Council Communism v Anarcho-Syndicalism

[Orange Juche]

Can anyone explain to me the real fundemental differences?

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

In terms of the formal structure of the society aimed at... There isn't really one. Perhaps slightly more centralisation in councilism, and slightly more inclination to a unified set of institutions in councilism, parallel ones in anarcho-syndicalism - but these are differences of degree.

The main differences are in terms of different analysis of contemporary society, and how this informs ideas about how to reach the society aimed at. Obviously councilist analysis is marxist, anarcho-syndicalist analysis is anarchist.

In the mainstream/liberal way of looking at politics, the formal structure of the society aimed at is everything, and completely defines a political position. Leftism, and in particular anarchism rejects this way of looking at politics. The formal structure of a free society must be determined by the people who build it (ie *all* the workers) from the grass roots level. We cannot, and should not specify the exact structure society is to take - and as such, particularly in anarcho-syndicalism, the formal structure aimed at is intentionally vague.

What is important is spreading revolutionary consciousness and critical analysis of society - and the content of the revolutionary consciousness amongst the population involved in a revolution will determine the structure they give to the new society. Hence the differences in analysis can be very important. It also informs tactics - which again, particularly in anarchism, can't be separated from theory.

Not to suggest that councilists and anarcho-syndicalists shouldn't work together, though.

[The Douche]

The main difference is that syndicalists (anarchist or otherwise) support the union as a revolutionary organisation and the council communists reject it in favor of working class appropriation of the means of production and the organizing of it under worker's councils.

Also my understanding of syndicalism is that it would employ at some level for some amount of time some form of market system which council communists to, my knowledge, reject.

[Sleeping Dog]

The main difference is that syndicalists (anarchist or otherwise) support the union as a revolutionary organisation and the council communists reject it in favor of working class appropriation of the means of production and the organizing of it under worker's councils.

Also my understanding of syndicalism is that it would employ at some level for some amount of time some form of market system which council communists to, my knowledge, reject.Not exactly, we believe in Proudhon's "Property is theft". The ownership of the "means of production" should be prohibited (even temporarily). Only those that actually preform labor within any particular industry have the experience to determine safety and efficiency in the production of commodities beneficial to an acceptable "Social Contract". :cool:

At this point "Reds" are more likely to assert some elitist intellectualism totally amusing to those of us that are understandably cautious about accepting other authority.

[Orange Juche]

I just wonder because I always consider my self in the middle, I never really know exactly which to refer to myself. I don't even know if it really matters, but still.

[Sleeping Dog]

I just wonder because I always consider my self in the middle, I never really know exactly which to refer to myself. I don't even know if it really matters, but still.Aye me Druggie! the proverbial bridge to be crossing. :eek:

[The Douche]

Not exactly, we believe in Proudhon's "Property is theft". The ownership of the "means of production" should be prohibited (even temporarily). Only those that actually preform labor within any particular industry have the experience to determine safety and efficiency in the production of commodities beneficial to an acceptable "Social Contract". :cool:

At this point "Reds" are more likely to assert some elitist intellectualism totally amusing to those of us that are understandably cautious about accepting other authority.

I beg your pardon...but...what?

Somebody has to "own" or control the means of production. All communists (whether marxist or anarchist, libertarian or leninist) adovcate the the workers control them.

You say that only people with experience in a specific industry should be able to make descisions in that industry. Ok? What do you think worker's councils are?

I think you misunderstood near everything I said about council communism, and did not address my possibly incorrect statement about the existence of markets at some stage of syndicalist revolution?

[Sleeping Dog]

I beg your pardon...but...what?

Somebody has to "own" or control the means of production. All communists (whether marxist or anarchist, libertarian or leninist) adovcate the the workers control them.

You say that only people with experience in a specific industry should be able to make descisions in that industry. Ok? What do you think worker's councils are?

I think you misunderstood near everything I said about council communism, and did not address my possibly incorrect statement about the existence of markets at some stage of syndicalist revolution?I've not the foggiest about what your rattling on about. It should be painfully obvious that some talk and others produce. :confused:

[Volderbeek]

Syndicalism is basically unionism while council communists want to give "all power to the soviets" (council = soviet). So what's the difference between a "union" and a "council"? Well, one's called a union and the other's called a council. :p The rhetoric from both is rather vague, but I think they're both essentially referring to the same thing.

Frankly, I'd just call myself an anarchist, and if anyone asks, explain it as a form of communism that gives authority of production to union councils. :D

[The Douche]

I've not the foggiest about what your rattling on about. It should be painfully obvious that some talk and others produce. :confused:

Blowin my mind here man, totally unable to follow you.


Syndicalism is basically unionism while council communists want to give "all power to the soviets" (council = soviet). So what's the difference between a "union" and a "council"? Well, one's called a union and the other's called a council. :p The rhetoric from both is rather vague, but I think they're both essentially referring to the same thing.

Totally symplifying a union there, to a vulgar level. A union is not a "council". As of the present day they are a top to bottom beauracratic money making organization. (with few exceptions, IWW and CNT being the most notable) The purpose of a union is to settle a deal between the bosses and the workers. The purpose of a soviet is to assume the old duties of the state/boss and enable the workers to directly exercise that power.

Yes syndicalist unions support the idea of forming soviets during a revolutionary period. But during non-revolutionary periods they seek to settle contracts, and fight for reform, and in the eyes of most council communists, sell out the workers, even supposedly revolutionary unions, because they end up focusing insurrectional energy into reformist paths.

Neither side spouts rhetoric which is in anyway vague, you just base your knowledge off of a two sentence definition, and in that way, yes, it would seem vague.

I'd still like a syndicalist to talk about the existence of a market in some stage of syndicalism.

[blackstone]

I beg your pardon...but...what?

Somebody has to "own" or control the means of production. All communists (whether marxist or anarchist, libertarian or leninist) adovcate the the workers control them.

You say that only people with experience in a specific industry should be able to make descisions in that industry. Ok? What do you think worker's councils are?

I think you misunderstood near everything I said about council communism, and did not address my possibly incorrect statement about the existence of markets at some stage of syndicalist revolution?

To clear things up, in a in a post-revolutionary society the means of production are owned by everyone and not by one particular production group. In turn, each person should influence decisions in proportion in which they are affected by them.

An anarcho-syndicalist strategy holds that self-managed workers organizations and mass organizations will form the basis of a self-managed society. One of the the anarchistic values that a-s upholds is self-management and anti-authoritarianism.

An alternative economy will need to incorporate these and other anarchistic values into new institutions to provide equitable circumstances and services to its population.

Citizens of a post-revolutionary society can be organized into federations of workers and neighborhood councils creating a dual power structure. This seems logical because a person also has a dual role as worker and consumer. Decisions should not be soley made in an industry without influence from public opinion, in particular, in proportion in which certain people may be affected.

I'm not sure how much council communism addresses this issue of how much power does worker's councils have in proportion to the rest of the post-revolutionary society. If it has been addressed, i would like to hear arguments.

You need to define your terms own and control in regards to your assertions that anarchist believe worker's should own or control the means of production.

[Volderbeek]

Totally symplifying a union there, to a vulgar level. A union is not a "council". As of the present day they are a top to bottom beauracratic money making organization. (with few exceptions, IWW and CNT being the most notable) The purpose of a union is to settle a deal between the bosses and the workers. The purpose of a soviet is to assume the old duties of the state/boss and enable the workers to directly exercise that power.

So a council is somehow not bureaucratic because we don't call it that? And it should be obvious I meant socialist unions. There are also various types of "councils" under capitalism.


Neither side spouts rhetoric which is in anyway vague, you just base your knowledge off of a two sentence definition, and in that way, yes, it would seem vague.So far, everything I've read about these systems is very vague and abstract. Even Michael Albert's parecon, which is more fleshed out than usual for these things, is still quite abstractly theoretical.

[The Douche]

To clear things up, in a in a post-revolutionary society the means of production are owned by everyone and not by one particular production group. In turn, each person should influence decisions in proportion in which they are affected by them.

Are you suggesting the following:
I work in a shoe factory, on the other side of town is a ice cream shop. I should be able to influence the desicions of the ice cream shop?

I guess maybe, if it was an issue that went beyond the shop and was at the municipal/township level then yes I and every other resident would need to have a say. But other than that...why?


An anarcho-syndicalist strategy holds that self-managed workers organizations and mass organizations will form the basis of a self-managed society. One of the the anarchistic values that a-s upholds is self-management and anti-authoritarianism.

Did I come off as suggesting that anarchism of any sort does not promote those values? If I did it was not my intention. Obviously all forms of legitimate anarchist though support those ideals.


Citizens of a post-revolutionary society can be organized into federations of workers and neighborhood councils creating a dual power structure. This seems logical because a person also has a dual role as worker and consumer. Decisions should not be soley made in an industry without influence from public opinion, in particular, in proportion in which certain people may be affected.

Neither syndicalism nor council communism deny this. But obviously we don't want unnecessary interference, like in the day to day operation of the workplace that has no effect on the neighborhood.


I'm not sure how much council communism addresses this issue of how much power does worker's councils have in proportion to the rest of the post-revolutionary society. If it has been addressed, i would like to hear arguments.

Council communism advocates the concept of people's councils not just workers councils. Syndicalism has about as much input on this as council communism. But syndicalists largely just draw thier social theory from anarchist communists, and council communists from the general libertaian communist movement. I would like to think you're not serious here in suggesting the council communism just overlooks social organisation.


You need to define your terms own and control in regards to your assertions that anarchist believe worker's should own or control the means of production.

I don't know how to be more clear. The workers own the means of production, not the bourgeoise. You know...the basic idea of communism? I don't mean to be rude, but really, I don't know what you want me to explain.


So a council is somehow not bureaucratic because we don't call it that? And it should be obvious I meant socialist unions. There are also various types of "councils" under capitalism.

Do you know what bureaucracy is? A council is a council there aren't multiple levels in one council, just multiple levels of councils. Yeah there are "councils" under capitalism...what the fuck does that have to do with anything that we're talking about?

Even revolutionary unions fight for reforms. The union is an inherently reformist organization. I reccomend that you read Malatesta to better understand my critique of syndicalism, the link will be at the bottom of the post.


So far, everything I've read about these systems is very vague and abstract. Even Michael Albert's parecon, which is more fleshed out than usual for these things, is still quite abstractly theoretical.

You find Rudolf Rocker, or historical accounts of Barcelona during the civil war to be vague? Also check out Anton Pannekoek's "worker's councils", I will also link it.

Malatesta-http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6170/malatesta_synd.html
Pannekoek-http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/councils.htm

[blackstone]

Are you suggesting the following:
I work in a shoe factory, on the other side of town is a ice cream shop. I should be able to influence the desicions of the ice cream shop?



Reread my statement, I said, "each person should influence decisions in proportion in which they are affected by them."


I guess maybe, if it was an issue that went beyond the shop and was at the municipal/township level then yes I and every other resident would need to have a say.

This is what i mean. You will find that there will be a many issues that goes beyond the shop, because they are the point of production which produces goods and services for not the shoe factory(or whichever point of production) but for the residents of a geographic region. Whether a worker get's reprimanded for violating rules set forth by their specific council may not require the vote of a counil in another industry, we must not forget that economies are integrated.

Something which i goto here in my critique of central planning
http://power-2-people.blogspot.com/2007/12/centrally-planned-vs-participatory.html

In it I stated that first we must realize that a nation's(or regions') economy is an integrated affair. Therefore, any decisions about production in one industry will have ripple effects elsewhere. This is due to the simple fact that the output of one industry can serve as an input towards another , and thereby makes one industry dependent on another.

So yes, You work in a shoe factory, on the other side of town is a leather factory. You should be able to influence the desicions of the other shop, because their output of leather directly influences your output of shoes, which uses leather as it's input. Yet, this is not shop by shop, factories councils will be federated across regions, in which case through a series of participatory planning, the allocation of shoes, leather and other resources, or the social plan in general is hashed out.


I don't know how to be more clear. The workers own the means of production, not the bourgeoise. You know...the basic idea of communism? I don't mean to be rude, but really, I don't know what you want me to explain.

Maybe i read wrong, but i interpreted your post to mean specific worker's group own specific means of production. IE; the shoe factory council owns the shoe factory, etc.

[The Douche]

n it I stated that first we must realize that a nation's(or regions') economy is an integrated affair. Therefore, any decisions about production in one industry will have ripple effects elsewhere. This is due to the simple fact that the output of one industry can serve as an input towards another , and thereby makes one industry dependent on another.

Agreed. And I see no conflict between this and council communism or syndicalism.


So yes, You work in a shoe factory, on the other side of town is a leather factory. You should be able to influence the desicions of the other shop, because their output of leather directly influences your output of shoes, which uses leather as it's input. Yet, this is not shop by shop, factories councils will be federated across regions, in which case through a series of participatory planning, the allocation of shoes, leather and other resources, or the social plan in general is hashed out.

Those two are obviously more of an integrated example than the shoe factory and ice cream shop. You don't seriously think that council communists advocate that no councils should communicate do you?


Maybe i read wrong, but i interpreted your post to mean specific worker's group own specific means of production. IE; the shoe factory council owns the shoe factory, etc.

No I meant that the working class owns the means of production and adminsters the day to day operation of thier workplace through democratically elected and immediately recallable councils of delegates. Sorry if it was poorly worded, I work 12 hour days and sometimes my thoughts don't get out coherently.

I see little if any difference in the social organization of post-revolutionary society between council communism and syndicalism. In my mind the difference is in the revolutionary process.

[Alf]

I think the best way to answer the question posed by this thread is to look at council communism and anarcho-syndicalism not simply as abstract ideas but as actual historical tendencies in the workers’ movement.

Very briefly, and at the risk of simplifying:

Anarcho-syndicalism (along with industrial unionism) emerged in the early part of the 20th century as a proletarian response to the increasing bureaucratisation of the existing trade unions and the growing opportunism of the social democratic parties. As capitalism moved towards its “epoch of social revolution”, marked by the outbreak of World War One and the international revolutionary wave it provoked, the old unions and parties of the workers’ movement were gradually being integrated into the capitalist system – a tendency confirmed by the outright betrayal of large parts of the social democratic parties and the official trade unions in 1914, when they helped recruit the working class for the imperialist war.

Anarcho-syndicalism was a response to a real need in the working class – the need for new forms of organisation appropriate to a new epoch. But the answer it gave was fundamentally flawed: as Rosa Luxemburg showed in her pamphlet The Mass Strike, the conditions of the class struggle in the new period meant that the mass organisation of the class would be created in the struggle rather than as a precondition for it. This was the meaning of the appearance of the first soviets in 1905. The soviets (or workers’ councils) were a higher form of organisation than the trade unions because they allowed the entire class to come together on the basis of workplace assemblies, while combining both economic and political tasks. They were the “finally discovered form of the dictatorship of the proletariat”, as Lenin put it. But they could not be permanent organisations outside of periods of mass struggle.

]In the revolutionary wave that began in Russia in 1917, the councils again appeared as a counter-power to the capitalist state. The best of the anarcho-syndicalists (who had also opposed the imperialist war) identified with the revolutionary council movements in Russia, Germany and elsewhere. Some saw the councils as the realisation of their concept of organisation.

The basic flaw in the anarcho-syndicalist conception became clearer when the revolutionary wave faded away (by the mid 20s). The attempt to build permanent mass organisations in a period when this was no longer on the historical agenda inevitably led the anarcho-syndicalist organisations towards integration into the bourgeois state (if they attempted to function as unions) or to becoming essentially political groups with a confused understanding of their own role. Already in 1914 the syndicalist CGT in France had capitulated to the war effort. In Spain, the CNT became increasingly drawn into the inter-bourgeois conflict between the left and right, first passively supporting the Republic in the elections of 1931 and 1936 and then actively participating at all levels of the ‘anti-fascist’ Republican state during the civil war (and not just in the government itself). Other currents, such as the industrial unionist IWW, shrank to essentially political groups, although to this day the attempts of the IWW to establish itself as a union has led to all kinds of compromises, such as the signing of no-strike clauses.

[Council communism has a different historical origin – in the left communist tradition which was among the first to criticise the degeneration of the revolution in Russia and of the Communist International. Specifically it came out of the German and Dutch communist left, whose most important expression in the early 20s had been the KAPD.

The term ‘council communism’ refers to a current that emerged in the late 20s in reaction to the betrayals of the Bolshevik party and the Communist International. Having witnessed the Bolshevik party becoming an instrument of the counter-revolution, parts of the Dutch/German left (including Anton Pannekoek, its leading theoretician) began to develop the idea that the party form itself was obsolete and essentially bourgeois, and that the councils alone were sufficient for making the revolution (hence ‘council communism’ as opposed to ‘party communism’).

This idea represented a concession to anarchism: the degeneration of the Russian revolution did not show that the party form was obsolete (since the Bolshevik party had played a key role in the development of consciousness within the soviets in the period leading up to the October insurrection), but that its task was not to take power or manage the transitional state, which would result in a distortion of its real function.

However, on most key questions, the council communists remained committed to a Marxist outlook. Paul Mattick for example analysed the crisis of the 1930s as an expression of the decline of capitalism, and their rejection of trade unionism and parliament was based not an abstract opposition to hierarchy or authority but on an understanding of the changing historical conditions which no longer allowed the working class to make use of these forms. Above all, the council communists remained loyal to internationalism at a time when the majority of the anarcho-syndicalists were abandoning it by participating in the anti-fascist fronts in Spain and during the second world war.

The council communist theory that political organisations were no longer a necessity for the class struggle was, however, to take its toll – logically leading to the disappearance of council communism as an organised tendency after the second world war. Subsequent attempts to build or rebuild council communist organisations have foundered on this basic contradiction, although the influence of their ideas – much of it positive, some of it less so – evidently lives on.

On the history of council communism, see the ICC’s book on the German and Dutch communist left:
http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets

We are also publishing a series on the history of anarcho-syndicalism:
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/118_syndicalism_i.html (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/118_syndicalism_i.html)
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/120_cgt.html (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/120_cgt.html)
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/124_iww (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/124_iww)
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/125-iww (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/125-iww)
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/128/cnt-rev-syndicalism (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/128/cnt-rev-syndicalism)
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/129/CNT-1914-1919 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/129/CNT-1914-1919)
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/130/CNT-1919-1923 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/130/CNT-1919-1923)
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/131/CNT-1921-31 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/131/CNT-1921-31)

[Volderbeek]

Do you know what bureaucracy is?

I know that one of history's worst examples of it was that of the Soviets.


A council is a council there aren't multiple levels in one council, just multiple levels of councils.Just semantics really.


Yeah there are "councils" under capitalism...what the fuck does that have to do with anything that we're talking about?The whole reformist union thing ring a bell?


You find Rudolf Rocker, or historical accounts of Barcelona during the civil war to be vague? Also check out Anton Pannekoek's "worker's councils", I will also link it.Haha, I'm not so sure historical accounts really count here. As to the others, they're precisely what I was referring to.

[cb9's_unity]

Well I'm stilling learning about this and all the posts above are certainly helping my knowledge about syndicalism but I'm pretty sure that the most basic difference between syndicalism and communism is that syndicalists believe most control of society (and/or the means of production) should go to the workers. Communists believe that all power should go to the working class as a whole.

Anarcho-syndicalists and Council Communists both represent sections of their respective economic ideologies that reject any form of the state.

[LSD]

Alfs summary of the emergence of the two tendencies is bascially correct, although his conclusion are obviously distorted by ideological bias.

The fact is anarchosyndicalism and council-communism share a great deal, they just come at them from two different approaches. Basically, if you were to line up communism and anarchism next to each other, council-commuinism and anarcho-syndicalism would probably be the strains that touch, although a case could be made for platformism too.

That's the thing about political theories, they're fluid. We're all looking for the same thing, a social framework that makes our lives better. Accordingly, different political approaches are going to come to similar conclusions. And, as with all labels, intra-set divergences are often greater than inter-set ones. I call myself an anarchosyndicalist, but there are council communists who I agree with more than self-delclared anarchosyndicalists.

In the end, it's the ideas that matter.

[Devrim]

The fact is anarchosyndicalism and council-communism share a great deal, they just come at them from two different approaches. Basically, if you were to line up communism and anarchism next to each other, council-commuinism and anarcho-syndicalism would probably be the strains that touch, although a case could be made for platformism too.

I completely disagree. I think that many of the people writing on here don't real understand what council communism is/was. It was not just 'communism which favoured councils'. That would be a meaningless definition, which would stretch as far as to include many anarchists, and most Trotskyists. It was a real living current, which had certain political positions.

To make it very basic, I think we can define three crucial political points;
1) Internationalism-a rejection of the ideology of national defence, and national liberation.
2) Anti-Parliamentarianism-a rejection of parliamentary politics.
3) Anti-Trade unionism-a rejection of trade union work including the idea of building red unions.

The extent that anarcho-syndicalism is close to council communism must be on the basis of politics.

The anarcho-syndicalists argue for building red unions. The council communists, and the communist left today argue that unions become integrated into the state, which makes them more than a bit different in my opinion.

As for the comments on the platformists, I would say that their positions of national liberation movements makes an insurpassable gulf.

It is funny that you see them as close to left communism because we see them as close to Trotskyism.

Devrim