Thread: Council Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism

Results 1 to 6 of 6

  1. #1
    Join Date Jan 2010
    Location Chicago, Illinois
    Posts 316
    Rep Power 0

    Default Council Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism

    How are they different?
  2. #2
    Join Date Oct 2009
    Location UK
    Posts 2,470
    Organisation
    The Historical Party
    Rep Power 54

    Default

    Well, in terms of history anarcho-syndicalism was an outgrowth of the revolutionary/libertarian socialism of Bakunin and the latin sections of the first international. Council communism developed as a section of the third international in Germany which originally supported the Russian Revolution but who came to develop a theory of Russia as "state-capitalist". They placed emphasis on workers self-management and the formation of workers councils as the content of the communist revolution.

    The main difference would be in terms of trade-unions. Anarcho-syndicalists see the possibility of creating "revolutionary unions" which encompass the whole class and then act to reorganise society after the revolution. Council communists are generally hostile to rank and file unionism. I don't know about any broad consensus on "revolutionary unions". Pannekoek supported the I.W.W to a certain extent as an organ which went beyond the traditional structures of unionism and served to educate the workers in class struggle. However he never thought that revolutionary unions would reorganise society always placing the onus on the formation of workers councils.
    "From the relationship of estranged labor to private property it follows further that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not that their emancipation alone is at stake, but because the emancipation of the workers contains universal human emancipation – and it contains this because the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are but modifications and consequences of this relation."

    - Karl Marx -
  3. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Zanthorus For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date Oct 2009
    Location UK
    Posts 2,470
    Organisation
    The Historical Party
    Rep Power 54

    Default

    For reference here's an essay by Pannekoek on Trade-Unionism:

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/union.htm

    His verdict on the I.W.W from that piece:

    Industrial unionism alone as a method of fighting the capitalist class is not sufficient to overthrow capitalist society and to conquer the world for the working class. It fights the capitalists as employers on the economic field of production, but it has not the means to overthrow their political stronghold, the state power. Nevertheless, the I.W.W. so far has been the most revolutionary organisation in America. More than any other it contributed to rouse class consciousness and insight, solidarity and unity in the working class, to turn its eyes toward communism, and to prepare its fighting power.
    And Pannekoek on the I.W.W from the full length "Workers Councils":

    Thus the two forms of organisation and fight stand in contrast, the old one of trade unions and regulated strike, the new one of spontaneous strike and workers' councils. This does not mean that the former at some time will be simply substituted by the latter as the only alternative. Intermediate forms may be conceived, attempts to correct the evils and weakness of trade unionism and preserve its right principles; to avoid the leadership of a bureaucracy of officials, to avoid the separation by narrow craft and trade interests, and to preserve and utilise the experiences of former fights. This might be done by keeping together, after a big strike, a core of the best fighters, in one general union. Wherever a strike breaks out spontaneously this union is present with its skilled propagandists and organisers to assist the inexperienced masses with their advice, to instruct, to organise, to defend them. In this way every fight means a progress of organisation, not in the sense of fees paying membership, but in the sense of growing class unity.

    An example for such a union might be found in the great American union "Industrial Workers of the World" (I.W.W.). At the end of last century in contrast to the conservative trade unions of well-paid skilled labor, united in the "American Federation of Labor," it grew up out of special American conditions. Partly out of the fierce struggles of the miners and lumbermen, independent pioneers in the wilds of the Far West, against big capital that had monopolised and seized the riches of wood and soil. Partly out of the hunger strikes of the miserable masses of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, accumulated and exploited in the factories of the Eastern towns and in the coal mines, despised and neglected by the old unions. The I.W.W. provided them with experienced strike leaders and organisers, who showed them how to stand against police terrorism, who defended them before public opinion and the courts, who taught them the practice of solidarity and unity and opened to them wider views on society, on capitalism and class fight. In such big fights ten thousands of new members joined the I.W.W., of whom only a small fraction remained. This "one big union" was adapted to the wild growth of American capitalism in the days when it built up its power by subjecting the masses of the independent pioneers.

    Similar forms of fight and organisation may be propagated and may come up elsewhere, when in big strikes the workers stand up, without as yet having the complete self-confidence of taking matters entirely in their own hands.
    "From the relationship of estranged labor to private property it follows further that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not that their emancipation alone is at stake, but because the emancipation of the workers contains universal human emancipation – and it contains this because the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are but modifications and consequences of this relation."

    - Karl Marx -
  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Zanthorus For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Join Date Jul 2009
    Posts 5,754
    Rep Power 115

    Default

    Council communism itself had several strands over the years. Originally coming out of KAPD, they were pro-party, and 'pro-October' if I can use a horrible phrase. They were also the first group to theorise that the unions had definitively become a hinderance to the revolution. Personally I think they made a lot of sense in the early days.

    Under the influence of Otto Ruhle especially, many of them adopted the view that all parties were inherently bourgeois and state-capitalist bureaucracies in waiting. They theorised then that the Russian revolution was a mangerial takeover not a real revolution.

    Some of them were involved in the 'Unionen' movement in Germany, which was for a kind of half-way between a union and a party. I never really understood that part, but I think it's where the accusations of syndicalism came from.

    So; the tendency that theorises unions are counter-revolutionary ends up confused with syndicalism. Oh the irony.
  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Blake's Baby For This Useful Post:


  8. #5
    Join Date Sep 2009
    Location Ireland, Dublin
    Posts 1,023
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    asides from whats been explained above (specifically the views on unions) Council communists also have a marxist view of class (ie: feck the peasants) and a marxist definition of the state, there not anarchists.
    In practice, they might aswell be the same.
  9. #6
    Join Date Feb 2006
    Location Turkey
    Posts 8,093
    Rep Power 127

    Default

    Personally I think they made a lot of sense in the early days.

    Under the influence of Otto Ruhle especially, many of them adopted the view that all parties were inherently bourgeois and state-capitalist bureaucracies in waiting. They theorised then that the Russian revolution was a mangerial takeover not a real revolution.
    Yes, I would agree with this. I think that the 'anti-party' thing was a regression'

    Some of them were involved in the 'Unionen' movement in Germany, which was for a kind of half-way between a union and a party. I never really understood that part, but I think it's where the accusations of syndicalism came from.
    Yes, that is where it came from. The 'Unionen' were at one point big organisations with about half a million members.

    This article goes into the question:

    http://libcom.org/library/chapter-9-...alism-unionism

    Devrim

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 11th October 2009, 04:12
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 18th September 2009, 12:29
  3. Learning -- Anarcho-Communism vs Anarcho-Syndicalism
    By Octobox in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 25th October 2008, 08:56
  4. Council Communism v Anarcho-Syndicalism
    By Orange Juche in forum Learning
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 28th January 2008, 16:26
  5. Anarcho-Communism vs. Anarcho-Syndicalism
    By JazzRemington in forum Learning
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 21st April 2005, 11:46

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts