Luxemburgism Vs. Bordigism Vs. Council Communism

  1. Ilyich
    Ilyich
    What are the theoretical (not historical) differences between these tendencies and could they all be considered variants of left communism?
  2. Paulappaul
    Paulappaul
    That's a really large question. I would see all three as forms of Left Communism for their rejection of the Universal Applicability of Bolshevik Tactics in the West. Internationalism is a strong theme between all three as well.

    Bordigaism and Luxemburgism are close on the question of the party. But they part ways fundamentally on a Post Capitalist society. Bordiga being anti - democratic and Luxemburg being super democratic. Luxemburg supported the Constituent Assembly I believe, while Bordiga supported the Soviets. Not 100% on that one though. Still the point remains. I think they both developed similar theories on the National Question as well. Luxemburgism is more a contribution to a Critique of Political Economy than a set of tactics for the revolution.

    Council Communism as a Consolidated theory which appeared around the 1930's as apart from its historical tradition, is Anti - Party. I think it picks and chooses pieces of Luxemburg's writtings that it likes and throws away the rest. They share some theories on Spontaniety, the development of small economic and political struggles into Mass Strikes and Mass Movements in which Workers' Councils are both Political and Economic bodies capable of doing the revolution without any sort guidance our preparation. Contrary to Bordiga and Luxemburg they are fundamentally Anti - Trade Union as well.

    On the Russian Revolution each Current has its own theory naturally. The Council Communists usually consider it to be Bourgeois Revolution instituting State Capitalism. The Bordigaists thought that there was fundamentally proletarian character to the revolution, however because of conditions it was lost. He never refereed to Russia as the Soviet Union.

    Luxemburg never really after 1919, she maintained it was a Proletarian Revolution for which the Bolsheviks took some poor decisions.

    Naturally this is just a short sum of differences and similarities. There are books literally written on this.
  3. Ilyich
    Ilyich
    What do you mean by 'democratic?' Are not true soviets, which you say Bordiga supported, super democratic.

    Also, by pro- and anti-party do you mean willing to participate in bourgeoisie elections?
  4. Paulappaul
    Paulappaul
    Bordiga refused to call himself a Democratic, believing Democracy was a Bourgeois formation. He believed in Dictatorship, particularly that of the Soviets and of the Party. Luxemburg was the complete opposite.

    By "Pro Party" I mean to say that they supported a Political Party in the same fashion Marx did. The Absentee Faction for which Boridga lead in the Italian Socialist Party was Pro - Party, but Anti - Election. Some on the Italian Communist Left still supported elections, but in rare Historical cases. Luxemburg was Pro - Party and basically was on the same page as those Italian Left Communists who supported entering Government on the right occasion.

    The Council Communists, apart from those in the KAPD (who are more accurately called Left Communists) are Anti Party and Anti Election.