 |
| Father Thomas J. Haggerty's Wheel, possibly the first attempt to outline the new society by a member of the Industrial Workers of the World |
A response to Our differences with anarcho-syndicalists
This was originally a comment but it grew a lot longer. I've read the following post by the LCGV, and I'm not really convinced of it and really I think the author needs to broaden their studies. I'm not opposed to councils, I like them just fine when they're working in a revolutionary manner, but have no interest in romanticising them nor overlooking their long legacy of compromise and capitulation. I also don't believe the two are really opposed, the differences between the revolutionary union and revolutionary council are shown by history to be circumstantial and not insurmountable. For example the anarchosyndicalists collaborated with the council movement in Germany and Russia, and many of those councils couldn't have existed without the support of union cells and militants. I could stop it here, the framing of the two as oppositional is simply false, in actuality the two have worked together quite a bit, but since the LCGV have decided to privilege one against the other and have done so in a simply terrible way, lets continue.
Italics are quotations from the LCVG
"The programme of the Communist Workers Party of Germany said it best: “[I]t is necessary to resolutely reject the trade unions, and to be resolutely free from their ideological orientation.”"
The KAPD founded two separate Union organisations, the AAUD and AAUD-E, the U in both names stood for Union, the full name in English is General Workers Union of Germany, with the Germany being Allgemeine Arbeiter-Union Deutschlands, the name was the same for the AAUD-E split with the E standing for Einheitsorganisation so you might be wondering why a group that founded two Union organisations would have a program that contains a clause rejecting unions. Well that's because its rejecting the Trade Unions which in German were called Gewerkschaft and most were tied to the Social Democratic Party. By adopting the name Union they were positioning themselves away from the old Social Democratic union bureaucracy and pushing closer to the Free Workers Union of Germany FAUD (established 1919) a more explicitly anarchosyndicalist union.
This is not the only confusing example of the idiosyncrasy of the KAPD and its affiliated organisations, the P in KAPD stood for Party, but for much of its existence many of its members (at times it seems like a majority) and some of its main theorists like Otto Rühle had called for the dissolving of the party and rejected it as a viable tool of the working class in the pursuit of its revolutionary gaols.
Consider this selection from the Revolution is not a Party Affair 1920
The bourgeoisie, parliamentarism, and political parties mutually and reciprocally conditioned one another. Each is necessary for the others. None is conceivable without the others. They mark the political physiognomy of the bourgeois system, of the bourgeois-capitalist system.
...
The title of the Communist Workers Party (KAPD) is the last external vestige – soon superfluous – of a tradition that can't be simply wiped away when the living mass ideology of yesterday no longer has any relevance. But this last vestige will also be removed.
...
This is why all proletarians ready for revolutionary combat must be got together at the workplace in revolutionary factory organisations, regardless of their political origins or the basis by which they are recruited. Such groups should be united in the framework of the General Workers' Union (AAU).
And throughout its history the AAUD/ AAUD-E would work with the FAUD and German IWW,
"Anarcho-Syndicalists, on the other hand, reject this notion. They acknowledge that modern unions are reformist and mere arms of the capitalist state, which is a step in the right direction. But instead of realizing that this is universal to all unions, they advocate for the creation of “revolutionary” and/or “rank-and-file” unions. What phrase-mongering! Even the most “revolutionary” unions can only exist to bargain with the bourgeoisie. It is in their nature."
This is a very poor summary of anarchosyndicalism, for a start there is no one overall structure, many anarchosyndicalist groups and unions have practiced different organisational strategies and structures, while they do emphasis a bottom up system of a sort they do not believe this alone is enough to make a union revolutionary.
So what does make a union revolutionary? Well solidarity and education. To quote the ABCs of Revolutionary Unionism
To Emancipate the Working Class -- The IWW believes that by acting in solidarity, in union, we are building a new world in the shell of the old. Through solidarity we will create a free world with the good things of life available for all. Yes, the IWW is radical. It is as radical as a scientist in her laboratory, as radical as a surgeon planning the removal of a diseased growth, as radical as a teacher must be to tell the truth. It is well to note that from radicalism has flowed all that makes life better today than yesterday. As in the past, radicalism is the only force capable of leading the world out of its night of hunger, hatred and fear. We believe in the abolishment of capitalism, because capitalism has created an unhappy world that poisons our dreams, our families and the world itself, all so the rich can become richer.
There is also quite a lot of debate between them about which approach works best and the merits of other ideas. For example this debate between the IWW and FORA in the 1920s
The difficulty of the end of the 1920s gave an opportunity for reflection on strategy and vision of the revolutionary movement. This happened mainly within the International Workers Association (IWA-AIT) which at the time likely involved millions of workers across the world, but also within the IWW. The subject is poorly studied with minimal resources in English, most of what is publicly available is about the IWA and that can be reduced to a few articles. The debate was wide ranging covering union structure, future society, revolutionary methods, amongst other subjects. Part of the discussion focussed on whether revolutionary unions should adopt craft or industrial unions as their primary structure.
Dismantling our divisions: craft, industry, and a new society
https://libcom.org/blog/dismantling-our-divisions-craft-industry-new-society-01122015
I've chosen to highlight the second part because it shows a bit of a problem for someone claiming to uphold the revolutionary potential of the council communist current. The councils of the German revolution were founded by members of the Trade Unions, explicitly political groups like the anarchists, the Spartacists and independent social democrats while active were in the minority, the majority of party members on the councils were with the Social Democratic Party, the explicitly council communist groups like the KAPD weren't formed until 1920. There is also the Revolutionary Stewards to consider, this group played an active part in the German revolution and had been very active in the 1917 strike waves against the war in Germany, as the name suggests they were mostly shop stewards affiliated with the established unions in Germany. The councils didn't pop out of thin air, they were built out of the union movements and as already established once a conscious council movement got off the ground it did not ditch unions it established an alternative version of it.
I don't bring this up to defend the social democrat trade unions, I have my criticisms of them just as I have my criticisms of anarchist, revolutionary and communist unions. I bring it up because we have to reckon with it, its an historical fact and no matter how annoying it may be for our favoured schemes we have to acknowledge that it seems there is in fact some potential to be found (a potential, potential I guess) in even the conservative union movements.
"Let us take, for example, the C.N.T.-F.A.I. in Revolutionary Catalonia. While they were indeed very radical and revolutionary, ultimately their pseudo-reformism overcame them, and they began to collaborate with the bourgeois Republican government under the banner of “anti-fascism.” “Anti-Fascism” is itself non-communist, as it mobilizes the working class in a defense of the democratic bourgeoisie against the fascist bourgeoisie. This is the subject best saved for another article. "
I knew this was coming. I have no issue with a criticism of the collaboration with the Popular Front, I do however view it as dishonest to use this as a supposed rebuttal of anarchosyndicalism. The CNT was not the only anarchosyndicalist organisation nor where its publications and personalities the mouthpiece of the wider movement. In fact many of its fellow anarchosyndicalist organisations criticised its trajectory in those days from Uruguay
This unconscionable hypocrisy must cease. Moscow is in the throes of selling to England at a knock-down price whatever is left of the Spanish Revolution of 19 July 1936.
Let us not be accomplices in this betrayal, through the moral support that Soli and the CNT afford to Stalinist politicians. The PSUC is merely carrying out its orders from Moscow. Our stance with regard to Moscow should be the same. They being equally stranglers of the Spanish Revolution, we should publicly condemn them both.
The USSR and the CNT: an unconscionable stance - Alexander Schapiro December 1937.
Schapiro would collaborate with Joseph Wagner and submit another criticism that was published in the IWW's One Big Union Monthly
The CNT should not allow—as it has unfortunately done since July 19—the acceptance of the tactics of the "line of least resistance," which cannot but lead to a slow but sure liquidation of the libertarian revolution.
The ministerial collaboration policy has certainly pushed back to the rear the program of revolutionary economy. You are on the wrong track and you can see that yourselves.
Do you not think that you should stop following this road, that leads you to certain downfall ?
And the 1939 book Slippery Slopes which was compiled by another Uruguayan Anarchosyndicalist contains many accounts of criticism of the CNT/FAI's actions during the period mainly from the south american anarchosyndicalist press.
And there's the sad history of Pierre Besnard who at the time of the Spanish Revolution was the secretary of the International Workers Association, an international for anarchosyndicalist unions and the one that the CNT was affiliated to. His and the IWAs constant criticism of the growing compromises and collaboration of the CNT national committee grew so severe that to their discredit the national committee mounted a campaign to replace him and the secretariat, and also pushed to side line the IWA's solidarity work with the creation of a rival group the Solidaridad Internacional Antifascista.
Nor was the CNT/FAI a monolith within Spain. Its trajectory was opposed at times violently and in large numbers, the nature of its organisation meant there were many groups with autonomy. The Italian Anarchist Camillo Berneri was a vocal critic of the growing collaboration between the Popular Front and some leading figures in the CNT
The dilemma: war or revolution no longer has any meaning. The only dilemma is this one: either victory over Franco thanks to the revolutionary war, or defeat.
The problem for you and the other comrades is to chose between the Versailles of Thiers and the Paris of the Commune, before Thiers and Bismarck form the holy alliance. It is up to you to reply, for you are the 'light under the bushel.'
Article which appeared in 'Guerra di Class' No. 12, 14th April 1937.
The anarchists in government in Spain: Open letter to comrade Federica Montseny - Camillo Berneri
And the Council of Aragon and its Collectives had to be suppressed by force. The Friends of Durruti group supported and tried to start an uprising against the Popular Front to found a workers alliance
We are opposed to collaboration with bourgeois groups. We do not believe that the class approach can be abandoned.
Revolutionary workers must not shoulder official posts, nor establish themselves in the ministries. For as long as the war lasts, collaboration is permissible - on the battlefield, in the trenches, on the parapets and in productive labour in the rearguard.
Our place is in the unions, in the work place, keeping alive that spirit of rebellion which will bloom on the earliest occasion that presents itself.
We must have no part of combinations devised by bourgeois politicians acting in concert with foreign chancellories. That would be tantamount to strengthening our enemies and tightening the noose of capitalism. No more portfolios. No more ministries. Let's get back to the unions and the nitty-gritty of work tools.
********************
Let us campaign for unity among the proletariat. But on the understanding that this unity must be between workers, and not with bureaucrats or sinecurists.
At present, an agreement with the revolutionary wing of the UGT by the CNT is a feasible prospect. But we do not believe that an understanding is possible with the UGT of Catalonia, or with Prieto's followers.
Our Position; the Friends of Durruti
And one of the main reasons the belief that Durruti was murdered by the Communist Party is so popular is because it was well known he was disgusted with the Popular Front and wished to see it replaced with an alliance of the revolutionaries of the CNT and UGT. And Victor Alba who is no friend of the CNT or anarchism credits the survival of most of the POUM members with the actions of the CNT defence groups whom defied the Spanish Republic and enrolled the now outlawed party into its ranks and dared the government to do something about it.
If not for its strong local base and, above ail, the
action of the C.N.T., the P.O.U.M. might have been exterminated. The C.N.-T. unions gave
membership books to P.O.U.M. members so they could work, and the C.N.T. militia brigades saved
the lives of many, admitting P.O.U.M. militia members into the ranks of both soldiers and officers.
P.O.U.M. militants who passed through the militia recruitment offices had to make sure they would be
sent to C.N.T. units, for if they found themselves in a communist unit, it was almost certain they would
end up being identified and, in no few cases, murdered, with the excuse given that they had deserted
or gone over to the enemy.
Spanish Marxism Versus Soviet Communism page 196.
And similar to Slippery Slopes mentioned above, the 1940 book Why we lost the War also documents many struggles within the CNT both for and against collaboration, it was written by Diego Abad de Santillán, who for a time was a CNT representative on the Catalunya General government but increasingly found himself opposing this strategy. My favourite example was a plan organised within the CNT and FAI to take the gold reserve that was being given to the Soviet Union out of Madrid and into Barcelona, a plan that mobilised several thousands members and was in direct opposition to the wishes of the CNT's national committee.
Within a very restricted circle of confidants, we discussed the idea of transferring
to Catalonia at least some of the gold in the Bank of Spain. We knew that we
would have to resort to force, and we had about 3,000 reliable men in Madrid who
were fully informed of all the details concerning the plan to transport the gold in
special trains. If the plan were to be successfully carried out, it would not take
much time, and before the Government could take counter-measures, we would be
on our way to Catalonia with a share of the nation’s gold supply, the best
guarantee that the war would take a new course. The only problem was that, when
it came right down to it, no one wanted to bear the responsibility for an action that
would have such major historical repercussions. Our proposals were conveyed to
the National Committee of the CNT and to some of the most well known
comrades.
The plan scared the wits out of our friends; the main argument that was offered
against taking the gold, an argument that was repeatedly made, was that if we did
this it would only exacerbate the prevailing animosity towards Catalonia. What
should we have done?
I don't bring this up to save the honour of the CNT/FAI, I think the defeat of the Spanish revolution is proof enough that its overall strategy was disastrous, but to pretend this is all the CNT has to show us and teach us is intellectually dishonest and quite insulting to the men and women who took part in it and resisted the collaboration.
And the council system is not immune to collaboration, contrary to how it is often portrayed by Councilist propaganda. Going back to the Revolutionary Stewards we see from them a warning and criticism of the council system as it existed by 1920 in most of Germany.
All aspects of the council system that the government wants to build on the
basis of the shop council law are full of wormholes. For example, district economy
councils shall be implemented in which shop council members will discuss socialization with the shrewd representatives of the propertied class. The councils are also
allowed to “present ideas” to the authorities, employers’ associations, etc. I believe
that it is evident that such a council system does not remove but firmly secure
capitalist production. The “council system” label is used to dupe the proletariat
into serving the interests of its capitalist class enemy.
The Council Idea and Its Realization Ernst Däumig
"The I.W.W. is another good example. While not officially anarcho-syndicalist, you’d be hard pressed to find a Wobbly that wasn’t an avid supporter of the ideology. However, the I.W.W. also falls into the pit trap of reformism. It’s struggles are centered around labor actions like the strike. However, once these actions end, so does the struggle. Thus it can only ever play a negotiator with capital, a wolf dressed in red and black clothing."
In Hamburg, a direct line of descent connected the IWW to the
unions. Wolffheim had spent several years with the IWW in California. With Laufenberg, he urged the
workers to join the AAU when it was created in August of 1919, and they considered it to be the German
section of the IWW*
From the AAUD/AAUD-E reader page 8
Whoever wrote this doesn't have much experience of the IWW, I've been a member for several years and the number of "avid supporters" I've met are few indeed, I don't even count myself in that description. The second part "It’s struggles are centered around labor actions like the strike. However, once these actions end, so does the struggle. Thus it can only ever play a negotiator with capital, a wolf dressed in red and black clothing."" is to borrow from the LCVG What phrase-mongering! I suggest the LCVG read the history of the IWW, not only did it take an active part in the German and Mexican revolutions but in the United States much of its folk history comes from the Free Speech fights, where the IWW dedicated most of its resources to fighting and defeating attempts by City and county governments to abolish the right to protest, often at great personal risk. They also were a major opposition to American entry into World War One, with demonstrations and strikes in key industries. The response was a further crackdown on the Union.
In Australia the IWW was also highly active in opposing the war and part of the successful anti-conscription campaign
By November 1916, Labor Prime Minister Hughes, a long-time opponent of IWW influence within the labour movement, was complaining that the IWW was ``largely responsible for the present attitude of organised labor, industrially and politically, towards the war’’. The threat of conscription in 1916 and 1917 gave the IWW an even greater opportunity to have its voice heard. It expanded rapidly in this period. Great crowds used to come to IWW anti-conscription meetings, up to a sixth of the population of Sydney gathering around and trying to hear the speakers, as Tom Barker recalls in his memoirs.
When three-quarters of the Labor politicians in federal parliament indicated they would refuse to pass a Conscription Act, Prime Minister Hughes blamed the IWW and announced it needed to be attacked ``with the ferocity of a Bengal tiger’’
The Industrial Workers of the World in Australia: achievements and limitations
http://links.org.au/node/1104
This is just one area, I could go on for many subjects including the IWW's legacy on organising across racial, gender and national lines which by no means perfect show the union is more than the caricature alleged by the LCVG.
And if I may go back to Spain, in the regions with strong CNT presence like the countryside of Aragon collectives were established that in many villages collectivised and co-ordinated everything from land, education, defence, contributions to the war effort, trade with other collectives, trade with the cities, irrigation and electrification.
The collective was the free community of labour of the villagers. It was created with the influence of anarchist ideas. The CNT and the FAI (National Confederation of Labour and Iberian Anarchist Federation) held general assemblies in all the villages. Peasants, small farmers and tenant farmers attended. That was how the collectives were born. They took possession of the land and the tools and machinery of the expropriated landholders. The small farmers and tenant farmers who joined the collective brought their tools and equipment. An inventory of all property and equipment was made. Whoever did not wish to join the collective could keep the land that he could cultivate without hired labour. Each collective proceeded along the following lines of development:
The distribution of land, labour, tools and fruit of their toil was taken care of first. The collective has to be concerned in the first place with the material survival of its members. The product of the fields was brought to a common warehouse; the most important foods were distributed equally among all. Surplus crops were used for trade with other communes or with collectives in the cities. Produce was distributed to the members free of charge. Depending on the wealth of the commune there would be bread and wine. Sometimes bread, meat and other foods were issued without limit and free of charge. Whatever had to be acquired outside of the commune, through barter or purchase from other communes or the cities, or commodities that were in low supply in the commune, were rationed. Everyone, whether able to work or not, received the necessities of life as far as the collective could provide them. The underlying idea was no longer "a good day's pay for a good day's work," but "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."
Herein lay one difference between the peasant collectives in Aragon and the industrial and commercial collectives in Catalonia and other parts of Spain. In industry, labour or production was collectivised. Consumption remained individual. In the peasant collectives consumption as well as production was collectivised. The new system was simple in its basic characteristics, varied in forms of application. The customary compensation was quotas and rationing for things that were scarce, unlimited distribution of goods that were in abundance. These are the economic forms of libertarian communism.
With the peasants of Aragon - Augustin Souchy
"Although we completely denounce unions, this does not mean we denounce organizing in the workplace. In fact it is the opposite, we advocate for it! But workplace organizing cannot be done with union reps (who may be in collusion with management) and membership cards. It can only be done by forming factory committees and workers councils, which are the real organs of the power of the proletariat. "
Councils in every case that they have existed have in the end collaborated with the force that destroyed them. In Germany the SPD was the dominant political force on the councils, in Russia the Bolsheviks, in China they capitulated to the nationalists and in Iran the Islamists subverted them.
If the CNT's actions in 1936 are enough to discredit it and its revolutionary strategies than I think its only fair we do the same with the council system.
"The workers councils will not demand reforms and concessions, ending the struggle when they are met. They will further the struggle until the goal of the proletariat is the abolition of capitalism. They will take political and economic power, thus transforming the working class into the ruling class, and transforming the state into the dictatorship of the proletariat. They will not be reformist, they will be revolutionary! And they will rise on the ashes of the unions!"
Replace the term workers councils with General Strike and you have the stereotypical argument of a revolutionary syndicalist. This is just more phrase-mongering with no material analysis. The LCVG has chosen to associate itself with councils and considers itself revolutionary, therefore councils are revolutionary. And note the contradiction at play here, it is the councils that are the real organs of power of the proletariat, and yet it is still vital to conquer the state and establish some nebulous dictatorship.
Both positions can't be true, if the councils are where the true power of the proletariat lie than to move away from them, is a retreat from proletarian power and move towards bourgeois power. Its worth noting that the main event that doomed the German council system was the Executive of Great Berlin establishing a six man provisional government, which soon became the centre of SPD intrigue and counter revolutionary manoeuvring. The Soviets of Russia also lost their administrative roles in production and policy as soon as the Bolshevik Sovnarkom (Commissar ministries). Much like how the CNT/FAI's move away from the collectives toward the Popular Front representation proved, or the Russian Revolutions move away from the Soviets to the Commissars etc. If this dictatorship is truly necessary than the councils are largely superfluous, what matters is the conquest of the state and its rule.
*Wolffheim and Laufenberg have left something of a stain on the reputation of council communism a German socialism more generally. Both were instrumental in establishing a current of what was called national bolshevism within the AAUD and the faction that would go on to become the KAPD. This current was isolated mostly to Hamburg and would be driven out of the movement. However the driving force for expulsion came from the anti-council pro party group around Karl Radek. Which is incredibly strange since just a few years later Radek would himself push the KPD into a similar strategy complete with attempts to ally the party with elements of the "revolutionary" far right.
While I don't think the evolution of the Hamburg group poisons the entire council movement in Germany at the end of the war, much like I disagree with using the marginal marxist syndicalist Sorel's turn to nationalistic fancies as ammunition to discredit syndicalism or just the early CGT. Its not great that during the revolutionary fervour and the peak and decline of the council movement some of its most committed advocates produced in one of its strongholds such a tendency, and that it required the intervention of both Radek and Lenin to kick it out.
Recommendations for further reading
Posts
