchical order and thus implies some sort of bureaucracy or central party.

[Devrim]

In a centralist system, power is concentrated within a select group and thus promotes a hierarchical order and thus implies some sort of bureaucracy or central party.

That is a very anarchist argument. I don't see the logic in it. Either that, or we both have very different ideas of what centralism is.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Council-Communists on the otherhand believe that state will still exist once the worker take control, because they'll still have to pay rent (maybe though with LTVs),

The whole thing about LTVs comes from later (1930):
http://libcom.org/library/fundamental-prin...-production-gik (http://libcom.org/library/fundamental-principles-communist-production-gik)

I was quite contentious at the time. What it reflects is a group of militants, who had seen the degeneration of the Russian revolution trying to come to terms with economic problems. I, for one, disagree with it.
Devrim

[Janus]

Either that, or we both have very different ideas of what centralism is.
Then what is your definition of it. I just highlighted the general definition of what centralism is and what it has usually resulted in.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:28 pm
The whole thing about LTVs comes from later (1930):
http://libcom.org/library/fundamental-prin...-production-gik (http://libcom.org/library/fundamental-principles-communist-production-gik)

I was quite contentious at the time. What it reflects is a group of militants, who had seen the degeneration of the Russian revolution trying to come to terms with economic problems. I, for one, disagree with it.
Devrim
I've had that book on my favourites for a while now, I havent had time to read it yet.

So this book doesn't advocate LTVs?

Also, if you aren't for LTVs, why are you against it, and what are you for?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+March 24, 2007 09:31 pm--> (EL KABLAMO @ March 24, 2007 09:31 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 05:28 pm
The whole thing about LTVs comes from later (1930):
http://libcom.org/library/fundamental-prin...-production-gik (http://libcom.org/library/fundamental-principles-communist-production-gik)

I was quite contentious at the time. What it reflects is a group of militants, who had seen the degeneration of the Russian revolution trying to come to terms with economic problems. I, for one, disagree with it.
Devrim
I've had that book on my favourites for a while now, I havent had time to read it yet.

So this book doesn't advocate LTVs?

Also, if you aren't for LTVs, why are you against it, and what are you for? [/b]
No, this book does advocate LTV. It was written in 1930 when the German revolution had already been crushed.

The LTV basically is money under another name. Sure it is a more 'democratic' form of money equalising the value of everyones labour, but still money.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:37 pm

Either that, or we both have very different ideas of what centralism is.
Then what is your definition of it. I just highlighted the general definition of what centralism is and what it has usually resulted in.
I don't think that it is right to talk about what 'centralism... has usually resulted in'.
There has only been one revolution where the working class actually succeeded in taking power, Russia 1917. To talk of 'usually' then seems a little strange.

The Russian revolution degenerated for a number of reasons, first and foremost was the international situation. The role of the RCP(B) was also important. I think that by 1921 the RCP(B) was clearly on the side of capital.

I think that it is a mistake to put the Bolsheviks mistakes down to 'centralism'. I think that this comes down to an anarchist error, a tendency to put political mistakes down to bad organisational forms. The CNT in 1936 was a federalist, not centralist organisation. It still betrayed.

The increasingly anti-democratic nature of the Soviet state was more of a reflection of the state's anti working class policies than the cause of them (Of course there was an interrelationship between the two).

I thought that a lot of the arguments about federalism were actually semantic until I recently ended up have a long conversation about it with an anarchist. They do actually believe in it.

To me the idea that one unit (factory, branch, whatever...) has autonomy from the whole seems ludicrous. One factory can't decide on production in isolation from the rest of society.

In a political sense the problems with federalism were well illustrated by the farce of the IWW in the scotland having MPs as members.

Devrim

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:06 am
The LTV basically is money under another name. Sure it is a more 'democratic' form of money equalising the value of everyones labour, but still money.

Exactly the reason why I am against it. In certain countries during certain periods in a revolutionary period, however, money would have to exist until the preconditions that the revolution need to meet in those countries are met. That means everyone must be payed the same and that means that there must be significant development of modern and high-tech versions of industrial manufacturing to supplement a regime of "Use-and-Need" production.