Council
Communism
The question is not what goal is envisaged for the time
being by this or that member of the proletariat, or even the
proletariat as a whole . The question is what is the proletariat and
what course of action will it be forced historically to take in
conformity with its own nature
---- Marx: The Holy Family
For much of the twentieth century the theories of a classless
society, sometimes identified as "Communism" have been associated
with either the various Police State regimes in under- developed
parts of Europe, Asia and Africa or with the practice of "Leninist"
organizations in the West. Under a state sanctioned ideology known as
Marxism-Leninism these "Communist" governments with varying degrees
of success developed capitalism on their soil using methods every bit
as brutal as any openly capitalist power. On the other hand the
Leninist parties, in whatever their guise, be it Stalinist,
Trotskyist or Maoist, functioned either as social democratic
organizations (for example in Italy and France) or as small
irrelevant sects, often aspiring to be social democratic
organizations. A detailed critique of Leninism from a Council
Communist perspective would require a much longer article than this
one, but it ought to be sufficient to note that the course of history
has generally run the other way from the proponents of the Leninist
model.
For more than half a century orthodox' Leninist
groups, have been trying to build vanguard parties that would
lead' the working class to power. For its part when the working
class has moved to challenge capitalism, most notably in Hungary in
1956 and Paris in 1968, it has steadfastly ignored its would-be
leaders. While Leninism figured as a communist orthodoxy since the
1920's there were currents which also identified with the communist
project but which sought to place the creative powers of working
people at the heart and centre of the revolutionary reconstruction of
society. Rather than relying on a revolutionary' party they
knew it was task of working people, through the organizations they
would themselves create, to open the gateway to a new and better
society.
The theory of council communism, which holds that socialism
can only be achieved through the active participation of the broad
mass of humanity, is scarcely known today yet in the early part of
this century as a revolutionary wave rolled across Europe, it was a
significant force. Many of those who would be prominent in the
left' communist circles, as the Council Communists were first
called, had long histories as dissident and ultra left'
radicals. Among those who would figure in the prominently were such
important pre-war radicals as Dutch revolutionaries Herman Gorter and
Anton Pannekoek, and Germans Otto Ruhle and Karl Schroder. Pannekoek
is known today largely through two mentions in Lenin's writings: A
complimentary, although not uncritical reference in State &
Revolution where Lenin admitted that Pannekoek had been right
against Kautsky on the question of mass action and revolution, and a
second scathing reference in Left Wing Communism, where Lenin
attacked Pannekoek (identified under his pen name of Karl Horner, as
an ultra leftist. Yet before the first World War Pannekoek's name was
better known than any of the Russians and he was to develop a deeper
and more insightful critique of the Second International than Rosa
Luxemburg.
Those who would later develop council communist ideas and
organizations greeted the Russian Revolution with enthusiasm, as did
many anarchists who perceived albeit from a distance, in Lenin's
writings and apparent Bolshevik practice, a similarity of views. By
the time of the founding of the Communist International in 1919, it
was quite clear that there was a serious divergence in theory and
practice. By the early 1920's many of the left communists had begun
to regard the Bolshevik regime as a state capitalist society, but
initially after their separation from the Communist International
retained formal views on organization. Many organizations, most
notable the Communist Workers Party of Germany (KAPD) sought to build
new revolutionary organizations which would be in the words of Herman
Gorter "as hard as steel, as clear as glass." As the post war
revolutionary wave receded the left communist organizations split and
fragmented. The KAPD split into separate groupings which argued
respectively for and against the organization of revolutionaries
separate from the factory. By the end of the decade the council
communists existed only in tiny groups, although they continued to
have an influence. When the Nazis occupied the Netherlands,
Pannekoek's name featured prominently on their arrest lists.
Instead of disappearing or concentrating on turning out turgid
manifestos, the Council Communists began to try and analyze the
society in which they lived. Part of this analysis involved the
question of how capitalism maintained control over society and what
exactly were the tasks of revolutionaries. The Council Communists
functioned through small organizations sharing a common perspective,
but rather than attempting to develop an alternate leadership, they
sought to clarify and publicize the issues of the class struggle.
In contrast to orthodox Leninist organizations which saw class
consciousness as something external to the working class and which
would have to be injected by a bourgeois intelligentsia (hence the
doctrine's popularity among intellectuals) the Council Communists
developed a theory of class consciousness which saw working people
and their allies moving into struggle as a result of actual
conditions, not because of the intervention of small groups of
revolutionaries.
As Council Communist Paul Mattick put it in 1943
"The consciousness to rebel against and to change society
is not developed by the propaganda' of conscious minorities,
but by the real and direct propaganda of events ... So long as
minorities operate within the mass, the mass is not revolutionary,
but neither is the minority. Its revolutionary conceptions' can
still only serve capitalistic functions. If the masses become
revolutionary, the distinction between conscious minority and
unconscious majority disappears, and also the capitalistic function
of the apparently revolutionary' minority."
--- Mattick : From the Bottom Up
At times when the masses were not in motion, the propaganda of
small groups was ineffective and worthless. In this way the actual
practice of Leninist and council communist groups was little
different except that the Leninist groups saw themselves as something
different and intervened into struggles to try to win the masses to
their programme. In contrast to Trotsky, who when he wrote in 1938
that "the crisis of humanity is the crisis of leadership" was
referring to his own organization the Fourth International, the
Council Communist groups realized that the building of socialism did
not depend upon the building of their organization. Pannekoek was to
argue in the 1940's that there was an internal contradiction in the
term "revolutionary party." While the "vanguard party" sought power,
the duty of the revolutionary socialists was to try and aid the the
political and economic development of the working class. The Council
Communists expected this development to take place through an
escalating series of class actions leading to the establishment of
workers' councils. Nevertheless they realized that this expectation
could not be a dogma imposed regardless of situation, but the key
aspect of their analysis remained the theme of workers' self
emancipation.
The Council Communists saw trade unions as a part of the
capitalist methods of control. Trade unions are bargaining agents for
the sale of labour power. As such they are a part of the capitalist
system, but they are also responsible for getting a better price for
labour power. If this were not true, no one would join them. The
Council Communists simply recognized this fact and insisted that
demands to make the unions "fight" or to leave the unions to set up
red' unions was fruitless. Workers would remain in unions as
long as saw them as necessary. When they were no longer necessary or
did not serve the workers' needs they would be cast off. In the
1930's and beyond the wildcat strike was seen as a herald of this
kind of development For the same reason appeals for and against
parliament were also deemed worthless. In contrast to those who argue
to vote for social democratic parties like the New Democratic Party,
but to fight for a socialist alternative, or to build socialist
caucuses in the party, workers vote and do not vote for the NDP to
the extent that they perceive the party as corresponding to their
interests. Those who abstained from voting in parliamentary elections
did so because they saw no reason to participate; however those who
maintained parliamentary illusions, could just as easily participate
in wildcat strikes and militant actions when they saw it as
necessary.
For much of the so-called revolutionary left there is indeed
a crisis in the workers' movement. Their organizations are small and
without roots in the class many of their militants genuinely wish to
liberate. This situation appears unlikely to change in the near
future. Yet class struggle continues to take place on both a global
and a local scale. For those organization which are influenced by
council communist ideas the future is not so bleak. The fate of these
organizations and journals rests upon the evolution of the class
struggle, not on their ability to develop to "win the masses to their
banner." It would be foolish to simply imagine that the ideas and
theories developed by the Council Communists half a century ago can
be mechanically applied to the world of today; perhaps even as
foolish as trying to apply the ideas of a faction of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party. The Council Communists were aware
that many of their ideas were situation-specific, and without a doubt
much of their writings have been passed by through the course of
capitalist development. Nevertheless the council form continues to
appear in revolutionary situations and the belief that the key to
human emancipation is not State or party, but working people
themselves is surely still important to the world of today.
N. F. 3/99
Originally published in Kick It Over , #37, Spring
2000
Back to History/Theory
Back to Home Page