tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36028082.post2372484958600707772..comments2024-03-22T19:52:46.571+00:00Comments on SOCIALISM OR YOUR MONEY BACK: Martov and the Role of SovietsPoetry Coalshedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05514953133244910986noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36028082.post-16533662596393481292010-02-09T15:52:34.596+00:002010-02-09T15:52:34.596+00:00I am in complete agreement with Adam’s conclusion ...I am in complete agreement with Adam’s conclusion that “there is no reason (…) why a workers’ socialist political party could not be organised on the basis of the ideal workers’ councils: no leadership and so no division into leaders and led; the candidates (…) could be subject to continual control and, if need be, instantly recalled…”. <br /><br />However, reading this review on Martov’s late works on the soviet system, it seems that the soviets (Russian for workers’ councils) appeared for the first time during the Russian Revolution in 1917, with great surprise of the socialists. <br /><br />The first soviet appeared in Russia during the 1905 Revolution; precisely in Ivanovo, an important textile centre. Here, in May 1905 the workers, on a strike, elected a council “soviet” which lasted 2 months. This example was followed in several parts of Russia, amongst which Saint Petersburg. There, the 14th of October 1905 a soviet of 562 members was constituted. It had an executive committee (Ispolnitelniy komitet) of 31 members, 19 of them came from political parties. It did not last long, but it had two chairmen Khrustalyov-Nosar and Leon Trotsky. <br /><br />Rosa Luxemburg was not taken by surprise by the soviets in 1917 or in 1905. She already in 1904 (Revolutionary Socialist Organization, 1904 in Iskra and Neue Zeit) talked about<br /><br /> “The most important and fruitful changes in its tactical policy during the last ten years have not been the inventions of several leaders and even less so of any central organizational organs. They have always been the spontaneous product of the movement in ferment.”<br /><br />It is clear that for Luxemburg the self organization of the working class preceded the creation of the soviets. <br /><br />A similar argument can be made about Anton Pannekoek who was already 32 in 1905; he was not blinded by the 1917 soviets. In 1918 about the German revolution he wrote: <br /><br />“there is little doubt but that the Congress of Workers and Soldiers’ Councils called for December 16th will support, by a big majority, the bourgeois government of Ebert-Haase. These councils are not by any means pure proletarian institutions; in the Soldiers’ Councils are the officers; in the Workers’ Councils are the Trade Union and party leaders. These men will not allow the revolution to go any further if they can prevent it.”<br /><br />It is clear that the Left Communists before 1921 and in many cases before 1917 had already a clear idea about the real nature of the soviets or councils. <br /><br />An important element that rose from the 1905 Russian Revolution is Lenin’s complete misjudgement of the capability of the masses in organising themselves during a revolutionary event. <br /><br />In fact, Lenin was against the spontaneity of the workers and he firmly believed that the working class should have been led to achieve socialism. The 1905 soviets took mainly him by surprise. He then understood the importance of controlling the soviets in order to reach the political power. That is why he stared to use the slogan “All power to the soviet”. <br /><br />In Russia the bourgeois revolutionary role was not played only or mainly by the soviets though, but it was played primarily by the Jacobin nature of the Bolsheviks. <br /><br />My conclusion is that the councils in Russia as well as in Germany have demonstrated that workers do not need a hierarchic party to fight against capitalism. In case of revolutions the workers can spontaneously organize themselves. The problem starts after the first revolutionary push. <br /><br />As Pannekoek puts it: <br /><br />“These councils gave the revolution a direct power which led to its initial speedy victory. (…) They do not, as yet, know what they want, but they are there- not their programme but their existence has revolutionary significance.” <br /><br />The fact that the councils passed the revolution in the hand of the Bolsheviks and the SPD, dose not mean, though, that if democratically organized and when not improvised they might be a valid system during a social revolution.cescohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11917583822839726668noreply@blogger.com