Now that I have your attention, I'm looking for electronic texts from the ICC and that perspective on the State and Centralization (as seperate issues).
Thank you.
Sep 20 2008 01:15
Sep 20 2008 13:30
Ok, thanks.
Edit: I found this to be interesting: "The Period of Transition from Capitalism to Socialism" Resolution accepted at the 3rd Congress of the ICC (1979)
http://en.internationalism.org/book/export/html/1587.
But I am confused by what seems to be a contradiction in:
while the proletariat will have to use the state during the transition period, it must retain a complete independence from it. In this sense the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be confused with the state. Between the two there is a constant relation of force which the proletariat will have to maintain in its favour: the dictatorship of the proletariat is exerted by the working class itself through its own independent armed unitary organs: the workers’ councils. The workers’ councils will participate in the territorial soviets (in which the whole non—exploiting population is represented and from which the state structure will emanate) without confusing themselves with them, in order to ensure its class hegemony over all the structures of the society of the transitional period.
There is a State, there is no State? There's socialism, there is no socialism?
Sep 20 2008 13:47
What exactly is the contradiction? I've read the quote and I'm not sure I can identify it.
Sep 20 2008 13:51
Adnmitedly I'm not in the left communist camp, but this makes no sense to me:
Quote:
while the proletariat will have to use the state during the transition period, it must retain a complete independence from it. In this sense the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be confused with the state
Sep 20 2008 14:23
Devrim wrote:
The ICC don't believe in the idea of a workers state. They think that the state is an inherently reactionary, conservative, organisation, and that the proletariat must exercise its dictatorship over, and if necessary against the state.
I gather then, this tendency is not anti-state.
In the "German/Dutch left is not a branch of anarchism" article http://en.internationalism.org/book/export/html/457 it is written
Quote:
[what fundamentally distinguishes marxism from ally distinguishes marxism from anarchism is that the former is able to apply a historical and dynamic analysis which makes it possible to grasp the real movement of the proletarian struggle and to draw all its lessons, as opposed to the abstract, timeless and idealist principles of the anarchist approach.
What it appears to be a major difference is the question of the State.
I am only starting to read some of this stuff, so I claim no expertice on the left communist tendency. I'm mainly reading this stuff to get a sense of this tendency's view of centralization and the State.
Sep 20 2008 17:17
syndicalist wrote:
I gather then, this tendency is not anti-state.
To me, the left communist tendency is anti-state, and one of the things that drew me to it was that it was more consistently so than anarchism. It is certainly not the left communists who argue for critical support for various statist projects*, be it left nationalism in power like Chavez, or nationalist gangs in opposition like Hezbollah, or even Maoists in Nepal.
syndicalist wrote:
Adnmitedly I'm not in the left communist camp, but this makes no sense to me:Quote:
while the proletariat will have to use the state during the transition period, it must retain a complete independence from it. In this sense the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be confused with the state
We think that there will be a state, but that it will not be a workers' state, and will be a reactionary body.
*I am not saying that all anarchists support these things, but they have all been supported by so-called anarchists on libcom.
Devrim
Sep 20 2008 18:06
Agree with Devrim, with one nuance: the ICC position is that the state is inherantly conservative, but not inherantly reactionary. The distinction depends on whether the relations of production it is 'conserving' have a progressive function or have become a definitive barrier to progress. This is how the state could still in certain circumstances play a progressive role in the period of capitalist ascendancy. for example, although it was rarely the dynamic force pushing things forward. In the period of transition, the state is conserving a hybrid state of affairs in which there is a constant conflict between the forward movement towards communism and the forces tugging in the opposite direction. The lesson of the state in the Russian revolution is that the more the revolution stalls, the more the state apparatus will tend to become the focal point for an outright counter-revolutionary, ie reactionary, bourgeois movement.
This text, written by Marc Chirik in 1975, gives a good overview of this approach
Sep 21 2008 13:15
Thanks for the links.
I'm currently looking at those tendencies and currrents on the "communist left" and within the "libertarian marxist" milieu. I might be on a panel discussing the topic of anarchism and marxism. I just want to be current in my overview and perspectives.
Any additional links would be appreciated.
Sep 21 2008 13:42
Quote:
This text, written by Marc Chirik in 1975, gives a good overview of this approach
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/1_problems_mc.htm
From a first read interesting and attempts to address this gray period calledthe "transition period". On first read (admitedly) it seems like the question of the State is contradictory. It's to be smashed, but not smashed. It's to be used to make living standard gains, but not used. It is semi-proletarian, but reactionary.
Again, I appreciate the links.
Sep 22 2008 10:51
Quote:
it seems like the question of the State is contradictory. It's to be smashed, but not smashed. It's to be used to make living standard gains, but not used. It is semi-proletarian, but reactionary.
it's not contradiction but a process. the state last until it is completely replaced by a free association of producers, by the taking of all functions of directing the social production by the whole collectivity. it's what has been called the "withering away" of the state (for some, leninistes eg, it is the bourgeois state that is smashed and the worker state which replace it that withers).
Sep 22 2008 12:45
Thank you Piter, but who controls this "transitional state" (my term)? Here's where the position is less then clear, for me at least. Dual power between the working class and who?
Sep 22 2008 12:56
In the ICC's conception, the transitional state is not something that is set up by the working class, it is something that emerges from society. It will include things such as neighbourhood committees, or peasants associations. What is the alternative, for the working class to completely disenfranchise the peasantry and rule by dictate. Basically it includes, other (non-exploitative) classes.
Also, it is not a period of dual power. It is a period of class dictatorship.
Devrim
Sep 22 2008 13:49
Devrim wrote:
In the ICC's conception, the transitional state is not something that is set up by the working class, it is something that emerges from society. It will include things such as neighbourhood committees, or peasants associations. What is the alternative, for the working class to completely disenfranchise the peasantry and rule by dictate. Basically it includes, other (non-exploitative) classes.Also, it is not a period of dual power. It is a period of class dictatorship.
Devrim
I still don't get it. There is clear talk of a State and a seperate "class dictatorship".
I suspect there will be some form of transitional phase, what that will look like, well, I'm not quite sure. I appreciate the ICC links and they have been food for thought or, rather, understanding this tendency's viewpoint.
On the anarchist side of the ledger both the Dielo Trouda group (in the "Platform"*) and G.P Maximoff (in "Constructive Anarchism"**) discuss this question from an anarchist perspective. I think Malatesta might also address the question. So, in this sense, there's a common recognition that there will be this gray period of transition.
What it will look like, well...
* http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/platform/constructive.htm
** I do not believe there's an electronic link to this book.
Sep 22 2008 14:52
As Devrim points out, there's no way the working class can be the only organised force during the transition period. The other strata will not disappear overnight and can't be excluded from participation in the running of society. But the working class would make a serious error if it simply dissolved its own specifically class organs (such as workers' councils, elected by workplace assemblies) into this general popular apparatus. Even more so when it comes to typically statist organs like an army. In Russia they had little choice but to set up the Red Army to fight a war of military fronts, but it was a fatal error to have dissovled the Red Guards which wre based on the factories. It's in this kind of example that we can see the difference between organs of class power and state organs.
Sep 23 2008 05:06
Thanks Alf. Actually, when I discuss the possibilities for reolution, I always consider the it occuring in the communities, amongst waged farm workers and others. So it's not just a question of the workers council. I take your point about the independence of workers militias.
But I still don't get the notion of a "general popular apparatus" or State. At what point does this "general popular apparatus" begin? At what point does it end? This seems very much like something out of the Russian Revolution --- liberal or social democracy comes to parliment and, well, the rest is history.
You write: "It's in this kind of example that we can see the difference between organs of class power and state organs." So it is a question of dual power. The struggle between a liberal or social democratic or even a leninist State and the popular organizations (workers councils, community, tenant, wage farmers, etc) which are fighting for a society in whch they are truly in the drivers seat. Not sure I would see this as a transition period though. I would think it's just part of the advancement of the struggle. It would be, well sort of, like the Labour Party first comingto power and instituting all sorts of social democratic schemes and so forth. It adavnced an agenda of social betterment, but could not be viewed by anyone on the revolutionary left as part of a transitional stage towards something higher, more revolutionary, more self-emancipating. I doubt this is even what you mean. So, what then? What is the State and why is it part of the transition period?
Sep 23 2008 05:46
I feel that you haven't really understood this. You write:
Quote:
The struggle between a liberal or social democratic or even a leninist State and the popular organizations (workers councils, community, tenant, wage farmers, etc) which are fighting for a society in whch they are truly in the drivers seat.
We see the 'popular organisations' as the state. Peasants organisations for example are not by definition workers' organisations. Residents organisations are not purely workers2 organisations. These type of organisations will be the state. We certainly don't envisage a sort of 'liberal or social democratic or even a leninist State'. Opposed to them are the as you put it 'organs of class power'. For us these are organisations of the working class (i.e. the workers' councils), and are not cross class organisations (e.g. residents associations), or organisations of other classes (e.g. farmers' associations).
Devrim
Sep 23 2008 10:30
Quote:
We see the 'popular organisations' as the state. Peasants organisations for example are not by definition workers' organisations. Residents organisations are not purely workers2 organisations. These type of organisations will be the state. We certainly don't envisage a sort of 'liberal or social democratic or even a leninist State'. Opposed to them are the as you put it 'organs of class power'. For us these are organisations of the working class (i.e. the workers' councils), and are not cross class organisations (e.g. residents associations), or organisations of other classes (e.g. farmers' associations).
sems to me curious.
I would say that what distinguish the state and worker's power (concils, red guards...) is that workers power abolish separation between the people or the class and the direction of societiy of social production like state organs do, ruling people from above.
so the factory council were organs of working class dictatorship, and could be called state organs only if you add that they are becoming something else and the realisation of the withering away of the state, and the national economic council (whose members were not elected but from the government, the unions and the "specialists"), or the differents commissariats of the people(?I'm not sure of the translation) were truly state organs separated from direct workers rule, and therefore not realising a withering away of the state by replacing its direction by the collectivity rule with councils, etc...
quite the same distinction works for the red army and the red guerds, and the same error (I think in particular for the factory councils and the national economic council, see Maurice Brinton, "The bolsheviks and workers control") by the bolsheviks.
so who control the state? class dictatorship should do that (by councils, red guards, etc...taking directing functions from the state or/and controling it), not only controling it, but also, and that's the whole point, organising to replace it by direct rule from the people instituting a new mode of social production.
Sep 23 2008 12:01
No question that these bureaucratic organs became the main rallying point for the counter-revolution. The question is whether or not it will be possible to dispense with all forms of 'bureaucracy' immediately (eg planning commissions, all the functions carried out by 'civil servants', etc) or whether it's a question of workers' direct organs exerting a permament vigilance over all such institutions until they can be dispensed with altogether. You seem to accept that there is a problem of controlling statist type organs prior to eliminating them.
Sep 23 2008 15:50
Thanks Dev and Alf for both of your replies. And Piter for additional comentary.
More to follow later (after work).
Anything on Pannekoek and the State? On the translational period? On centralization vs. decentralization?
Sep 23 2008 19:41
Alf wrote:
No question that these bureaucratic organs became the main rallying point for the counter-revolution. The question is whether or not it will be possible to dispense with all forms of 'bureaucracy' immediately (eg planning commissions, all the functions carried out by 'civil servants', etc) or whether it's a question of workers' direct organs exerting a permament vigilance over all such institutions until they can be dispensed with altogether.
I think the problem here is that you and Devrim are mixing up two different things: on the one hand, not being able to immediately dispense with all forms of bureaucracy (which I think is true), and on the other hand, the issue of other non-capitalist classes such as the peasants and "cross-class" popular organizations such as neighborhood councils (which I think is a whole other issue).
Sep 24 2008 02:07
syndicalist wrote:
Anything on Pannekoek and the State? On the translational period? On centralization vs. decentralization?
Yes. The best text of Pannekoek's on the state is here: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/sdc.htm. Here is a quote:
Pannekoek wrote:
The council system is a state organization without the bureaucracy of permanent officials which makes the State an alien power separate from the people.
For Pannekoek, the bourgeois state is an "alien power," while the "proletarian state" is synonymous with the council system and workers' democracy.
Pannekoek wrote more about the transition period in his book Workers' Councils. Here is a quote:
Pannekoek wrote:
Seventy years ago Marx pointed out that between the rule of capitalism and the final organisation of a free humanity there will be a time of transition in which the working class is master of society but in which the bourgeoisie has not yet disappeared. He called this state of things the dictatorship of the proletariat. At that time this word had not yet the ominous sound of modern systems of despotism, nor could it be misused for the dictatorship of a ruling party, as in later Russia. It meant simply that the dominant power over society was transferred from the capitalist to the working class. Afterwards people, entirely confined within the ideas of parliamentarism, tried to materialize this conception by taking away the franchise for political bodies from the propertied classes. It is clear that, violating as it did the instinctive feeling of equal rights, it was in contrast to democracy. We see now that council organisation puts into practice what Marx theoretically anticipated but for what at that time the practical form could not yet be imagined. When production is regulated by the producers themselves, the formerly exploiting class automatically is excluded from taking part in the decisions, without any artificial stipulation. Marx's conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat now appears to be identical with the labor democracy of council organisation. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/workers-councils.htm)
Regarding centralism and federalism, the council communists of the 1930s considered this issue to be a significant difference between their Marxist positions and what they understood as anarchism. An article that explicitly addresses this is unfortunately very hard to find: W.R.B., "Marxism and Anarchism." International Council Correspondence No. 9, July 1935. If you are interested, I can offer a more exhaustive list of council communist mentions of anarchism.
Of course Pannekoek and the Dutch-German left never shared the same analysis of the state and transition that the ICC puts forward. The ICC's real heritage here is in the analysis of Bilan (Italian Left) developed during the 1930s, drawing lessons from the experience of the Russian revolution. You could check out the ICC's book on the Italian Left to better understand this. But it is important to understand that historically there is no single "left communist" position.
Sep 24 2008 07:15
Quote:
dave c: I can offer a more exhaustive list of council communist mentions of anarchism.
Yes, I would be interested. Of course I'm aware of the recent stuff published by the ICC on Spanish anarcho-syndicalism, etc.
It's almost 3:15AM and I just got home a wee-bit ago from work. I'll come back to the other stuff later. I pretty much share Felix's sentiment:
Quote:
I think the problem here is that you and Devrim are mixing up two different things: on the one hand, not being able to immediately dispense with all forms of bureaucracy (which I think is true), and on the other hand, the issue of other non-capitalist classes such as the peasants and "cross-class" popular organizations such as neighborhood councils (which I think is a whole other issue).
Alf wrote:
Quote:
You seem to accept that there is a problem of controlling statist type organs prior to eliminating them.
If this was directed to me, yes, as an anarchist I do. Thus far in history we have yet to see any State disappear. But I think the question of transition is important and somewhat more complex than at any time in modern history. Mainly do to the high degree of statification, bueaucracy and the remanents of the "welfare state" in many countries.
Alf, I'm not clear what you mean by this:
Quote:
it's a question of workers' direct organs exerting a permament vigilance over all such institutions until they can be dispensed with altogether.
Vigilant, as to watch over, to keep in check,. At what point does the State beome "dispensed" of? I don't mean a time line, what somhow it just disappears?
Sep 24 2008 08:06
Actually, it was a response to Piter, but I'm glad you agree.
The state will exist as long as there is any kind of class divisions. The key is the transformation of the social relations so that the political envelope of the transitional phase no longer has any function - we pass to the 'administration of things'.
Both Felix and Dave C have made valid points. It's true that the problem of bureaucracy is not exactly the same problem as the forms of representation for other classes. Workers' councils could themselves become bureaucratic in a phase of downturn or retreat. But the two problems do come together when you are talking about the 'political envelope' of the whole transitional society - not only the organs of representation, but also the adminstrative apparatus created to hold society together (education, welfare, planning, defence, etc). The problem isn't solved simply by saying that the education workers, or health workers, or whatever will run these services, because you are talking about organisms that are there for the whole of society. In addition to which you have the whole problem of 'bourgeois experts' which was raised very explicitly in the Russian revolution. Because these adminstrative organs reflect the needs of the whole transitional society, they will be more vulnerable to cross-class pressures. Far better that the workers' councils see themselves as distinct from this whole machinery and able to exert their political control over it.
Dave C is right to say that Pannekoek's view represents another 'left communist' standpoint. But I think it's a very restricted one because to reduce the defintion of the state to the workers' councils ignores all the very real problems posed by the Italian left and which we are discussing here.
Sep 24 2008 14:58
I think one way to deal with things like health or education that concerns all society (but it is true with every point of the whole social production, not only "services" but also production of goods) is to have not only councils on the base of the production (or healtcare, or education,etc...) area, but also councils local and less local that unifies all these grassroots councils.
we go back to the "centralization problem". but if division of labor and the direction of social production are transformed, if a free association of producers is running social production in place of capital, the centralized councils can be checked, the problem is not centralization in itself but the social mode of direction of work, in the workplace and in the whole social production process.
I would say that the problem of the withering away of the state and its replacement is linked with the problem of replacing the capitalist mode of direction of work, replacing by association all direction of work alien to the workers.
Sep 25 2008 13:50
A comrade just passed this on to me http://www.fdca.it/fdcaen/organization/sdf/sdf_tp.htm. Haven't had time to read/absorb yet.
Sep 26 2008 14:44
Hi Syndicalist, here is a lengthy chronological sample of statements on anarchism coming out of the council communist tradition. Ask me if something is unclear. (My comments are not meant to express agreement or disagreement on my part.)
1) Pannekoek's 1909 article “Tactical differences in the Labor Movement” talked about anarchism at some length in the context of discussing Marxist revisionism, rejecting both anarchism and revisionism as one-sided in the sense that revisionism focuses solely on "day to day action" while anarchism looks only toward the "final objective" and simply sees reforms as dangerous for lulling the workers into submission. (Bricianer, Pannekoek and the Workers' Councils, 86) Pannekoek is critical of both "individualistic" and "revolutionary unionist" anarchism for proclaiming “the perfect autonomy of the individual” as their goal. Summing up, he claims that
Pannekoek wrote:
Anarchism is lower middle class ideology gone mad; revisionism, the same ideology with its teeth drawn. (92)
2) Here is Gorter, in “Imperialism, the World War and Social Democracy” (1914):
Gorter wrote:
There are social democrats who call our position on the national and international general strike syndicalist and even anarchosyndicalist, because such a strike was defended by these tendencies. The difference between us and the syndicalists and anarchosyndicalists is as follows: in the parliamentary struggle, we have seen and still see a powerful weapon, the same as in the political struggle, the proletarian struggle which embraces everything. This is so, naturally, as long as the struggle is waged in a strictly revolutionary way and in harmony and cooperation with mass action. There is also one other difference: the anarchists and syndicalists were propagandizing for the general strike when neither the productive forces nor the conditions of production, nor the workers organizations, were mature; we, on the other hand, are propagandizing for the general strike now, when England and Germany are materially ripe and world imperialism is attacking the world proletariat—against the consortia and the trusts, against the imperialism of all governments, with millions of organized workers. The value and the importance of a propaganda campaign and of its ideas depend only upon the moment when the campaign is conducted. (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2379/gort2.htm)
3) Here is Pannekoek in "World Revolution and Communist Tactics" (1920) on anarchists and the Second International:
Pannekoek wrote:
When the Second International arose as a loose federation of the latter [trade unions and Social Democratic parties] , it did in fact still have to combat tradition in the form of anarchism; but the legacy of the First International already formed its undisputed tactical base. Today, every communist knows why these methods of struggle were necessary and productive at that time: when the working class is developing within ascendant capitalism, it is not yet capable of creating organs which would enable it to control and order society, nor can it even conceive the necessity of doing so. It must first orientate itself mentally and learn to understand capitalism and its class rule. The vanguard of the proletariat, the Social-Democratic Party, must reveal the nature of the system through its propaganda and show the masses their goals by raising class demands. It was therefore necessary for its spokesmen to enter the parliaments, the centres of bourgeois rule, in order to raise their voices on the tribunes and take part in conflicts between the political parties. (http://www.kurasje.org/arksys/archset.htm)
Despite his criticism of the anarchists here, Paul Mattick claims that Pannekoek did not push for their expulsion from the Second International:
Mattick wrote:
He opposed the exclusion of the Anarchists from the International and his experiences as a member of Parliament led him to reject parliamentarism as a weapon of social emancipation. (http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/lobby/2379/pmpann.htm)
4) Here is Jan Appel of the KAPD at the Third Congress of the Third International (1921):
Appel wrote:
In France, in Spain, in Italy, even in America we find syndicalists and anarchists. Perhaps someone will cry out: 'Yes! You are an anarchist, a syndicalist!' Let us dwell for a moment on these matters. It will be necessary to recognise that the most revolutionary elements of the working class have for many years been found amongst such people. We know of course, that they do not recognise the class struggle in conscious terms, the organised class struggle. But is it not the case, Comrades, that they entered history prematurely, their tactics were predated by decades? The methods adopted by the old workers' movement in Germany etc. were correct for that time but now, in the period of collapse, now the method of direct struggle is relevant. And these workers, these anarchists and syndicalists of the world, they do not have the experience of the collective strength and support that a workers' movement can bring to bear. In such a situation it is necessary for the Communists to intervene and to teach them how to lead the struggle, how to concentrate their forces. It is they who should bring them the form of organisation which they need in order that they may combine their ranks and within which they can unite. These same elements, however, demand that such a thorough break is made with all bourgeois remnants, that it will no longer be possible to return to the bourgeois path. All those workers who have joined the anarchist and syndicalist camp have been provoked by the betrayal of the parliamentary leaders. But at least they have recognised how serious have been the errors committed by the parliamentary workers' movement. Our task therefore must be to draw them once again out of their present allegiance, and that means that it should be a matter of concern for Communists if they find themselves unable to devote themselves to this work. Indeed it is not even a matter just of this, since for Communists it is no longer merely a question of principle whether or not one rejects parliamentarism, whether or not one rejects the trades union movement: today these matters have become to a far greater degree than ever before, practical questions, and today history has placed them firmly on the agenda, has presented them for solution. If we observe matters in this way, we can see that it is precisely in America and the West European countries that large workers' organisations are to be found which demand an anti-parliamentary policy and a break with the trades union movement. (http://www.kurasje.org/arksys/archset.htm)
5) Here is a KAPD report on the Third Congress of the Third International (1921):
KAPD wrote:
We devoted our greatest efforts to the second task mentioned above (establishing an opposition). In the course of our discussions with the delegations from Bulgaria, Mexico, Spain, Luxembourg, England, Glasgow, the Bulgarian Group and the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World), it became clear that we share some points in common with all these groups. The “Bulgarian Lefts” are closest to our positions. Their understanding of the Mexican situation is exactly the same as ours. The Bulgarian organizations are not actual “unions”, but coordinating bodies composed of syndicalists, anarchists and shop stewards. The relation between these organizations and the party is more or less such as we have tried to achieve: it is the party which directs the movement. After the Bulgarian comrades, it was the Spanish comrades [CNT] whose positions were closest to ours. They understood us perfectly. There is just one problem: the concept of the need for a political organization has yet to be generally accepted in Spain; but it is gaining ground. The comrades find themselves beyond trade unionism, on the road to communism. Their organization has 1,100,000 members: approximately 50% of all the organized workers in Spain. (http://us.share.geocities.com/collectiveact/dauve11.htm)
6) The article “Marxism and Anarchism” from International Council Correspondence (edited by Paul Mattick) from 1935 is signed "W.R.B." I don't know who this is. In any case, it seems to represent the general council communist view in the 1930's. It criticizes anarchist federalism on the grounds that it is incompatible with labor-time accounting throughout a rationally planned economy:
W.R.B. wrote:
By federalism the anarchists conceive a society based on collectivism, e.g. they visualize economic independence and personal liberty as existing only in the loose connection of autonomous communities. No government or council shall have the right to intervene in or question the management of any community or the methods of production and distribution. (International Council Correspondence No. 9, July 1935, 7.)
7) Paul Mattick's “The Civil War in Spain” (1936) is an extended analysis of the Spanish situation. Mattick's analysis is different from that of the Italian Left journal Bilan in that he sees the anti-fascist struggle as forced on the workers and does not call for desertion:
Mattick wrote:
. . . it is idle to ask whether the Spanish workers under the present conditions should fight against fascism and for bourgeois democracy or not. So far as the workers are concerned, regardless of the organization to which they belong or of their ideological position, regardless of whether they take up for bourgeois-democratic, state-capitalist, anarcho-syndicalist or communist goals, they are obliged to fight against fascism if they want not only to ward off the further worsening of their wretched position, but even to remain alive. (International Council Correspondence 2(11), October 1936, 13-14)
Mattick wrote:
Anchored in this organization [CNT] is the conception, however often it may have been violated, that the revolution can be made only from below, thru the spontaneous action and the self-initiative of the workers. Parliamentarism and labor-leader economy is looked upon as labor fakery, and state capitalism is set on the same plane with any other kind of exploitation society. In the course of the present civil war, anarcho-syndicalism has been the most forward-driving revolutionary element, endeavoring to convert the revolutionary phrase into reality. (21)
8) The council communist Group of International Communists of Holland (GIC), in their 1937 article “Anarchism in the Spanish Revolution," took up the theme of anarchist federalism, which the council communists linked to the backward conditions of Spain. The article criticized a utopian federalism that was giving way to a dangerous form of centralism (the power of union leaders) in response to actual conditions. Also, the GIC's focus on economic reorganization is typical in that the GIC's 1930 text Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution (http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/gik1.htm) was considered fundamental by both the GIC and the American Groups of Council Communists:
GIC wrote:
There is a close relationship between the syndicalists and the bolsheviki in this respect: their main interest centers around the technical organization of production. The only difference between the two conceptions is the greater naivete of the syndicalists. Both try to evade the question of the formation of new economic laws of motion. The bolsheviki are only capable of answering concretely the question of technical organization, which means absolute centralization under the management of a dictatorial apparatus. The syndicalists, on the other hand, in their desire for “independence of single enterprises” cannot solve even this problem. In reality, when encountering this problem, they sacrifice the right of self-determination of the workers in trying to solve it. (International Council Correspondence 3(5&6), June 1937, 22)
9) Henk Canne-Meijer's 1938 text "The Origins of the Movement for Workers' Councils in Germany" mentions anarchism:
Canne-Meijer wrote:
The leadership of the KPD saw in this anti-parliamentarism, not a revival of revolutionary thought, but a 'regression' to Trade Unionist and even Anarchist ideas, which in their mind belonged to the beginnings of industrial capitalism. But in truth the anti-parliamentarism of the new current had not much in common with 'revolutionary syndicalism' and 'anarchism'. It even represented its negation. While the anti-parliamentarism of the libertarians centred on the rejection of political power, and in particular, rejected the dictatorship of the proletariat, the new current considered anti-parliamentarism a necessary condition for the taking of political power . . . . The history of our times has shown that the suppression of private property does not necessarily mean the end of exploitation. The Anarchist movement understood this fact much sooner than the Marxists, and its theoreticians have given it careful attention. In the last analysis, they came to the same conclusion. But whereas the Marxists (Social Democrats or Bolsheviks) wanted to put capitalism, which had reached the monopoly stage, under the so called workers state, without changing anything fundamental in its mechanism, the Anarchists advocated a federation of free communes and rejected every form of state. (http://www.kurasje.org/arkiv/3000t.htm)
10) In 1939 Paul Mattick revisited the experience of the Spanish revolution, attributing the failure of the Spanish anarchists much more to the conditions of the civil war than to any flaws of anarchist ideology:
Mattick wrote:
It is often thought that the anarchists had to retreat before the governmental forces, and cooperate with them, because they failed to establish their own political power instruments. It is assumed that the anarchists did not pay sufficient attention to the political needs of the revolution, because they were convinced that whoever controls industry also controls society, and that the real power was already transferred to the workers and their syndicates, and that, under such conditions, even the participation in the government was no break with anarchist principles, as this political government had already been reduced to a mere extension of the economic government. However, the truth of the matter is that in the beginning, the anarchists had both political and economic power, the former being expressed in the armed workers and the temporary disappearance of the official government. They did not choose between the one or the other set of powers, but sacrificed both in the interest of anti-fascist harmony. (“The Concentration Camp Grows.” Living Marxism 4(6), April 1939, 172.)
11) Pannekoek, in a 1948 letter to the Australian publisher of his book Workers' Councils, writes about anarchism in a way that is somewhat reminiscent of his more traditional 1909 comments, but also somewhat more open to what he sees as the growing appeal of anarchism. He nonetheless comments that
Pannekoek wrote:
the old pure anarchist doctrine is too narrow to be of value for the workers’ class struggle now. (Bricianer, 259)
Sep 26 2008 10:37
Dave C - very useful post, giving food for thought about the real differences between the German left/council communism and anarchism. Just a couple of precisions: it wasn't Bilan as such who had "more affinity for the POUM", but the minority who went to fight in the POUM militias. Bilan's writings about the POUM are extremely critical. There were however dissident elements of the POUM who had clearer positions (we have published something about this in the International Review, I'll check out the reference) but I am not sure whether there was any contact between them and Bilan.
On terminology: we would argue that the Dutch/German left wasn't 'originally' council communist in that it clearly recognised the need for the party, both in the Second and the Third Internationals. You could say that Ruhle's tendency in the 1920s was an early form of council communism, but at that stage Pannekoek both was for the party and the councils and hadn't begun to theorise the notion of the party as a bourgeois form of organisation as Ruhle had.
Pannekoek's letter to Australia was 1948, of course....
Sep 26 2008 13:23
Thanks Dave C. for taking what must've been a lot of time. Printing it to read.
Sep 26 2008 15:37
Alf, thanks for the corrections. I just went back and edited those two things because the mistakes bothered me. Bilan was indeed very critical of the POUM. I am relatively indifferent to the terminology. Devrim and Leo seem to call the KAPD council communist, while the ICC does not. The council communists themselves emphasized their continuity with the KAPD and would date council communism back to that time. I don't mind this since they were consistent advocates of "all power to the councils" and were communist.
Sep 26 2008 15:46
dave c wrote:
Devrim and Leo seem to call the KAPD council communist, while the ICC does not. The council communists themselves emphasized their continuity with the KAPD and would date council communism back to that time.
I think either I have explained myself badly, or you have misunderstood me, Dave. Generally when I have talked about council communism on here it has been to say that council communism is a particular tendency, with particular positions, which stems from the German/Dutch left, as opposed to anybody who calls themselves a communist and talks about councils.
I wouldn't say the KAPD was council communist. It was for the party, but the roots of councilism are in there.
Devrim
On the state there is a pamphlet on the transitional period:
http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/transition
The ICC don't believe in the idea of a workers state. They think that the state is an inherently reactionary, conservative, organisation, and that the proletariat must exercise its dictatorship over, and if necessary against the state.
On centralism, and other organisational questions there is this:
http://en.internationalism.org/specialtexts/IR033_functioning.htm
Devrim