Left Communism & Its Ideology Now Online
Dec 24 2007 20:13
#32
booeyschewy wrote:
I enjoyed this article and think that its conclusions are mostly correct.
I think, booeyschewy, that you could say that it is correct if it were talking about 'councilism', but its not. It is talking about 'left communism', a current which is quite clear about the fact that the working class needs a party.
You seem to be talking about what in our opinion would be the worst parts of councilism, an interesting enough criticism in itself, but not the subject here.
booeyschewy wrote:
Personally I'm really interested in councilists who are into organization and who aren't determinists/believe in dialectics. Any references would be greatly appreciated.
They are called left communists:
http://www.internationalism.org/
Devrim
Dec 24 2007 20:38
#33
booeyschewy
Forget the 1930's at one's peril! This period of bitter and terrible defeat put all those who claimed to be revolutionaries to the test and laid the basis for the emergence of the international communist left, and thus todays Left Communist movement. It was the ability of the Communist Left not to become submerged in supporting democracy against fascism, siding with the Spanish Republic against Franco, rejecting communism and the real nature of 1917 and the Bolsheviks because of the crimes of Stalinism and eventually there ability to put forwards internationalism in the midst of the nightmare of WW2, that allowed Left Communism to emerge as the clearest political expression of the working class. This does not mean that all the Left Communist groups or individuals were able to maintain an intransigent defence of communist principles, many became sucked into the terrible defeat of the 1930's, however those groups and individual that did emerge were able to lay the basis for the continuation of a Left Communist movement.
If we compare this to the practical total capitulation of the Trotskyists, apart from a few exception who remained loyal to internationalism (which in itself meant making a critique of Trotskyism), or the manner in which the great majority of the anarchists (barring a few notable exception Barnari for example) fell for defense of the Spanish Revolution, embraced anti-fascism, and in many cases became caught up in the war no matter how critically or succumbed to pacifism, then we can see the vital importance of understanding the bitter lessons of the worst counter-revolution the working class has faced.
Dec 24 2007 20:54
#34
booeyschewy, I think I have some idea of what you are asking about, but I'd appreciate a little bit of clarification. For example, when you write:
Quote:
Personally I'm really interested in councilists who are into organization and who aren't determinists/believe in dialectics. Any references would be greatly appreciated.
and Devrim answers:
Quote:
They are called left communists:
http://www.internationalism.org/
I am guessing that this is not what you are looking for. I would guess that by "councilists" you probably mean people who are "anti-Bolshevik", by "who are into organization" you probably mean sympathetic to syndicalism, and that by "who aren't determinists" you probably mean people who are not believers in decadence. But I could be wrong, hence the need for clarification.
Dec 24 2007 21:35
#35
Dave
I think you are probably correct, though as Devrim indicates the ICC does not reject the contribution made by the councilists. However, you will find that many councilists, if by this you mean the Dutch/German Communist Left, were defenders of the concept of decadence:
Dec 24 2007 22:00
#36
Ernie, you are completely correct that many on the Dutch/German Left defended the concept of decadence, but I never claimed otherwise. 
I am actually glad that you put it the way that you did, since some people seem to think that all left communists defend the concept of decadence. That sort of position makes me wonder if we should exclude Pannekoek and Bordiga from the communist left 
Dec 24 2007 22:53
#37
Just a point of clarification:
Quote:
Mikhail: The tendecy in councilicm that allow a merge with pomo ideology becomes appearent when you read Ruhle. But it becomes obscure in 20' Pannekoek and Gorter. Critic of leadership and mass action becomes fetishes as the revolution fails and comintern fails to become a basis for interaction between parties.
I won't address the idea of "pomo ideology", but I would say that the critique of the masses' dependence on "leadership" in the labor movement is not something that grows out of the defeat of the revolutionary movement. It is central to Pannekoek's theory throughout his life. The pre-war debate around mass action with Kautsky brings it to the fore. This concept is also very clear in World Revolution and Communist Tactics, as in Gorter's Open Letter to Comrade Lenin. The definitive texts of early left communism are saturated with this theme. I think it is very clear why those who synthesize the German and Italian Lefts try to deny the importance of this theme: Lenin thought it was nonsense, as did Bordiga. (Dauve, for example, thought that Lenin attacked the German Left on its weakest point). So there is a tendency for left communists to falsify their own theoretical heritage in order to differentiate themselves from anarchism. I have addressed another instance of this phenomenon with regards to syndicalism here: http://libcom.org/forums/history/council-communism-library-29092007.
Dec 24 2007 23:51
#38
Quote:
I would say that the critique of the masses' dependence on "leadership" in the labor movement is not something that grows out of the defeat of the revolutionary movement. It is central to Pannekoek's theory throughout his life. The pre-war debate around mass action with Kautsky brings it to the fore. This concept is also very clear in World Revolution and Communist Tactics, as in Gorter's Open Letter to Comrade Lenin. The definitive texts of early left communism are saturated with this theme.
I did not say otherwise. I just say fetishisation which was clearly in 30ise for GIK for instance... I think that by way of neglacting the role of party -which Dauve rightly criticise- this fetishistism become complete.
Mass action was never abandoned by communist left. What communist left do not do is counterposing mass action to the party.
Quote:
So there is a tendency for left communists to falsify their own theoretical heritage in order to differentiate themselves from anarchism.
I don't think that is the case. I think you should clarify it more.
Quote:
"pomo ideology"
post-structuralism sometimes smell terrible if you do not read it outside 
Dec 25 2007 00:09
#39
Mikhail, perhaps I misunderstood your meaning. I interpreted this
Quote:
But it becomes obscure in 20' Pannekoek and Gorter.
to mean that you thought that in 1920 or in the early 20's the critique of "leadership" was not very important for Pannekoek or Gorter. That was mostly what I was responding to, but maybe this is not what you meant.
Dec 25 2007 00:50
#40
Yes being a lazy turk in english lesson perhaps I could not tell clearly what I meant. I mean the connection that post-leftist ideology assumes with left communism is not so obvious when you read the articles of gorter and pannekoek of 20's.
Dec 26 2007 21:58
#41
Oisin Mac Giollamoir wrote:
The majority of those who claim a legacy from the Dutch-German Left, those who call themselves council communists, tend to take the position of Rühle and the AAUD-E. For that reason they refuse to form political organisations. Dauvé explains the theory thus: “any revolutionary organisation coexisting with the organs created by the workers themselves, and trying to elaborate a coherent theory and political line, must in the end attempt to lead the workers. Therefore revolutionaries do not organise themselves outside the organs "spontaneously" created by the workers: they merely exchange and circulate information and establish contacts with other revolutionaries; they never try to define a general theory or strategy.”(21)Pannekoek wrote in 1936 “The old labor movement is organised in parties. 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 organisation that aims to lead and control the working class. In opposition to this, we maintain that the working class can rise to victory only when it independently attacks its problems and decides its own fate. The workers should not blindly accept the slogans of others, nor of our own groups but must think, act, and decide for themselves. This conception is in sharp contradiction to the tradition of the party as the most important means of educating the proletariat. Therefore many, though repudiating the Socialist and Communist parties, resist and oppose us. This is partly due to their traditional concepts; after viewing the class struggle as a struggle of parties, it becomes difficult to consider it as purely the struggle of the working class, as a class struggle.”(22)
While the idea of working class struggle being ‘purely the struggle of the working class’ is essential, it hides major theoretical and practical problems. Firstly what does it mean to take the side of the class and as opposed to a party? What does the working class without a party look like? What does is mean to reject parties? If we take Dauvé’s understanding, that this rejection of partyism is a rejection of any attempt ‘to elaborate a coherent theory and political line’ then we face a problem(23). If any attempt to elaborate a coherent theory and political line is forbidden then how can the class develop a coherent theory and political line to guide itself through a revolution and to victory? How can the class think strategically if strategic thinking is banned lest it be oppressive or vanguardist?
In a revolution there will be a number of conflicting theories and political lines being put forward. To claim otherwise is highly naïve. If those of us who believe that ‘the emancipation of the working classes must be achieved by the working classes themselves’(24) don’t enter the revolution prepared with a program explaining how this can be achieved the revolution will, like all prior workers’ revolutions, fail.
I think this is oversimplifying matters, and also a bit unfair. Most councilists today might see their role as to "merely exchange and circulate information and establish contacts with other revolutionaries", but I don't think they actually want to ban strategic thinking. In any case, this is also quite different from Ruhle and AAUD-E's concept of a "political and economic integrated organization of the revolutionary proletariat".
I also don't think you will find many council communists who will disagree that "in a revolution, there will be a number of conflicting theories and political lines being put forward". As for Pannekoek, he did criticize the traditional concepts of the party and programme, but he still advocated forming groups based on common politics and for these groups to advocate their views within the working class as a whole. In the same article as is quoted above, he also states:
Quote:
If, in this situation, persons with the same fundamental conceptions unite for the discussion of practical steps and seek clarification through discussions and propagandize their conclusions, such groups might be called parties, but they would be parties in an entirely different sense from those of today. Action, the actual class struggle, is the task of the working masses themselves, in their entirety, in their real groupings as factory and millhands, or other productive groups, because history and economy have placed them in the position where they must and can fight the working class struggle. It would be insane if the supporters of one party were to go on strike while those of another continue to work. But both tendencies will defend their positions on strike or no strike in the factory meetings, thus affording an opportunity to arrive at a well founded decision. The struggle is so great, the enemy so powerful that only the masses as a whole can achieve a victory—the result of the material and moral power of action, unity and enthusiasm, but also the result of the mental force of thought, of clarity. In this lies the great importance of such parties or groups based on opinions: that they bring clarity in their conflicts, discussions and propaganda. They are the organs of the self-enlightenment of the working class by means of which the workers find their way to freedom.Of course such parties are not static and unchangeable. Every new situation, every new problem will find minds diverging and uniting in new groups with new programs. They have a fluctuating character and constantly readjust themselves to new situations.
Compared to such groups, the present workers' parties have an entirely different character, for they have a different objective: they want to seize power for themselves. They aim not at being an aid to the working class in its struggle for emancipation but to rule it themselves and proclaim that this constitutes the emancipation of the proletariat. The Social-Democracy which arose in the era of parliamentarism conceived of this rule as a parliamentary government. The Communist Party carried the idea of part rule through to its fullest extreme in the party dictatorship.
from http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/party-class.htm
Dec 26 2007 23:53
#42
I think Felix's post is excellent in encouraging a more sober assessment of the Dutch/German Left, and especially the "party" idea. As Mikhail has pointed out, the reliance on Dauve in the original article is understandable, but probably a weakness. Dauve's critical comments regarding the "ultra-left" are certainly accepted at face value by many, but one should assess his interpretation before adopting it.
Here is Dauve's description of a meeting with Paul Mattick to discuss his critique of the ultra-left. It is both informative and amusing:
Quote:
Paul Mattick... Well, back in 1969, I translated the critique of the ultra-left text for him as he was staying in Paris, and had it sent to where he lived, rue DANTE..., maybe, and we met a few days later. Some of the words I remember as if it all happened yesterday.– Is this the work of your group?
– Yes.
– It’s very weak, and sometimes it’s embarrasingly weak.
A bad start. So I tried to shift the conversation to our wish to inherit not just from the German left, but also from the Italian left. The idea was to try and explain him why we were critical of workers’ management. But I was wrong again.
– Bordiga is a Leninist.
From then on, we sort of moved to the Spanish civil war. I said we were critical to anarchy as a principle, as a theory, not just of the CNT. He replied as if I was dismissing anarchism as a grass root genuine product of proletarian activity.
– I don’t care if they raped the nuns.
I guess I’ve forgotten the rest. All the time, he was unsymphathetic, like he was talking to a half-wit leftist intellectual with subversive pretensions he can’t and won’t live up to. (Maybe we’d feel the same towards a pro-situ.) (http://www.riff-raff.se/en/7/gd_corr.php)
Dec 27 2007 00:41
#43
Felix,
I think the basic issue is whether mass organisations are possible in non-revolutionary periods or not. However before answering this, it should be remembered that all left tendencies of 20's and pannekeok, ruhle etc. merged and developed their theories "inside" the mass organisations. In that sense rather than walking on a fictitious rope of "is organisation good or bad" maybe it is better to pose the question "in what kind of a historical period did mass parties, mass organisations appeared and revolutionary tendencies could struggle inside them".
Otherwise I do not see any reasonable explanation against specific organisations of revlotionaries -whether they would be workers in the same shop or just "intellectuals".
In any case any kind of communist organisation is based on an "intellectual agreement " and not on a "sociological" (in the sense that pannekoek uses the term) similarity.
....
My criticism towards Dauve is that while he reasonably discuss the necessity of program he do not seem to be clearly analysing the historical break that caused the degeneration of the parties and its roots. It is like as if when pannekoek started to criticise social democracy, social democracy became defunct...
Dec 27 2007 12:35
#44
I've read the article and it deserves a more developed reply than I can give now. But it seems to me that there is a fundamental contradiction in it: On the one hand, it quotes the original Russian platformist group about the weaknesses of the anarchists in the Russian revolution:
“Anarchism had no firm, hard and fast opinion regarding the main problems facing the social revolution, an opinion needed to satisfy the masses who were carrying out the revolution. Anarchists were calling for a seizure of the factories, but had no well-defined homogeneous notion of the new production and its structures. Anarchists championed the communist device "from each according to abilities, to each according to needs," but they never bothered to apply this precept to the real world…Anarchists talked a lot about the revolutionary activity of the workers themselves, but they were unable to direct the masses, even roughly, towards the forms that such activity might assume...They incited the masses to shrug off the yoke of authority, but they did not indicate how the gains of revolution might be consolidated and defended. They had no clear cut opinion and specific action policies with regard to lots of other problems. Which is what alienated them from the activities of the masses and condemned them to social and historical impotence.
“Upwards of twenty years of experience, revolutionary activity, twenty years of efforts in anarchist ranks, and of effort that met with nothing but failures by anarchism as an organizing movement: all of this has convinced us of the necessity of a new comprehensive anarchist party organisation rooted in one homogenous theory, policy and tactic
The passage is very clear in many ways and is not fundamentally different from the basic notion that most left communists have of the 'programme' or 'platform' on which they base their activity.
However, in order to make a radical distinction with left communism, the author then seems to portray us as defenders of an 'invariant' programme, a set of dogmas, which bears no relation to the historical experience of the working class. It is true that the Bordigists arrived at this view to a large extent, though the Bordigism of the 1950s is by no means identical with the writings of Bordiga in the 1920s.
Here the article's omissioin of the Italian left's most fruitful period, around Bilan in the thirties, is most glaring, because the whole project of Bilan was to re-examine positions that had been proved wrong in the light of proletarian experience. It is also worth noting that in doing so they opened up a dialoge with the Dutch left,. This dialogue was continued during the 40s and 50s, particularly by the Gauche Communiste de France, resulting in a number of clarifications, especially on the trade unions and the party.
Also relevant here is the historical error, in a footnote, about the origins of the ICC. We are described as originating in the 1952 split in the Italian Internationalist Communist Party., ie from the 'Damenist' current that is today embodied by the IBRP. In fact the French group was in profound disagreement with the ICP almost from its beginnings in 43 - not least on its tendency to abandon many of the advances made by Bilan in the 30s and to go back to the 'dogmas' of the Third International.
The article makes liberal use of Marx's phrases about 'the real movement'. But there is no contradiction between the real movement of the class struggle and the efforts of communists to elaborate a revolutionary programme in the light of this struggle - on the contrary, their very efforts are part of the class struggle and thus of the real movement.
Dec 29 2007 13:00
#45
This discussion has been interesting and has corrected some errors in the original article, but I would still like to understand what WSM supporters and critics think the connection is, or is not, between the WSM's politics and the ideas presented in this paticular article in 'Red and Black'.
My ealier posting on the Irish site, linked at the beginning of this thread, tried to suggest either an incompatibillity or an unstated and false connection ?
Dec 29 2007 18:46
#46
Whoa Bordigists were in the Insane Clown Posse (ICP)! Awesome!
Dec 29 2007 22:25
#47
Here are some initial thoughts on the article by Oisin Mac Giollamoir (OMC).
First, I think its important to welcome the article as an initial effort to make left communism known to a wider audience. Left communism has a lot to offer and is far from a dead tradition – it is alive and kicking today! The author recognises that left communist theories have made some ‘positive contributions to anarchism’, though these are not explained in detail. It would be good if these could be developed on, especially the ones in the past 30 years.
Unfortunately the author’s aim seems more negative, to focus on the ‘significant theoretical and tactical mistakes’ in left communist theories. Indeed, that author’s central aim is to “attempt to highlight the problems of these theories and insist on the need to develop an anarchist program for today based on the situation of our class today, as opposed to based on a-historical principles.” This is a tough challenge, because it is anarchism that is based on idealism and a-historical principles, unlike marxism which is rooted in historical materialism.
It’s true that left communism is largely defined in negative terms, for what it stands against. The article refers to the experiences of the German and Italian communist lefts, but there is no mention of the other main pole of left communism in the 1920s, in Russia:
- In 1919, the Democratic Centralism group (‘Decists’), led by Ossinski, Smirnov and Sapranov, had begun to warn against the "withering away" of the soviets and the increasing departure from the principles of the Paris Commune.
- Similar criticisms were made in 1921 by the Workers' Opposition group led by Kollontai and Shliapnikov, although the latter was to prove less rigorous and durable than the "Decist" group, which was to continue to play an important role throughout the 20s, and which was to develop a similar approach to that of the Italian left.
- In 1923, the Workers’ Group led by Miasnikov issued its manifesto and made an important intervention in the workers’ strikes of that year. Its positions and analyses were close to those of the KAPD.
(The ICC has published a book on the history of the Russian Communist Left. As Ernie pointed out, we have written several books on the history of the communist lefts. They can be found on Amazon.co.uk here. The main ones are searchable now too, so you print off the first chapter of each)
The article goes into greater detail on the history of the German Revolution 1918-19 and it is true that the leaders of the KPD – including Liebknecht and Luxemburg – were in a minority against the anti-parliamentarian and anti-trade union majority. However, the impression is given that Liebknecht and Luxemburg were part of the leadership who expelled the majority of the KPD in October 1919. In fact they had been assassinated in the spring of 1919 – along with many others – and they were in favour of carrying out a thorough debate on the parliamentary and union questions. Secondly, it was the leadership who were the clearest on the question of organisation, on the need for the party, which is largely why they were taken out of the equation. The German bourgeoisie had first hand experience of what had happened in Russia with the strength of the Bolshevik Party. The decapitation of the KDP led to great confusion and disarray, making a great contribution to the failure of the revolution to spread to Germany, and ultimately the degeneration of the revolution in Russia.
In fact it was the growing isolation of the Soviet power in Russia that led to the exacerbation of the mistakes the Bolsheviks had made – in particular not maintaining its autonomy from the transitional state – and which played such a great part in the party’s degeneration into a weapon of the counter-revolution. Had the revolution been extended into Western Europe these mistakes could most probably have been corrected, with the Communist International having more influence over the policies carried out in Russia, rather than the opposite happening. It was this tragedy – of the rise of Stalinism on the bones of the revolution - which the council communists reacted against. In act, it is important to be make a distinction between the ‘council communists’ of the 1920s who were in favour of organisation, and their ‘councilist’ epigones from the period of the counter-revolution who weren’t. The author is right to pose the consequences of ‘anti-partyism’, of an anti-organisational approach and poses some very good questions:
OMC wrote:
While the idea of working class struggle being ‘purely the struggle of the working class’ is essential, it hides major theoretical and practical problems. Firstly what does it mean to take the side of the class and as opposed to a party? What does the working class without a party look like? What does is mean to reject parties? If we take Dauvé’s understanding, that this rejection of partyism is a rejection of any attempt ‘to elaborate a coherent theory and political line’ then we face a problem. If any attempt to elaborate a coherent theory and political line is forbidden then how can the class develop a coherent theory and political line to guide itself through a revolution and to victory? How can the class think strategically if strategic thinking is banned lest it be oppressive or vanguardist?
During a revolution – as during the class struggles today – there will be a number of conflicting theories about – most obviously from the representatives of the left-wing of the bourgeoisie. The author refers to the conclusions of the Dyelo Truda group on the lack of a program contributing to the failure of the anti-statist position in Russia. But again the logic here seems to be that had the anti-statists been more successful than those ‘evil Bolsheviks’ in Russia then the revolution would have been successful. Thus Lenin is to blame for the defeat of the Russian revolution. Sorry if I've read too much between the lines here, but the introduction to the article is hostile to Lenin so I'm assuming the anti-Leninism/Bolshevism is there under the surface. It's important to overcome the prejudices against Lenin and the Bolsheviks as there is much to learn from their experiences. They made a very important contribution to the workers' movement, despite their many weaknesses.
Finally, I'd say it was the anti-organisational attitude of council communism that largely led to it's demise. The organisations that took themselves seriously and defend the need for organisation are still around today, despite the passing away of the comrades who survived the counter-revolution. Where are the council communists today? Surely there's a lesson there?
That's all for now. I have got a few other points to make but want to get off to watch MOTD. I think we should reply to the article in the pages of World Revolution.
B.
PS. We've written a very brief history of the communist left here:
The communist left and the continuity of marxism
http://en.internationalism.org/the-communist-left
Mikail
I was not meaning that you thought Dauve was correct, but rather that you were correct to say that the article had to be taken in its context. Nor was the post trying to say that you underestimated the work of the Communist Left such as the ICC, CWo, rahter I was trying to underline that there was a very exciting process of discovery in the 1970's and 80's and into the 90's: and beyond.