Left Communism, Council Communism, Bordigism, and Syndicalism – What are the Differences?

[nogojones]

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

This is precisely why people adhere to anarchistic doctrines. Because of the realisation that power corrupts.

Our animal instincts may well be such that we respect authority, but they developed at times when we lived in relatively small groups, when there was little real power inherent in leadership by comparison with today. And such authority as existed during our social evolution was also relatively informal and easy to shrug off. The violence of what passes for hierarchy today is way off the scale of anything in the past.

 

[PTK]

Some Marxists have been aware of these problems, and have sometimes taken measures to try to alleviate them.

 

[mojo pixy]

This is precisely why people adhere to anarchistic doctrines. Because of the realisation that power corrupts.

Power can certainly corrupt, but sadly no doctrine (even anarchism) can ever be a safeguard against wronguns who know how to talk the talk. In fact, in the hands of such people, a doctrine can too easily become a set of rules for others to follow but for me and my friends to find exceptions to.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Power can certainly corrupt, but sadly no doctrine (even anarchism) can ever be a safeguard against wronguns who know how to talk the talk. In fact, in the hands of such people, a doctrine can too easily become a set of rules for others to follow but for me and my friends to find exceptions to.

Which is why we should try to construct societies with less powerful power structures. Not easy, but even small movements in that direction are worth doing.

 

[danny la rouge]

Power can certainly corrupt, but sadly no doctrine (even anarchism) can ever be a safeguard against wronguns who know how to talk the talk. In fact, in the hands of such people, a doctrine can too easily become a set of rules for others to follow but for me and my friends to find exceptions to.

Well, I think a society that values the three principles of equality, solidarity and freedom equally can guard against that.

We currently have a society that values power and wealth and acquisition. That is never going to be a check or a balance against selfishness. However, I think a society which recognises those three principles, which recognises that all our interests are entwined, that we win as a collective and fail as opponents, that values community, society, can combine against those who believe “there is no such thing as society”.

Humans are clearly capable of both darkness and light. There is no validity in saying there is only darkness, and that is our true nature. We succeed through cooperation, and we can if we choose build a society on that basis, in which the uncooperative impulses are not rewarded.

 

[GroovySunday]

From what I know about the variants of left communism (including council communism), they are not authentic/serious about direct democracy (compared to anarchists). This is especially the case regarding popular assemblies. It is for this reason (aswell as not being anti-hierarchy) that they would likely be just a type of representative government. Also, we're talking here about variants of Marxism (and I personally definitely value the anarchist critiques of Marxism by Bakunin, Kropotkin and others).

Having said this, perhaps a left communist/council communist type structure that was representative could transition into something better. This has apparently happened with the Zapitistas (though I can't say for certain if this is actually true). It's also possible that if these things fall short of full anarchism they could be better than what we have now (though they could also turn into some form of capitalism, and therefore something like what we have now). And to be fair to the Zapitistas, they appear to have achieved some admirable stuff, even if they're not full anarchist. I'm also not saying that the Zapitastas and council communism (or left communism) are the same thing tho (but there does seem to be some similarities). And I think I'm right in saying that the Zapatistas are influenced in some way by anarchism.

 

[mojo pixy]

Humans are clearly capable of both darkness and light. There is no validity in saying there is only darkness, and that is our true nature. We succeed through cooperation, and we can if we choose build a society on that basis, in which the uncooperative impulses are not rewarded.

I agree, and I certainly never claimed all we do is evil. Cooperation is in many ways a hallmark of humanity, but sadly so is the charismatic liar who will try to take parasitic advantage of others' cooperation.

The problem for me is that those kinds of people are empowered by the society we have, are widely lauded as role models, and pop up everywhere to ruin things.

I'm feeling politically isolated and quite powerless just now, and I'm certainly not attempting to speak for anyone except myself, but much of how I feel has been fed by failed attempts to engage in big-P Politics. I don't see any hope, I'm glad others do though.

 

[danny la rouge]

and I certainly never claimed all we do is evil.

Sorry if it seemed I was suggesting that. It wasn’t my intention.

 

[nastyned]

Council communism is an historical tradition of left communism that ended up reaching the same conclusions as anarchist communism via a different route. I have been heavily influenced council communist writers.

Left communism is a broader category of anti parliamentary anti-Bolshevist Marxism.

Bordigism is the Italian variant thereof, influenced by the circumstances in Italy at the time, specifically opposition to fascism.

Left Communists saw themselves as being on the left wing of the Third International. So whilst they can be critical of Lenin they are not anti-Bolshevik.

The Italian Left Communists, of which Bordiga was the leading theoretician, were much more pro-Bolshie than the Dutch-Germans who made a complete break and called themselves Council Communists.

 

[nastyned]

I think most (all?) leftcoms would say that unions cannot be revolutionary,

Don't think this is correct. Mainstream unions yes, but there was the AAUD and AAUD-E which were not a million miles from syndicalism. The IWW was in fact influential on syndicalism and council communism. And come to think of it one of the leading lights of Council Communism Paul Mattick became active in the IWW when he moved to the US and wrote a programme for them.

 

[Serge Forward]

Don't think this is correct. Mainstream unions yes, but there was the AAUD and AAUD-E which were not a million miles from syndicalism. The IWW was in fact influential on syndicalism and council communism. And come to think of it one of the leading lights of Council Communism Paul Mattick became active in the IWW when he moved to the US and wrote a programme for them.

That's all fair enough but there have still been criticisms of revolutionary syndicalism, anarcho syndicalism and industrial unionism from some of the later council communist groups (one of which I was a member of a few decades back).

 

[hitmouse]

Don't think this is correct. Mainstream unions yes, but there was the AAUD and AAUD-E which were not a million miles from syndicalism. The IWW was in fact influential on syndicalism and council communism. And come to think of it one of the leading lights of Council Communism Paul Mattick became active in the IWW when he moved to the US and wrote a programme for them.

Yeah, suppose that might be me retrospectively reading back from a post-1937, G Munis and Dauve perspective that wouldn't have existed then - in fact, from a quick check around, that is one of the criticisms Dauve makes of the historical German left:

Caught in pincers between the SPD and the CIO -- the two forms of the counter-revolution born out of workers' struggles -- the German Left had to oppose itself to both of them. But it had difficulty in seeing that the IWW would have disappeared or become a reformist organisation. As an autonomous workers' organisation, the IWW retrospectively displayed all the virtues. But it is not enough for a structure to be workerist and anti-bureaucratic for it to be revolutionary. That depends on what it does. If it takes part in trade union activities it becomes what the trade unions are. Thus the German Left was also mistaken about the nature of the CNT. Nevertheless, overall it showed that it's too superficial to only take account of the trade unions, and that it is the reformist activity of workers themselves which maintains organised, openly counter-revolutionary, reformism.

 

[nastyned]

That's all fair enough but there have still been criticisms of revolutionary syndicalism, anarcho syndicalism and industrial unionism from some of the later council communist groups (one of which I was a member of a few decades back).

Oh aye. It's totally fair to say left and council communists have criticisms of unions in all their forms. And they are worth reading. But some of the sweeping statements don't stand up to historical scrutiny.