What is council communism?

It is interesting to see that there is a council communist group here now. It does raise the question of what council communism is though. Since Daad en Gedachte folded in 1997 there haven't really beenany council communist groups in the world. Today the ICC is one of the groups that is closet to their tradition. I would be interested to know what people think council communism is.Devrim

I've always seen council communism as more of a specific occurrence in a specific time and place not necessarily replicable today. I think it is now more of a historical influence upon varying groups, like Devrim says the ICC is probably quite close to it but I also know the Anarchist Federation in the UK publishes council communist literature, if not in paper then at least online.

I agree with Barabbas - the impact of CC today is more of it's influence rather than a dead set tendency. The writings of Pannekoek and Gorter have had a significant impact on my outlook.

Council communism is more of a type of dictatorship of the proletariat. Whereas Leninists conceive of a centralized state, council communists want a series of decentralized, federated worker's councils.

I've always seen council communism as more of a specific occurrence in a specific time and place not necessarily replicable today. I think it is now more of a historical influence upon varying groups, like Devrim says the ICC is probably quite close to it but I also know the Anarchist Federation in the UK publishes council communist literature, if not in paper then at least online.

Yes, they do. Some of the people in the AF in Manchester used to be in the councilist group 'Wildcat' (the English group not the German one).
We published a terrible article criticising them for doing so, which can be found here: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/238_leftcom.htm

Devrim

Council communism is more of a type of dictatorship of the proletariat. Whereas Leninists conceive of a centralized state, council communists want a series of decentralized, federated worker's councils.

I don't think so. First the council communists argued for centralism, not federalism. Second it brings council communism down to merely a form and strips it of virtually all its political positions.

Devrim

I agree with Barabbas - the impact of CC today is more of it's influence rather than a dead set tendency. The writings of Pannekoek and Gorter have had a significant impact on my outlook.

I can see what you are saying with the first sentence.

Pannekoek's writings change. After the end of the revolutionary wave he becomes more 'councilist', and anti-organisational.

Gorter on the other hand never argued against the idea of a party, and in fact argued for a vanguard party "as hard as steel, as clear as crystal".

Devrim

Pannekoek's writings change. After the end of the revolutionary wave he becomes more 'councilist', and anti-organisational.

My knowledge of Pannekoek and the party has really only ever come from Party and Class;

The belief in parties is the main reason for the impotence of the working class; therefore we avoid forming a new party—not because we are too few, but because a party is an organization that aims to lead and control the working class.

Did he think differently earlier on his life?

My knowledge of Pannekoek and the party has really only ever come from Party and Class;

Did he think differently earlier on his life?

Yes, very much so. Try 'World Revolution and Communist Tactics':
http://www.marxists.org/archive/pann...tics/index.htm

Devrim

Council communism is more of a type of dictatorship of the proletariat. Whereas Leninists conceive of a centralized state, council communists want a series of decentralized, federated worker's councils.

Ever heard of the soviets?

I'm interested to know whether it is compatible with Bolshevik-Leninism or not. From what I know about 'council communism' it seems so.

I'm interested to know whether it is compatible with Bolshevik-Leninism or not. From what I know about 'council communism' it seems so.

Well according to Otto Rühle, the most councilist of the council communists, "the fight against fascism begins with the fight against Bolshevism", so I'd say not.

Well according to Otto Rühle, the most councilist of the council communists, "the fight against fascism begins with the fight against Bolshevism", so I'd say not.

I'm talking about the two ideologies in themselves.

I've always seen council communism as more of a specific occurrence in a specific time and place not necessarily replicable today. I think it is now more of a historical influence upon varying groups, like Devrim says the ICC is probably quite close to it but I also know the Anarchist Federation in the UK publishes council communist literature, if not in paper then at least online.

Yes, they do. Some of the people in the AF in Manchester used to be in the councilist group 'Wildcat' (the English group not the German one). We published a terrible article criticising them for doing so, which can be found here: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/238_leftcom.htm

Yes, some members of Manchester AF were involved with the councilist groups Wildcat & Subersion and back even further to Solidarity and even back to the libertarian communist split from SPGB. Weren't you in Wildcat aswell, Devrim. While it is a while since I've read the WR/ICC material relating to AF and Councilists and some of your language can be off-putting and unnecessary in my opinion. I think there is legitimate criticism to be made of AF (i.e. origins in leftism, ambiguities on our anti-union position etc).

Peterloo Press the printing project of Manchester AF has published pamphlets that put forward politics that is associated with the general ultra-left/council communist political trend. They can be found at http://http://afed.org.uk/publicatio...blication.html

Also, for anyone interested in the council communist tradition, I'd recommend checking out Kurasje - Council Communist Archive -->> http://www.kurasje.org/arksys/archset.htm

Weren't you in Wildcat aswell, Devrim.

Yes, sort of. I was in Wildcat after it 'split', or the people in Mancheter disolved it and the minority in London decided to continue, so I wasn't in it as the same time as the people in Manchester AF.

While it is a while since I've read the WR/ICC material relating to AF and Councilists and some of your language can be off-putting and unnecessary in my opinion.

Yes, I know. It's awful.

I think there is legitimate criticism to be made of AF (i.e. origins in leftism, ambiguities on our anti-union position etc).

Yes, I think there are. I think that there are legitimate criticism to be made of the ICC too.

The last piece we ran about the AF was this: http://en.internationalism.org/iccon...-unions-debate

Do you think it was too harsh? What do you think about the language? Are we getting better?

The ICC in the UK is supposed to be printing an article about the AF, saying that they don't think it is leftist now. I suggested to them that they should call it 'Sorry, we have been wrong for twenty years'.

Peterloo Press the printing project of Manchester AF has published pamphlets that put forward politics that is associated with the general ultra-left/council communist political trend. They can be found at http://http://afed.org.uk/publicatio...blication.html

That link doesn't work.

Devrim

Devrim - Thanks for the info about your involvement with Wildcat. I was probably just about born at that point.

The last piece we ran about the AF was this: http://en.internationalism.org/iccon...-unions-debate

Do you think it was too harsh? What do you think about the language? Are we getting better?

Just to clarify. My problem with previous material published by the ICC isn't that it is "too harsh" and the language used (although language can in some cases be an obstacle to discusion and debate). I'm for open, sharp and polemical exchange of views over differences in revolutionary organisations and between them. My problem is really over some of the political conceptions used in such polemics such as political parasitism.

I generally speaking liked the piece you linked too when I read it when it was first published. I also criticise the AF Industrial Strategy and thought at the time that Brighton SolFed document was stronger in many ways. It is pretty clear that the AF Industrial Strategy is a synthesis of different and contradictory views (although I wasn't involved in the discussions that produced it since I'm a relatively new member).

The ICC in the UK is supposed to be printing an article about the AF, saying that they don't think it is leftist now. I suggested to them that they should call it 'Sorry, we have been wrong for twenty years'.

Thats good news, look forward to seeing it published.

Also, a criticism I have of the ICC is that there seems to have been a seamless shift from denouncing anarchists and others as political parasites to a openness to engagement and differentiate between leftist and internationalist anarchists and no accounting to my knowledge of this shift.

That link doesn't work.

Sorry about the broken link.

Just go to ->>> http://afed.org.uk/publications/pamphlets-booklets.html
And click on Council Communist Pamphlets at the bottom of the page.

Devrim - Thanks for the info about your involvement with Wildcat. I was probably just about born at that point.

Yes, it must have been late 80s because I remember writing articles about the strikes at the Post Office for Wildcat.

My problem is really over some of the political conceptions used in such polemics such as political parasitism.

Yes, I have a problem with that too.

Also, a criticism I have of the ICC is that there seems to have been a seamless shift from denouncing anarchists and others as political parasites to a openness to engagement and differentiate between leftist and internationalist anarchists and no accounting to my knowledge of this shift.

Yes, I can see what you are saying.

Just go to ->>> http://afed.org.uk/publications/pamphlets-booklets.html
And click on Council Communist Pamphlets at the bottom of the page.

Thanks.

Devrim

In case you're interested Devrim, one of our members had this to say with regards to the ICC's article on the AFed, SolFed and the role of the unions;

The ICC's response is what you'd expect from them (point missing-tastic which is what they do), but I think an awful lot of people have missed the point of what we were trying to do. It's been responded to as if it's some grand theoretical statement, and found severely lacking, whereas in fact, as we state several times, it's something much more modest than that. We were trying to answer the question of what isolated militants can do in the workplace in periods of low class struggle. We came up with a series of necessarily contingent and provisional answers. I don't think there's anything wrong with that side of things, but I think there are two clear problems which we would basically have to start again to fix.

One is the form in which it's written. It's not a manifesto, but it's written in manifesto-ese. The writing needs to draw more directly and obviously on experience. There needs to be first person stuff in there and the structure needs to be far more clearly working through questions rather than stating contingent answers without showing the working as it does at the moment. This can't be fixed within the existing structure which would need to be torn up and something new written.

The other is a question which is implicit throughout but which is not addressed directly: is it possible for a militant to kick something off that would not otherwise have happened? There's real disagreement about this (as there should be, it's not a question with a clear answer), but some of the ambiguities and contradictions of the piece are places where this question rears its head and is fudged. This is particularly true in the syndicalist union section, where some of our engagement in the IWW is about supporting existing struggles and some of it is about trying to kick stuff off. We've tried to run all this together which I think is where the 'fighting organisation of the working class' line comes from, something which is basically not true but which does capture some of the things that people hope to gain from the IWW.

The thing as it exists is out there doing what work it can now, and it needs to be left to so that. I think we need to take some of these lessons forward into writing a community thing and then revisit the workplace in a couple of years. I'll be honest though, I really don't have the energy to do much towards a community document, but I really think it needs to be done.

... and in the new issue of Organise! (Issue 74) contains an article written by two AFed members including the user Ronan, dealing more specifically with the question of syndicalism and the IWW as a response to the Industrial Strategy we put out.

The ICC's response is what you'd expect from them (point missing-tastic which is what they do)

I'd like to know what point we missed.

... and in the new issue of Organise! (Issue 74) contains an article written by two AFed members including the user Ronan, dealing more specifically with the question of syndicalism and the IWW as a response to the Industrial Strategy we put out.

I will read this at work today, and come back on it latter. Maybe on a new thread though.

Devrim

My understanding of Council Communism is essential these points:
1. While Bolshevik tactics may have worked for Russia, they would not work for western countries.
2. Many original Council Communists believed that the soviets in Russia were tools of the ruling class and Lenin's form of democratic centralism was authoritarian and flawed.
3. The workers should rule society and their worker's state through workers councils, federations, and other direct democratic institutions.
4. The Social Democratic idea of nationalizing industries being socialism is flawed. Socialism in the Council Communist sense is direct democratic control of the factories by the workers and their communities.
5. Here I will quote Anton Pannekoek. "What can a small party, however principled, do when what is needed are the masses?" He went on to say, "...it also follows from this theory that it is not even the entire communist party that exercises dictatorship, but the Central Committee, and it does first within the party itself, where it takes it upon itself to expel individuals and uses shabby means to get rid of opposition."
6. The Kronstadt Revolt in Russia was a revolt to re-institute the true socialism that the Bolshevik's had gotten rid of by the end of the Civil War.
7. The Trade Unions are bureaucratic and don't work in the interests of the workers. The workers need to form their own revolutionary organizations.
8. Parliamentary tactics are flawed and the proletarian revolution cannot be carried out through legislative bodies.

The 4 main thinkers of Council Communism are Herman Gorter, Anton Pannekoek, Sylvia Pankhurst, and Otto Ruhl (in my opinion). Other thinkers Council Communists respect and look to include Rosa Luxembourg and Antonio Gramsci.

It also seems that these ideas overlap with other ideologies, such as Libertarian Marxism, Left Communism, etc.