AUT: Marxism and councilism

[neil <74742.1651@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am studying that great tome of Peter Rachleff
"Marxism and council communism" 1976, RP, New york.
This is a very favorable account of councilism and their
programme and methods for workers revolution
and controls of production for human needs.

THe councilists crititique of Russian  Bolshevik majority
methods of first  bogarting and then   stripping the power
of factory committees /councils after the REv siezure
of state power and the economy in  Nov, 1917 is very
poweful/convincing .The central state,  Never passing the bourg. rev.
that was then  girded by a state cap economy turned
out to be the actual course of events..

Esp. as this certainly paved the way for the USSR of
the the rulers whose leaders were Stalin and co..

In the early 20s the councilists themselves were for a
Party of Revolutionaries but not the 'leninist-bolshevik'
type that was elitist and had to control everything and
workers remained waged slaves..

But then too later in the 30s, the councilists in W. Europe
mainly of course, seemingly  rejected ALL  political work of Rev. groups
as  a priori 'leninism-stalinism' and gave overwhelming  weight
to the "revolutioary spontaniety' in the working class.
Now i think though that the here the councilists were in error.
What  kind  of Rev science holds that just the 'big crisis'  of capitalism
thus pauperizng and impoverishing workers more , would  apriori send
them forward in Revolutionary struggles via
 'spontaniety' alone? This method seems very mechanistic /metaphysical,
an almost vulgar materialsim that poses just that 'the worse things get,
the
closer are workers to organizing for revolution'..
You know  there does  have to develop quatitative changes before
qualitatitive
 ones could transpire- on all fronts of class struggles..
Also the latter day councilists seemed to be saying via this that ALL
politics and ideology  was intrinsically bourgeois. This too seems to
have created a huge muddle for this workers trend.
Is this in part to the detatchment of this trend from the actual
day to day  activities of workers? Was it mainly thier response to the
horrors of counterrevolution (from within) and the state caps hegemony over
many workers?

But Whatever, this says in practice really is that the bourgeoisie gets a
CLEAR
totally uncontested field to infuse and impart their already dominant ideas
and methods
into workers and that they get a guarantee that  revolutionaries in the
plants and offices, shops, will NOT contest them on this front.
Not only lt does this seem horrible tactics. But it just mmainly surenders
the battle for consciousness and thought politically to the ruling class
and its already formidible dominance..
It just seems so apocalyptic in its revolutionary scenarios.

Neil



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---