[STUDY GROUP] Left Communism Study Group

[Leo]

Following the poll (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66400&st=0) on which text to start with on left communism, Anton Pannekoek's World Revolution and Communist Tactics won and we are finally starting the discussion group.

If everyone who will participate can read Part 1 for next Monday, it would be great. Here's the link for it:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/tactics/ch01.htm

[AmbitiousHedonism]

I've never read Pannekoek but the first half of WR&CT is great. Incidentally, I picked up a copy of the Communist Party (US) newspaper "People's Weekly World" and there's a big spread in the opinion section about some BS 'new tactics' (http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/11289/1/377/) something or other... basically an apology for what Pannekoek calls opportunism.

Hopefully, this discussion can give the work a contemporary analysis, looking at both modern examples of opportunism and contemporary possibilities for the ultraleft.

If no one minds I might give this discussion an early start, seeing as I'm sitting in front of a computer at work all day...

[AmbitiousHedonism]

I just finished WR&CT and woohoo! pannekoek. Chapter I reads like a primer on ultraleft tactics and reasons for rejecting the traditional left strategy.

Pannekoek points to two factors that encourage communist movement - economic collapse and the examples of other nations (he uses Russia but we've since seen more, obviously). It's telling that he praises the Russian model so highly throughout the text and then in the Afterword immediately recants and shows that the Bolshevik's have taken the path he thoroughly criticized as opportunist. Certainly the contemporary ultraleftist has plenty of other examples of such

P's thesis that 'economic collapse is the most powerful spur to revolution' informs the foundation of ultraleft strategy. Capitalism creates its own crises and the role of the communist is to seize upon these moments and push them beyond the point of no return. The capitalist experience informs worker consciousness (that is, workers naturally hate their conditions) but the communist must encourage the instinct to revolt.

P looks at the strategy of the social-democrats and other socialists, arguing that their class collaboration dulls the proletarian instincts and essentially recuperates the worker struggle into reforming a kinder, gentler capitalism. Socialist leadership pays lipservice to communist slogans but manipulates revolutionary energy. Left Coalitions (his example the ComIntern), while seemingly increasing the size & strength of the communist movement, actually dilutes its power by confusing the revolutionary communist programme.

I think a question that will be underlying the reading of the entire text will be whether a docile working class in times of crisis is entirely the fault of the socialists. I don't really see Pk addressing this in the text.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Although not a proper left-communist (being in between Left Communism and Lenin's interpretation of revolutionary Marxism), here are some of my thoughts (thanks to Leo for introducing this guy):


The transformation of capitalism into communism is brought about by two forces, one material and the other mental, the latter having its origins in the former.

The fact that the "mental forces" are mentioned as a key to the transformation... does this tie in with Gramsci's albeit non-materialist stuff regarding hegemony?


While this theory is gradually penetrating one section of the proletariat, the masses’ own experiences are bound to foster practical recognition that capitalism is no longer viable to an increasing extent. World war and rapid economic collapse now make revolution objectively necessary before the masses have grasped communism intellectually: and this contradiction is at the root of the contradictions, hesitations and setbacks which make the revolution a long and painful process.

"Before the masses have grasped"? Maybe Lenin was right in regards to consciousness as a reason for the vanguard party (even though I stated before my preference for Luxemburg's dialectic of spontaneity and organization as a more historically justifiable basis for such), in spite of the ICC's remarks!


With the growth of this necessity and mood, carried by them, so to speak, the communist vanguard has been developing in these countries; this vanguard recognises the goals clearly and regroups itself in the Third International. The distinguishing feature of this developing process of revolution is a sharp separation of communism from socialism, in both ideological and organisational terms.

Alas, even Pannekoek was behind the curve in regards to the need for an international vanguard party proper. As I said before in my "international socialist party" thread awhile back, the need for this party arose as early as the foundation of the Second International. :(


With the appearance of communism and the Russian example, the proletarian revolution seemed to have gained a simple, straightforward form. In reality, however, the various difficulties now being encountered are revealing the forces which make it an extremely complex and arduous process.

I have mixed opinions on this one. Again, this has more to do with the question of "revolutionary-democratic tasks" (not to be confused with bourgeois-democratic tasks). The complexity and arduousness was there and remains on the international field, though.

[More Fire for the People]

Note: Italics mark my notes on the article and non-italics mark my comments.

§1 Anton Pannekoek begins his tract with bringing illumination to the apparent duality of the progression towards communism. The conscious or ‘mental’ forces of this advancement are as meaningful the material forces but the origin of ‘mental forces’ is derived from the physical or material world. It is the material development of the economy that generates consciousness and it is consciousness that spawns the will to revolution.

Does specific material development generate specific forms of consciousness or is this a mere generality?

§2 The ‘Marxist science’ endows an intellectual unity upon the revolutionary movement. Where one section of the proletariat finds decay of capitalism in communist literature the other finds the decay of capitalism in daily life. ‘World war and rapid economic collapse’ make revolution objectively ‘necessary’ before the Marxist science or communism has been grasped by the working class.

With hindsight, however, we know now that the ‘rapid economic collapse’ of the Great Depression was succeeded by one of the rapidest economic booms in recent history. By our standards of historical perspective we see that capitalism did not become terminally ill at the end of the 1920s but went through a period of economic bust only to be recovered by an economic boom. I would say this tendency of capitalism is cyclical but not determinately so.

The means of production begin to decay or ‘fetter’ as the technology produced no longer generates increasing or stabilized surplus value. However, by conscious and subjective activity of the intellectuals new technology and innovations are produced leading to a whole new paradigm of production. As the old Fordist paradigm of began to decay in the 1970s-1980s we saw the emergence of a new information technologies paradigm that resolved or at least slowed down several antagonisms between class and class, business and business, and state and state. Also, as we see the coming environmental crises the intellectuals are developing a new ecological paradigm of production.

It is conceivable that at one point we will reach a crisis that capital cannot resolve or fails to resolve. I would say at this point revolution becomes an ‘objective’ necessity but in such a case I would think revolution would be too late — guns and ammo cannot solve nuclear holocaust, global pandemic, rapidly rising sea levels, or any other similar global catastrophe.

§3 “World war and rapid economic collapse now make revolution objectively necessary before the masses have grasped communism intellectually: and this contradiction is at the root of the contradictions, hesitations and setbacks which make the revolution a long and painful process.”

I think Pannekoek is making a fairly accurate statement here but rather than saying revolution is objectively necessary I would say revolution is objectively possible. It is here that the most painful process of the revolutionary is the development of an overall revolutionary and socialist consciousness amongst the working people.

§4 “Economic collapse is the most powerful spur to revolution.”

I would list among economic collapse economic and social impoverishment as leading factors as well. The Black Panthers, the May ’68 rebels, the Hot Autumn fighters, and the Zapatistas were spurred not by economic collapse but by the mere alienating and exploiting core of the system of capital. Pannekoek also elaborates how communism is not a mere ideology but a practical-conscious tendency within the proletariat — practical in its development through strikes, sit-ins, protests, riots, etc. and conscious in that the benefits of struggle, solidarity, and workplace democracy weigh heavy in the collective memory of the proletarian rebels. Communists born of literature and not struggle or primarily of the former often see themselves as preachers of the ‘good news’ of communism. Rather, literary communists are teachers — they help refine and sharpen the existing knowledge of their fellow proletarians.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I will add my thoughts on part 1 tommorow.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Pannekoek is explaing how the economic collapse in the West and the happy illusion of the USSR is influencing the workers to become conscious towards Communism.

Later Anton mentions that this new consciousness towards Communism is easily being manipulated by the official Russian Communist Party line and its subordinate worldwide counterparts. The Russian line seeks to stop Worker Revolutions from spreading. This line wants to have influence in other countries just to protect the USSR from being attacked or invaded.

(EDIT: It was given to my attention by Devrim that the pages of the book on Marxists.org are mis-dated 1937. This is the reason why I bring up Spain in Civil-War. The reader doesn't know yet how Pannekoek knows this information about the official Russian Line.)

As we saw in the late 1930's in Spain the official line was about joining with the republicans and capitalists to defeat Fascism, revolution was to be discussed later, instead of the slogans of the POUM and CNT-FAI: " the Revolution and the war are inseparable". Much like cowardly social-democrats in Germany 1918, the official line pays lipservice to revolution by using revolutionary constructs and teminology.


As a sign that these countries have now become more ripe for revolution, a phenomenon precisely opposite to the original one is now appearing: with their entry into the Third International or declaration in favour of its principles, as in the case of the USP mentioned above, the sharp distinction between communists and social democrats is once again fading. Whatever attempts are made to keep such parties formally outside the Third International in an effort to conserve some firmness of principle, they nevertheless insinuate themselves into the leadership of each country’s revolutionary movement, maintaining their influence over the militant masses by paying lip-service to the new slogans. This is how every ruling stratum behaves: rather than allow itself to be cut off from the masses, it becomes ‘revolutionary’ itself, in order to deflate the revolution as far as possible by its influence.
Emphasis mine

[Rawthentic]

Pannekoek describes how at a time when revolution is objectively necessary (or possible as HA said) the working class does not have the consciousness necessary to lead themselves to a communist society, thus the understanding as to why revolution can be such a painful process (when isn't it)?

In the second paragraph, he speaks of the importance of the Bolshevik Revolution, and the great impact it had on the world working class. In the US at least, this can be seen through solidarity strikes and the development of communist parties. I agree when he says that this in and of itself is not sufficient to achieve revolution, the masses respond to their material conditions the best. He speaks of the general hope of a rising economy after WW2 while depicting Russia as barbaric, meanwhile Russia actually solidifies.

When he says that economic necessity pushes the working class into revolutionary action, this for the most part is true, for it brings a practical element into the necessity of revolution.

In the second to last paragraph Pannekoek elaborates on how the social democratic parties attach themselves to the 3rd international as they see they rising revolutionary "mood" of the masses. They then adopt slogans so as to become "leaders" of these movements while maintaining their social democratic politics.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Pannekoek, throughout the first paragraph, stresses that consciousness will be developed through the proletariat's own struggle that is a response to the changing material conditions that surrounds them. They will "foster practical recognition that capitalism is no longer viable to an increasing extent", to a point that it would become "objectively necessary" to overthrow the capitalist state.

He takes a turn to elaborate on this thesis; he brings up the Bolshevik Revolution and the post-war turbulence that were proving to be fuel-on-fire for the proletariat of Western Europe. It is a time of sharp class conflict - strikes are on the rise, riots have made cities battlegrounds, and the "the communist vanguard has been developing". But even under this spasm of political activity, the Soviet Republic has been beaten and starved by advanced capitalist countries, and the bureaucratic stratum is wishing to not experience any more attacks by these foreign powers; even more so, they do not wish to crumble their foundation and privileges at the face of an international worker's revolution, so they have endorsed social-democratic parties.

He mentions the example of how Moscow has permitted the USP to affiliate themselves with the Third International, and later goes to elaborate on the role that these bourgeois parties are playing in protecting the capitalist class, and how their leadership is simply a poison to the worker's movement itself.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 01, 2007 06:45 pm
§3 “World war and rapid economic collapse now make revolution objectively necessary before the masses have grasped communism intellectually: and this contradiction is at the root of the contradictions, hesitations and setbacks which make the revolution a long and painful process.”

I think Pannekoek is making a fairly accurate statement here but rather than saying revolution is objectively necessary I would say revolution is objectively possible. It is here that the most painful process of the revolutionary is the development of an overall revolutionary and socialist consciousness amongst the working people.
I think I get what he's saying about how Communism becomes an objective neccessity for the masses. Well the example (or as we know it today, the illusion) of Russia, and the collapse of the capitalist economy, the Communist Revolution becomes desirable for the working-class, under Communism, they can live a good life, really have their say, and matter.But since they havent been following the news of the Communist Parties under the Russian line they are unaware of the opportunism.

Although I'm almost convinced of the decadence theory (which my knowledge on it now, is basic), today, as ratio of constant capital to variable widens, as the capitalists keeps pumping out commodities to excess; everytime a product doesn't sell and is thown away, or left to rot in a warehouse: the probability that the living standards for the worker are declining is eminent-- through this the revolution becomes more possible. Over production means abundance! Mechanization of labour means the worker can set themself to do more interesting and empowering jobs!

But theres just one problem we face today. The fall of the Soviet Union, and its history has lead many (if not MOST) to believe this is what comes from revolution.
We have to convince fellow workers that this isn't so.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Are we going to start on something else soon?

[Leo]

Let's give it some more time - more people can participate and so forth.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 07, 2007 10:39 pm
Let's give it some more time - more people can participate and so forth.
I will post some thoughts tomorrow. I'm sorry for not having made any attempts to post some of my remarks in this thread. I was delayed.

[Boriznov]

Hey comrades i want to apologize for not participating but i am really too tired of working my job. Hope you can accept my apology

[Tower of Bebel]

I came to the conclusion that two important contradictions are elaborated in this part by Pannekoek.
There is the contradiction between the neccessity of the proletarian revolution and the fact that most workers have not develloped (marxist) consciousness.
The divergence created by the 3rd International, though an International is meant to strenghten international unity.

Both are responsable for the painful and rather slow devellopment of the social revolution. I sence a remarkable difference between Trotskys' emphasis on revolutionary leadership and Pannekoeks' emphasis of workers' consciousness.

[al-Ibadani]

Originally posted by Anton Pannekoek
This is how every ruling stratum behaves: rather than allow itself to be cut off from the masses, it becomes ‘revolutionary’ itself, in order to deflate the revolution as far as possible by its influence.

How true is that? He is describing how many of the social democrats joined the Third International at the height of the revolutionary wave that followed the war. That's what the rulers do. They begin giving lip service to our slogans to usurp the revolution. I guess that's why the ICC has such strict entrance requirements.

[ern]

alibadani, I think the point he is getting can be illustrated by the actions of the SDP and unions faced with the revolution in Germany. They made a big effort to present themselves as being with the workers through call for the national assembly of the workers councils, which they used to increase their influence over the class.

[Tower of Bebel]

Leo, would you agree if we go further with this discussion by reading and discussing part 2?

[Leo]

Originally posted by Raccoon
Leo, would you agree if we go further with this discussion by reading and discussing part 2?

Lets start the thread tomorrow, is that alright?

[Entrails Konfetti]

PART II

Pannekoek opens by saying that Communists form tactics and principles by expirience/ practice. The opening is important because he goes on to define the expirences of the Russian Revolution, and how the proletariat weilded power. During Pre-Russian Revolution there was the question on what form the proletariat would weild power-- and that was answered by the soviet system in 1905; as opposed to trade unions and parliament. All seemed that complications were smoothed out by the Russian expirience.

But, the existence of the soviet system and the seizure and smashing of state power by the proletariat led the bourgeosie to organize itself to trick the proletariat by taking up Communist rhetoric and slogans themselves, as in Germany 1918. This made the proletariat fooled by the facade. As a matter affact Pannekoek says that "the bourgeoisie learned more from Russia than did the proletariat", and they teamed up with the Social-Democrats to prevent revolution. The proletariat was so fooled they handed over their councils for the paraliament.
However, I disagree with Pannekoek on that statement, The German Bourgeoisie had at their advantage time and their geographic location; who knows, maybe if the bourgoeisie didn't prepare in advance Communist Consciousness could have spread like wildfire.
Anyways, because the bourgeoisie is able to set up the facade-- this is the reason why the revolution will be a long and ardous process.

Then, Pannekoek goes on to explain that when revolutionary consciousness fizzeled out in Germany, the KPD joined the ranks of the trade unions and parliament " to keep the masses" aswell as to play on the rifts between the upper-class parties. Also, the Third International is joining these ranks aswell-- for reasons Pannekoek hasn't explained yet. He criticizes these actions because when revolutionary consciousness is possible the proletariat will have a hardtime seeing through the facade. The facade is held together by all the capitalist parties teaming together against the proletariat, though the goal of the revolutionaries is to play on the rifts of the bourgeois parties to break apart the mask-- such a thing doesn't happen and the proletariat becomes confused, and are rendered impotent. Pannekoek claims that even if a breakaway party forms principles and tactics that aren't relative to workers yet; as opposed to going into the camps of opportunism and reformism, that when such tactics are relative the proletariat will have an easier time seeing through the facade.

The proletariat is easly crushed by oppurtunism. It doesn't matter if the element arriving to the camp has revolutionary intentions, for the point at its arrival is to take advantage of non-apparent rifts, and push for immediate gains instead of planning for the future. It's even worse when the forces of reaction are aware of the proletariat revolutionary potential and are even organized against the proletariat.

Pannekoek justifies splits instead of the radical elements following the large opportunist elements under the tides into depths of paraliament and trade unions;
he says that a small radical element can put foward clear and precise principles and tactics, instead of blurring the tactics in the name of immediate gains --which confuse the proletariat. A revolutionary does not compromise with reformers, when they compromise anything, they compromise the entire revolution.

[al-Ibadani]

KABLAMO,

That was almost as long as the chapter itself. WTF?

Anyway, I suggest reading the entire book and then discussing it. These chapters are too short.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:55 pm
KABLAMO,

That was almost as long as the chapter itself. WTF?

Anyway, I suggest reading the entire book and then discussing it. These chapters are too short.
Yes they're short, but they are detailed. Maybe we could do two or more chapters at a time?

I don't really understand how we study this without putting it all into our own words, theres not really anything that isn't understandable in the text, everything is pretty well annaylised.

[Tower of Bebel]

That's why I love to read Pannekoek.

[Tower of Bebel]

El Kablamo sums it all up.

In my opinion Pannekoek underestimates the difficulties of the Russian revolution. But we all know Pannekoek was more concerned with the German revolution and of course the German revolution failed and the Russian did not.

Again we see a difference between The Bolsjeviks and Pannekoek.
Pannekoek explains how the german revolution failed because of the counter revolution by both the bourgeoisie and the populist or opportunist elements amongst the social democrats and revolutionaries.

The solution?
A confident party or mouvement made of and supported by conscious workers who try to create consciousness amongst the workers in orde to make sure the proletariat does not get seduced by those opportunist parties; while Lenin and Trotsky emphazed the neccessity of a confident party (also a party made up and supported by conscious wokers) that would lead the workers to victory, without the neccessity of most workers to be class conscious.

The slow and ardent proces of the European (or World) revolution makes - in spite the creation of the 3rd International - communist(s) (parties) to fight each other's theories. Only a hopeful or seemly victorious revolution makes communists fight together to reach socialism/communism.

[Entrails Konfetti]

So whats the deal with this?

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 01, 2007 06:45 pm
Note: Italics mark my notes on the article and non-italics mark my comments.

§1 Anton Pannekoek begins his tract with bringing illumination to the apparent duality of the progression towards communism. The conscious or ‘mental’ forces of this advancement are as meaningful the material forces but the origin of ‘mental forces’ is derived from the physical or material world. It is the material development of the economy that generates consciousness and it is consciousness that spawns the will to revolution.

Does specific material development generate specific forms of consciousness or is this a mere generality?

§2 The ‘Marxist science’ endows an intellectual unity upon the revolutionary movement. Where one section of the proletariat finds decay of capitalism in communist literature the other finds the decay of capitalism in daily life. ‘World war and rapid economic collapse’ make revolution objectively ‘necessary’ before the Marxist science or communism has been grasped by the working class.

With hindsight, however, we know now that the ‘rapid economic collapse’ of the Great Depression was succeeded by one of the rapidest economic booms in recent history. By our standards of historical perspective we see that capitalism did not become terminally ill at the end of the 1920s but went through a period of economic bust only to be recovered by an economic boom. I would say this tendency of capitalism is cyclical but not determinately so.

The means of production begin to decay or ‘fetter’ as the technology produced no longer generates increasing or stabilized surplus value. However, by conscious and subjective activity of the intellectuals new technology and innovations are produced leading to a whole new paradigm of production. As the old Fordist paradigm of began to decay in the 1970s-1980s we saw the emergence of a new information technologies paradigm that resolved or at least slowed down several antagonisms between class and class, business and business, and state and state. Also, as we see the coming environmental crises the intellectuals are developing a new ecological paradigm of production.

It is conceivable that at one point we will reach a crisis that capital cannot resolve or fails to resolve. I would say at this point revolution becomes an ‘objective’ necessity but in such a case I would think revolution would be too late — guns and ammo cannot solve nuclear holocaust, global pandemic, rapidly rising sea levels, or any other similar global catastrophe.

§3 “World war and rapid economic collapse now make revolution objectively necessary before the masses have grasped communism intellectually: and this contradiction is at the root of the contradictions, hesitations and setbacks which make the revolution a long and painful process.”

I think Pannekoek is making a fairly accurate statement here but rather than saying revolution is objectively necessary I would say revolution is objectively possible. It is here that the most painful process of the revolutionary is the development of an overall revolutionary and socialist consciousness amongst the working people.

§4 “Economic collapse is the most powerful spur to revolution.”

I would list among economic collapse economic and social impoverishment as leading factors as well. The Black Panthers, the May ’68 rebels, the Hot Autumn fighters, and the Zapatistas were spurred not by economic collapse but by the mere alienating and exploiting core of the system of capital. Pannekoek also elaborates how communism is not a mere ideology but a practical-conscious tendency within the proletariat — practical in its development through strikes, sit-ins, protests, riots, etc. and conscious in that the benefits of struggle, solidarity, and workplace democracy weigh heavy in the collective memory of the proletarian rebels. Communists born of literature and not struggle or primarily of the former often see themselves as preachers of the ‘good news’ of communism. Rather, literary communists are teachers — they help refine and sharpen the existing knowledge of their fellow proletarians.

The transformation of capitalism into communism is brought about by two forces, one material and the other mental, the latter having its origins in the former. The material development of the economy generates consciousness, and this activates the will to revolution.

Consciousness is generated by material conditions.

What exactly are these material conditions he suggests?


the masses’ own experiences are bound to foster practical recognition that capitalism is no longer viable to an increasing extent

So here he claims that the various up and downs(more so the downs) of a capitalist economy and the results in which it inflicts on the working class fosters a consciousness amongst the proletariat to overthrow the ruling class, not to be replaced with a different section of the bourgeoisie, but with them themselves.

We do not know if there will be a economic meltdown, and if ever, in the near future. Economic collapse, thus is a very power spur for revolution, but it is not the only one. Situations like Jena Six and hurricane Katrina raises the consciousness of many, but particularly African Americans. Illegal wars such as Iraq and Vietnam ignites the consciousness of another sector of the working class. Environmental issues yet another.

The question is what situations raises the consciousness of all the proletariat to march the road towards revolution?