council communism

[durdenisgod]

how do you guys feel about it?
i personally am against it, but that is just me.

[IronColumn]

If so, you probably should read a bit more.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Shouldn't this go in the "Theory" forum?

[durdenisgod]

yeah i havent read on it to much, thats why i started the thread so i could get a better input on it.
but agora, sorry im noobin it right now, im still pretty new to revleft >.<

[The Douche]

For aspects of it.

This discussion would be a lot more interesting if you could post why you oppose it.

[durdenisgod]

the whole belief that the russian revolution was a bourgeoisie revolution and that the soviet union was a capitalist state.
is that popular belief or common consensis?

[The Douche]

Those ideas are not automatically advocated by somebody who claims to be a "council communist". I am an anarchist and I would not say that the russian revolution was a bourgeois revolution...in the end it served that purpose, but originally it was a working class uprising.

The soviet union did eventually become a capitalist state, you can't argue that, council communists just say it went capitalist at any earlier stage than other communists do.

Anyways, you oppose a whole ideology because of how it views the russian revolution? Don't you think it would be a better idea to critiscize council communism on a theoretical level?

[cyu]

the whole belief that the russian revolution was a bourgeoisie revolution and that the soviet union was a capitalist state.
is that popular belief or common consensis?


I don't know if there's been a survey done on this topic among modern leftists, but I'd say many leftists believe there's an element of truth to that. I'm not saying I think the revolution had capitalism as its original goal or was primarily supported by capitalists, but what ultimately happened in the Soviet Union was that a ruling class emerged that wasn't much better than the capitalists of old.

I wouldn't say the failure of the Russian experiment means communism was debunked. I'd say they primarily failed because they left out democracy.

[JDHURF]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/1st-post-anarchist-t72959/index.html

[Niccolò Rossi]

the whole belief that the russian revolution was a bourgeoisie revolution and that the soviet union was a capitalist state.

The concept of the Russian Revolution being a bourgeois revolution is not a stance taken by council communists. Rather, they proclaim that the Russian Revolution was a proletarian revolution but that the power of the party and the suppression of the soviets lead to state-capitalism.

Further, this stance is not even a necessary one in order to call once self a council communist. Rather the defining feature of council communism is the stance that a communist party should not lead a revolution and seize state power for themselves, but rather stresses the importance of workers to form their own revolutionary organs in the form of workers councils, which play a fundamental role in the post revolutionary era as means of economic and political organisation.

I highly suggest you read some Pannekoek (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/index.htm)

[mykittyhasaboner]

or Mattick, i suggest his introduction to Anti-Bolshevik communism, and Council Communism.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/index.htm

[durdenisgod]

thank your the links comrades, very insightful.
but i am an supporter of bolshevism so its conflicting.
however, i still find the general princepal very enlightening.
the idea of anti bolshevik communism seams still kind of alien though >.<

[Devrim]

The concept of the Russian Revolution being a bourgeois revolution is not a stance taken by council communists.

Actually, it was a stance taken by many of them.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Further, this stance is not even a necessary one in order to call once self a council communist. Rather the defining feature of council communism is the stance that a communist party should not lead a revolution and seize state power for themselves, but rather stresses the importance of workers to form their own revolutionary organs in the form of workers councils, which play a fundamental role in the post revolutionary era as means of economic and political organisation.

I highly suggest you read some Pannekoek (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/index.htm)

Comrade, isn't that a bit of reductionist thinking? I've got a Theory thread on anarchism and anti-vanguardism, but I've also got this old thread:

How should we be led? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1043568&postcount=27)

One-party state or no-party state? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1045138&postcount=30)

Separating the party from state administration but not supreme power (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1055546&postcount=44)

[Niccolò Rossi]

Actually, it was a stance taken by many of them

I thought council-communists like to portray the Russian Revolution as one carried out as an action of the soviets and it was the Bolsheviks suppression of the soviets that was the real evil? (whether you consider that a true representation of history is another thing).


Comrade, isn't that a bit of reductionist thinking? I've got a Theory thread on anarchism and anti-vanguardism, but I've also got this old thread

I never said it wasn't, all I wanted to do was to explain the council-communist position.

[cyu]

but i am an supporter of bolshevism so its conflicting.

As far as democratic centralism goes, here's an anarchist perspective:

There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule. One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner". See also tyranny of the majority.

There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.