Serge Bricianer - Pannekoek and The Workers' Councils ABBYY

Pannekoek
and the
Workers' Councils
by Serge Bricianer
Introduction by John Gerber
Translated by Malachy Carroll
TE L O S PRESS • SA IN T LOUIS
L ibrary of Congress C atalog N o. 78-50978
IB SN : 0-914386-17-4 (cloth)
0-914386-18-2 (paper)
T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S
The Form ation ofP a n n eko ek's M arxism , b y Jo h n G erber, 1
A u th o r ’s Introduction, by Serge B ricianer, 31
C h ap ter O ne: G e ^ a n Social D em ocracy, 57
C h ap ter T w o: T actical Differences w ithin th e W orkers’ M ovem ent, 73
C hap ter T h re e : T h e K autsky-Pannekoek Controversy, 119
C h ap ter F our: T h e W orld W ar a n d the W orkers' M ovem ent, 137
C h ap ter Five: Russian Soviets a n d G e ^ a n Riite, 145
C h ap ter Six: Social D em ocracy a n d C om m unism , 159
C h ap ter Seven: T h e Split in E uro p ean Com m unism , 169
C h ap ter E ight: W o rld R evolution a n d C om m unist Tactics, 175
C h ap ter N ine: C om m unism an d N atio n al L iberation, 211
C hap ter T e n : T h e Council State, 219
C h ap ter Eleven: T h e Ru& ian Revolution, 245
C h ap ter Twelve: Party an d W orking Class, 261
C hap ter T h irte e n : Principles o f O rganization, 269
C h ap ter F ourteen: D irect A ction in C ontem porary Societies, 283
C h ap ter Fifteen: P ro d u ctio n a n d D istrib u tio n in the New W orld, 291
In d ex ,3 0 1
TH E FORM ATION OF PANNEKOEK’S MARXISM
by JO H N G ERBER
T h e D u tc h M arxist theoretician and astronom er, A nton Pannekoek (1873

1960), has rem ained a largely neglected an d unkno-wn figure in the history of
E uro p ean socialist th o u g h t.1 Yet Pannekoek's long life and political career
sp an n ed several distinct stages of socialist history, resulting in some o f the
m ost significant a n d fu n d a m e n ta l contributions to tw entieth-century M arxist
th o u g h t. His political m atu rity coincided with the rise of Social Democracy,
1. Obscurity was not always the case for Pannekoek. Prior to the First World War. and for a
few years afterward, Pannekoek was a widely known figure in the international socialist
movement. Commenting on the impact of Pannekoek’s thought on the foâtion of American
Communism, Theodore Draper has noted: “ ... Pannekoek and Gorter were familiar ^names to
many American Socialists when Lenin and Trotsky were virtually unknown.” Theodore Draper,
The Roots of American Communism (New York: Viking Press, 1957), pp. 65-66. More recent in
terest in him has developed only after the May 1968 events in France. Because of this emphasis has
been placed on the later "Council Communist” aspects of his career. Most work on Pannekoek
thus far has consisted almost exclusively of anthologies of his writings. These include: Serge
Bricianer, Pannekoek et les conseils ourmers (Paris: Etudes et documentation intemationales,
1969); Cajo Brendel, Anton Pannekoek Theoretikus oon het Socialisme (Nijmegen:
Socialistische Uitgeverij Nijmegen, 1970); Joop Kloosterman, Anton Pannekoek: Neu-
bestimmung des Marxismus (Berlin: Karin Kramer Verlag, 1974); Fritz Kool, Die Linke gegen
die Parteiherrschaft (Olten, Germany: Walter Verlag, 1970); Hans Manfred Bock, Anton
Pannekoek und Herman Gorter: Organisation und Taktik der Proletarischen Revolution
(Frankfurt: Verlag Neue Kritik, 1969). Also useful is Paul Mattick's short obituary, "Anton
Pannekoek,” New Politics, Winter, 1962. For an analysis-though somewhat misleading-of the
impact of Pannekoek's thought on Lenin’s political development see H_. Schurer, “Anton
Pannekoek and1the Origins of Leninism,” The Slavonic and European Review, June, 1963.
A valuable assewment of Pannekoek’s pre-1914 activity is contained in Hans Manfred Bock,
“Anton Pannekoek in der Vorkriegs-Sozialdemokratie: Bericht und Dokumentation," in
Arbeiterbewegung. Theorie und Geschichte, Jahrbuch 3 (Frankfurt: Fischer Verlag, 1974). A
major source of background material is Herman de Liagre Btlhl’s outstanding biography of
Pannekoek’s closest friend and political colaborator, Herman Gorter (Nijmegen: Socialistische
Uitgeverij Nijmegen, 1973). Several factors account for Pannekoek’s relative obscurity. The most
important of these is that following his break with the Comintem Pannekoek lost touch with any
movement of consequence. Another, perhaps, is that Pannekoek, unlike other theorists such as
Lenin, Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg, was more a "pure theorist" than a party leader
(Pannekoek's highest party position was chairman of the Leiden branch of the Dutch SDAP).
And finally, there is the problem of the inacce&ibility of many of his writings. In the most
immediate sense this arises from the fact that a large proportion of his writings are in Dutch. But
this is further compounded by the variety of pseudon^yms he used throughout his career (known
pseudonyms include: Karl Horner, John Harper, P. Aartsz, Krable, J. Fraak and van Loo), and
by the obscure nature of many of the publications his later writings appeared in.
2 I PANNEKOEK AND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
his death w ith th e rise of the New L eft; his writings left th eir im p rin t on both
movements. Despite his professional com m itm ent to science, th e contours of
Pannekoek's political activity are alm ost w ithout p arallel. Prior to 1914 he
p articip ated as a m ilitant in b o th the D utch an d G e ^ a n Social D em ocratic
parties, tau g h t in th e G erm an Social D em ocratic Party (SPD) schools, and
collaborated w ith Kautsky on th e N eu e Zeit. Along w ith Rosa L uxem burg, he
em erged as one o f th e leaders o f th e left wing o f the G e ^ a n SPD, gaining
fam e w ith his 1912 N eue Zeit polem ic against Kautsky. Pannekoek was one of
th e first in E u ro p e to u n d e rsta n d th e fu n d am en tal contradictions and
weaknesses o f th e Social D em ocratic m ovem ent a n d to anticipate its eventual
collapse. Following th e outb reak o f th e First W orld W ar, Pannekoek was the
first to call for th e form ation o f a new In ternational, and later becam e a
leading figure in the Zim m erw ald anti-w ar m ovem ent. A lthough he h ad
played a m ajor role in the initial f o ^ a t i o n of E uropean Com m unism and was
a leader of th e C om intern's W estern E uropean bureau, Pannekoek em erged
in 1920 as a form idable left-w ing critic of Leninism, becom ing a lead
ing theoretician o f the left-C om m unist K om m unistischen A rbeiter-P artei
Deutschlands (KAPD). U n d er th e p se u d o n ^ n K arl H o rn er he gained fam e as
Lenin's adversary in L e ft-W in g C om m unism ; A n Infa n tile Disorder. F rom
1929 u n til his d e a th in 1960 he was th e intellectual m e n to r o f th e
quasi-syndicalist “Council C om m unist” m ovem ent.
Given its e n o ^ o u s circum frence, it seems difficult to find a single entry
into Pannekoek's theoretical work. Yet in seeking o u t those categories which
unify his thought, one finds one p a rtic u la r area in w hich his thinking rem ains
rem arkably con stan t: the set o f philosophical a« u m p tio n s u n dergirding his
political theories. Pannekoek's M arxism can , therefore, be m ade m ore
intelligible by focusing on th e key philosophical concepts he built his M arxism
on early in his career an d w hich he retain ed w ith only slight revision and
reform ulation th ro u g h o u t his life. T h e aim o f this essay will be to explore
these philosophical foundations an d th e ir im plications th ro u g h an exam ina
tion of: (1) T h e basic M arx-D ietzgen synthesis on w hich his th o ught
rests; (2) His extension an d broad en in g of these categories into a conception
of science an d M arxism ; (3) Some o f the m ain im plications these
philosophical an d scientific conceptions h ad fo r his political th o u g h t; (4)
T h e final crystallization o f these ideas in his unified philosophical, scientific
and political assault on L eninism . In posing th e question of Pannekoek as
philosopher, it m ust be noted th a t his concern was not philosophy in the
f o ^ a l sense, b u t one o f developing and u n d erstanding certain philosophical
and scientific categories o f analysis fo r practical application to a variety of
m ore im m ediate political questions.
PREFACE / 3
P annekoek and D ietzgen

Unlike m ost Second In tern atio n al Socialists, A nton Pannekoek cam e to
M arxism directly o u t o f n a tu ra l science, a fact th a t was to have considerable
significance in th e f o ^ u l a t i o n of his thought. For Pannekoek, the personal
transition to M arxism cam e in 1898, while a doctoral student at Leiden
University, following a reading of E dw ard BeUamy’s novel, Equality. T he
effect of this A m erican u to p ian novel, he later noted, “was as if a blindfold
h a d been rem oved.” “For the first tim e it daw ned on m e th a t all theories have
a social basis a n d significance and develop in response to real m aterial
interests ra th e r th a n abstract reasoning.” 2 T he acceptance of M arxist
ideology led him to undertake a painstaking study of M arx's economics in
collaboration w ith F rank van der Goes, th e m ajor figure in the introduction
of M arxian Socialism into the N etherlands. Dissatisfied w ith w hat he felt was
the d e te ^ in is m inherent in M arxian economics and concerned above all
with the problem o f developing a scientific fram ew ork for analyzing the
relationship of h u m an consciousne^ a n d action to the m aterial world,
Pannekoek went on in 1900 to a s y s t ^ a t i c exam ination of the philosophical
basis o f M arxism .3 It was at this point th a t he discovered the writings of the
G erm an a u to d id a c t (“the w orker-philosopher") Joseph Dietzgen, which
m arked the decisive tu rn in g point in his theoretical developm ent. To
u n d erstan d the precise n atu re of the im pact of Dietzgen in Pannekoek’s
th ou g h t requires a b rief sum m ary of D ietzgen’s philosophy. 4
Like Pannekoek, Dietzgen has rem ained a largely neglected theorist. This
2. Anton Pannekoek, “Herrineringen uit de arbeidersbeweging,” p. 2. This unpublished
document was written by Pannekoek as a personal memoir for his family in 1944 dur ing the Nazi
occupation of Holland at a time when his personal fate remained uncertain. A copy is contained
in the International Institute for Social History (Amsterdam).
3. Ibid., pp. 4-5.
4. Joseph Dietzgen was born in 1828 near Cologne. His father was a tanner and it was in this
profeîon that he was trained and worked. In his leisure time he studied literature, economics
and philosophy and learned to speak French and English fluently. He became a cla^ conscious
Socialist upon reading the Communist Manifesto. A participant in the events of 1848, he was
forced to flee to America where he worked at a variety of jobs. Throughout the next 30 years
Dietzgen alternated between the U.S. and Europe, participating in the socialist movements on
both sides of the Atlantic. In 1886, as an editor of several socialist papers in Chicago, he pl ayed a
major role as a defender of the Haymarket martyrs. He died in 1886 and is buried at the side of
the Haymarket anarchists in Chicago. For further information on Dietzgen see: Loyd Easton,
“Empiricism and Ethics in Dietzgen," Journal of the History of Ideas, January, 1958; Adam
Buick, "Joseph Dietzgen," Radical Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (London: 1931); G.
Bammel, “Joseph Dietzgen,” La Revue Marxists, April, 1929; Adolf Hepner, Josef Dietzgens
Philosophische Lehren (Stuttgart: 1916); Henriette Roland-Holst.Joseph Dietzgens Philosophie,
gemeinverstdndlich erldutert in ihrer Bedutung f1lr das Proletariat (Munich: Eugen Dietzgben
Verlag, 1910); Fred Casey, Thinking: An Introduction to its History and Science (Chicago:
Charles H. Kree, 1926).
status, however, was not always the case. A t the H ague Congress of the First
International, M arx introduced Dietzgen as “our philosopher.” 5 A lthough
critical of certain aspects of Dietzgen's thou ght, M arx pronounced it
“excellent a n d - a s th e in d ep en d en t p ro d u ct o f a working m a n - a d m i r a
b le.” 6 Engels, in L u d ^ g Feuerbach, subsequently credited D ietzg en -so m e-
w hat loosely in view of their different c o n c e p tio n s-w ith the independent
discovery of “m aterialist dialectics. ” 7 Indeed, it was Dietzgen who first coined
the term “dialectical m aterialism .” D ue in p a rt to a m ajor popularization
c ^ p a i g n - i n w hich Pannekoek played a p rom inent ro le -D ie tz g e n ’s
writings also gained fairly w idespread currency am ong rank-and-file working
class m ilitants. 8
Considered in overall term s, Dietzgen was eên tially a philosopher of
science, attem pting to develop the m ethodology for a comprehensive view of
the w orld for the purposes of prediction an d control, a fact w hich doubtless
m ade a m ark ed im pression on the young Pannekoek. In particular, Dietzgen
was concerned w ith establishing: ( 1) T h e objective reality an d unity of both
the n a tu ra l an d social processes; (2) T h e relative an d tentative validity of all
knowledge o b tain ed ab o u t these processes; (3) T he unity of hum an activity
(particularly th o u g h t activity) w ith the n a tu ra l and social environm ent an d its
im portance as a factor conditioning it.
A lthough his dialectics rejected any rigid laws of a universal system,
Dietzgen accepted (at least in a relative sense) M arx’s social theories th a t
explain social change an d class ideologies in t e ^ s of the fundam ental
relations of econom ic p roduction. B ut Dietzgen sought to clarify these
theories by m aking explicit th eir psychological assum ptions through an
inductive theory of cognition. T h e h u m an thou ght process, he felt, was as
accessible to scientific analysis an d elaboration as any o th e r n a tu ral or social
process: “If we could place this general work o f thinking on a scientific basis,
if we were able to discover the m eans by which reason arrives a t its
understanding, if we could develop a m ethod by which tru th is produced
scientifically, th en we should acquire for science in general an d for our
individual faculty of judgem ent the sam e certainty of success which we
5. Quoted in Eugen Dietzgen, “Joseph Dietzgen: A Sketch of His Life,” in Joseph Dietzgen,
Philosophical Essays (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr, 1917), p. 15.
6. Marx to Kugelmann, December 5, 1868. In Karl Marx, LetteTs to Dr. Kugelmann
(London: Martin Lawrence, 1934), p. 55.
7. Friedrich Engels, Ludwg Feuerbach and the Outcome of Classical German Philosophy
(London: Martin Lawrence, 1934), p. 54.
8. An examination of certain aspects of Dietzgen’s influence on rank-and-file militants can
be found in Stuart Macintyre, ‘Joseph Dietzgen and British Working Claw Education,” Bulletin
of the Study of Labor History, Fall, 1974.
PREFACE / 5
already possess in special fields o f science.” 9

Dietzgen's first an d best kno'wn study, T he N ature o f H u m a n Brainwork
(1869), represents his m ost system atic a ttem p t to f o ^ u l a t e such a scientific
an d m aterialistic theory of understanding. Sum m arily rejecting K antian
dualism , D ietzgen argued th a t since all knowledge derives from a n d cannot
go beyond sensations, it can n o t m ake definitive statem ents about objective
reality; it can m erely fiU in the gaps in experience by the ideas, concepts and
abstractions which experience suggests.10 C onceptual th o ught is, therefore,
f o ^ e d out of th e continuous clarification, system atization an d classification
of sensual d a ta th ro u g h a process of abstractin g th e p artic u la r qualities from
th e general q ualities in such d a ta . T h is a b stractio n process is dialectical in
the sense th a t it m ediates differences a n d distinctions in a p artic u lar object of
thou g h t. For Dietzgen, however, dialectical d id not always m ean absolute
opposites or contradictions. T hese distinctions existed only through the
m ental separation of th e com ponent p a rts of a p articu lar object of thought.
W ithout th e m ental act th ere could be no contradictions. T h e m ind merely
constructs them an d m akes them relative and equal as p a rt of the
classification and system atization process. From this perspective, the objective
world o f m a tte r, space, tim e a n d causality com m on to b o th “m echanical
m aterialism ” a n d M arxist m aterialism represented simply a set of artificial
and relative conceptions.
For Pannekoek, th e discovery of D ietzgen provided a critical link betw een
M arxism a n d his professional role as a n a tu ra l scientist: “H ere I found for the
first tim e everything th a t I h a d been looking for; a clear, systematic
elaboration of a theory o f knowledge an d an analysis of the n a tu re of concepts
and abstractions . . . . T h ro u g h this read in g I was able to com pletely clarify my
conception of the underlying relationship betw een M arxism a n d epistemology
and develop it into a unified w hole.” !1 In his first m ajor work as a M arxist,
9. Joseph Dietzgen, “The Nature of H^man Brainwork,” in The Positive Outcome of

Philosophy (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr, 1906), p. 48.
10. Ibid., p. 71. “‘The fact that the analysis of a concept and the analysis of its object appear
as two different things is due to our faculty of being able to separate things into two parts, viz.,
into a practical tangible, perceptible, concrete thing and into a theoretical, mental, thinkable,
general thing. The practical analysis is the premise of the theoretical analysis."
11. Anton Pannekoek, “Herrineringen uit de arbeidersbewcging,” op. cit., p. 19. Dietzgen’s
philosophy, more than any other factor, also served as the unifying thread for the so-called
“Dutch Marxist school” as a whole. In addition to the works of Pannekoek other works from this
group dealing directly with Dietzgen include: Herman Gorter, "Marx en hct deteînisme,” De
Nieuwe Tijd, 1904, pp. 57-58; Herman Gorter, Het historisch matenah'sme voor arbeiders
Verkllard (Amsterdam: De Tribune, 1908). Gorter in 1902 had also made a Dutch translation of
Dietzgen’s The Nature of Hu^man Brainwork. Cf. Henriette Roland-Holst, Joseph Dietzgen’s
Philosophie, gemeinverstandlich erUtutert in ihrer Bedeutungfur das Proletariat, op. cit., p.
206. Dietzgen’s philosophy also exercised considerable influence on the literary work of Gorter
6 I PMNEKOEKAND THE WORKERS’COUNCILS
“De Filosofie van K ant en h et M arxism e” (1901), Pannekoek sought to

establish D ietzgen’s real significance in th e history of philosophy and socialist
thou g h t. T his analysis was b roadened the following year w hen, with Kautsky’s
assistance, he m ade contact w ith Dietzgen’s son Eugen a n d was invited to
write an in tro d u ctio n to a collection of D ietzgen’s writings. T ogether these
two works constitute the basic core o f Pannekoek’s early ap p roach to
M arxism .
In P annekoek’s view, M arx h a d elaborated only on the n a tu re of the social
process of p roduction an d its fu n d am en tal significance for social developm ent
w ithout really concerning him self w ith the question of the h u m an “sp irit”
(Geist), o th er th an to show th a t it derived its content from the m aterial world.
T h e question thus rem ained open: w hat was the exact content of h u m an
consciousness an d w hat was its real relation to the m aterial world? T his gap in
M arxian theory, Pannekoek felt, coupled w ith the tra d itio n al influence
exercised by bourgeois th o u g h t, was one of the m ain reasons for the erroneous
understan d in g o f M arxism by anti-M arxists an d revisionists alike. Dietzgen,
by m aking the h u m a n m in d the special subject of investigation, an d by
attem pting to show the exact content of the process o f h u m a n consciousness,
had m ad e a m ajor contribution tow ard filling this gap. Because it validated
em pirical m ethodology itself, D ietzgen’s scientific a n d experienced-based
theory o f h u m a n thinking constituted the “essence a n d fo u n d atio n ” of M arx’s
theory of society a n d man.*2 By constructing out of philosophy a “science of
the h u m a n sp irit,” D ietzgen “raised philosophy to the position of a n a tu ra l
science, the sam e as M arx d id w ith h isto ry .” 13 For this achievem ent, Dietzgen
could be ran k ed “th ird am ong the founders o f ‘socialist science,’ next to M arx
and Engels.” 14 As a result, Pannekoek contended th a t a “thorough study of
and Henriette Roland-Holst, in particular on Goner’s epic poems Pan and De Arbeidersraad. A
useful discussion of this literary impact can be found in Robert Antonissen, Herman Gorter en
Henriette Roland-Holst (Antwerp: De Sikkel, 1945); and Yves van Kempen et al., Materialistie
Literatuurteorie (Nijmegen: Socialistische Uitgeverij Nijmegen, 1973).
12. Anton Pannekoek, “The Position and Significance of Dietzgen’s Philosophical W orksin
Joseph Dietzgen, The Positive Outcome of Philosophy, op. cit., pp. 30-31. This introduction first
appeared in the 1902 German edition.
13. Ibid, p. 28.
14. Anton Pannekoek, “Dietzgen's Work," Die Neue Zeit, 1913, vol. 2, pp. 37-47. In
Pannekoek's view, Dietzgen’s methodology was not limited to social science alone, hut had equal
relevance for physical science: “It is a proof of the deep vali dity of a clear Marxist insight that
Dietzgen, a layman and an amatuer in the scientific area, fully clarified the basis of modem
natural science long before the modem natural scientists themselves were able to do so . . . . The
most well k n o ^ of them, Ernst Mach, has admitted his astonishment upon learning that many
of his newly developed theories had been discovered a quarter century earlier by Dietzgen.”
Anton Pannekoek, “Twee natuuronderzoekers in de maatschappelijk-geestelijk strijd.” De
Niuewe Tijd., 1917, pp. 300-314, 375-392. Throughout his career Pannekoek consistently
attempted to apply a Dietzgenian methodology to his scientific research. For an example of this
PREFACE I 7
D ietzgen’s writings is an im m ediate necessity for anyone desiring to learn the

philosophical fu ndam entals o f M arxism an d of the p ro letarian outlook on
life." 15'
T o lend additional credence to his assessment of D ietzgen, Pannekoek also
attem p ted to ren d er a critical a n d dynam ic account of the developm ent of
“proletarian philosophy” itself, using both D ietzgenian and Marxist
categories of analysis. S tarting from D ietzgen’s argum ent th a t the reduction
of reality to ideas is essentially an historical an d social m ode of abstraction,
Pannekoek outlined several distinct stages in the developm ent of “proletarian
philosophy.”
T h e first stage in this process, Pannekoek m aintained, began with K ant.
T h e significance of K antian philosophy was tw ofold: it was at once “the
purest expression of bourgeois th o u g h t,” and a precursor of m odern socialist
philosophy .16 Since “freedom ” of production, com petition an d exploitation
were at the h e a rt of the ideology of th e developing capitalism of the late
eighteenth an d early n in eteen th century, K an t’s em phasis on “freedom ” a n d
“free will” corresponded to the needs an d aspirations of a rising bourgeoisie. By
challenging the m echanistic m aterialism of the French rationalists, K ant also
provided a firm er foundation for religious belief, clearing the way for a
revised f o ^ of faith an d freedom of th e will. Yet in focusing on sensory
experience an d on th e organization o f the h u m an m ind, K an t m ade the first
valuable co n trib u tio n to a scientific theory of u n d erstan d in g an d h u m an
causation th a t was a necessary com ponent o f socialist thought.
A second stage in the developm ent of a scientific theory of understanding
cam e w ith Hegel. In strictly social term s, H egel’s thought was the product of
the reaction against b o th bourgeois society a n d bourgeois philosophy th a t
developed a fte r the French Revolution. Historically, Hegel’s aim of a
practical critique of bourgeois philosophy was b u t one p art o f a large
intellectual effort to develop a theoretical justification of the Restoration.
Stripped of its social origins an d transcendental character, the real
significance of H egelian philosophy lay in the fact th a t it provided an
excellent theory of the h u m a n m in d an d its working m ethods: "T he
vicissitudes of the absolute spirit in th e course of its self-developm ent are b u t a
fantastical description of the process which the real h u m an m in d experiences
in its acquaintances w ith the world an d its active p articip atio n in life.” 17‘ A
see Anton Pannekoek, De Evolutie van het Heelal (Lieden: Venn Boekdrukkerij, 1918).
15. Anton Pannekoek, “De Filosofie van Kant en het Marxisme,” De Nieuwe Tijd, 1901, pp.
549-564, 605-620, 669-688.
16. Anton Pannekoek, ”The Position and S^^tocance ofDietzgen's Philosophical Works,” op.
cit., p. 17.
17. Ibid., p. 27.
m ajor corollary o f this, as Pannekoek viewed it, was th a t the real dialectic was
one of the encounters of the h u m a n m in d w ith th e external world, particularly
in its a tte m p t to gain an u n d erstan d in g of social developm ent.
This quality of H egel’s work, however, could not be fully appreciated until
Dietzgen h a d created the basis for a dialectical an d m aterialistic theory of
understanding. Viewed in the context of the history of philosophy, “the
idealist philosophical systems from K ant to Hegel, which consist chiefly in
the developm ent of th e dialectical m eth o d , m ust be reg ard ed as the
indispensible pioneers and precursors o f D ietzgen’s pro letarian philosophy.” 18
As an intellectual process this philosophy represents the “scientific
culm ination of f o ^ e r philosophies, just as astronom y is the continuation of
astrology an d o f the Pythagorean fantasies, a n d chem istry the continuation of
alchem y.” 19 Dietzgen, therefore, “com pleted the work of K ant, just as M arx
com pleted th e work o f A dam Sm ith. ”20 D ietzgen’s philosophy, moreover, was
neither "his" philosophy nor a new system of philosophy, b u t merely one of
the m ore system atic intellectual elem ents o f th e historical m ode of abstraction
of a rising working class (this concept bears a certain affinity w ith Engels’
concept of W eltanschauung, or worldview, although the em phases an d
im plications differ). A lthough this new “p ro letarian philosophy” was a direct
and logical succeôr to previous bourgeois philosophical systems, it differed
fundam en tally from them in th e sense th a t it sought to be less. W hereas
earlier philosophical systems p reten d ed to give absolute tru th , Dietzgen
offered only a “finite an d tem porary realization” of tru th which could be
further perfected only th ro u g h the course of social developm ent. 21
Science a n d M arxism
As a p ro feîo n al astronom er, it was perhaps only n a tu ra l th a t Pannekoek
would devote a considerable p o rtio n o f his theoretical efforts to an attem p t to
clarify the relationship betw een science an d M arxism , startin g w ith his 1904
Neue Zeit article, “Klassenwissenschaft u n d P hilosophie.” His conception is
one w hich calls into question the m eaning of orthodox Marxism itself.
18. Ibid., p. 21.
19. Ibid., p. 29.
20. Ibid., p. 27.
21. Anton Pannekoek, “De Filosofie van Kant en het Marxisme," op. cit. There is a profound
coincidence here between the way in which Pannekoek understood the relationship between
Marxism and philosophy and the ideas of the Italian Marxist Antonio Labriola, though their
emphasis and conceptual starting points differ. Close similarities also exist between their
conceptions of socialism and science, particularly in their views of the relationship between
Marxism and Darwinism. See: Antonio Labriola, Socialism and Philosophy (Chicago: C.H.
Kerr, 1917); Antonio Labriola, Essays on the Materialist Conception of History (New York:
Monthly Review Press, 1966).
PREFACE I 9
T h e m aterialist conception of history, as form ulated by M arx, was m eant

to b e an anti-m etaphysical theory based on th e evidence of h u m a n sense data,
to be exam ined “in th e m a n n e r of th e n a tu ra l sciences.” W hile the later
w ritings of M arx reflected an increasingly positivistic tren d , it was prim arily
Engels, an d later his spiritu al heir, K arl Kautsky, who generalized the
historical m aterialism advanced by M arx into a fo:rm of n a tu ra l science. This
conception, w hich la te r becam e a theoretical cornerstone of the M arxism of
b o th th e Second a n d T h ird In tern atio n als, was one which viewed th e dialectic
as th e suprem e science governing th e general laws of m ovem ent and
developm ent of n atu re, h u m a n society, an d thought. In Engels’ words:
" . . . th a t in n a tu re , am id th e w elter of innum erable changes, the same
dialectical laws of m otion force th eir way th ro u g h as those w hich in history
govern th e a p p aren t fortuitousness of events; the same laws as those which
sim ilarly form th e th re a d ru n n in g th ro u g h th e history of th e developm ent of
h u m a n th o u g h t an d g a d u a lly rise to consciousne^ in the m ind of m a n .” 21-
M arxism , th ro u g h this m ethodology, h a d been tu rn ed into a cosmogony, a
total scientific synthesis of universal validity for all questions of social,
historical an d n a tu ra l developm ent.
In developing his conception of th e relationship betw een socialism and
science, Pannekoek directed his in q u iry on two levels: an exam ination of the
m ethods, m eanings an d objects of inquiry beh in d scientific know ledge; and
an analysis o f th e position of science in h u m a n social an d m ental activity.
S tartin g from D ietzgen's prem ise th a t h u m an th o u g h t represents a
m ediatio n betw een th e social factors th a t shape m en an d th e ir expression in
h u m a n action, Pannekoek advanced th e proposition: “Thinkers can only
work w ith th e pre-existing conceptual m aterials of th e ir era. T h e form in
which new problem s are posed often creates a consciousness about the
insufficiency or falseness of the tra d itio n a l views, and new ‘truths’ are then
p u t forw ard as an im provem ent of th e trad itio n al views.” 23 A m ong the
various f o ^ s o f "th o u g h t activity” of an historical epoch none has m ore
im portance th a n science, “w hich stands as a m ental tool next to the m aterial
tools an d , itself a productive power, constitutes th e basis of technology and so
is an e « e n tia l p a rt of th e productive a p p a ra tu s.” 24 As p a rt of a larger
22. Friedrich Engels, AntiDUhring (Moscow: Foreign Language Press, 1962), p. 17.
23. Anton Pannekoek, "Klassenwissenschaft und Philosophie,” Die Neue Zeit, 1905, pp
604-610.
24. Anton Pannekoek, Lenin as Philosopher: A Critical Examination of the Philosophical
Basis of Leninism (New York: New Essays, 1948), p. 19. On the concept of technology,
Pannekoek has elaborated elsewhere: "The basis of society-productive power-is formed chiefly
through technology, though in primitive societies natural conditions play a major role.
Technology does not merely involve material factors such as machines, factories, coal mines and
historical m ode of abstraction, science has always reflected a p a rtic u lar epoch
in its subject m atter, its laws, its m etaphysical propositions and in its
em bedded values. T h e new scientific “tru th s” (or f o ^ s of consciousness) th a t
evolve out of each epoch represent an im p o rtan t and indispensable source of
"sp iritu al pow er,” b o th for the developm ent of new technologies and for th e
new social relationships th a t arise out of th e m . Consequently, th e em ergence
of a p articu lar form of scientific consciousness or structure of ideas cannot be
separated from th e social conflicts of its e ra : “A new rising ruling class is able
to un derstand th ro u g h its p articu lar class situation the new ‘truths' th a t serve
its interests. T hese new ‘tru th s’ th e n becom e a pow erful w eapon in the
struggle against th e rulers of th e declining social order, who have neither
interest in, nor un d erstan d in g of, th e new doctrines an d perceive th em only as
a th re a t . . . . So it was w ith th e n a tu ra l science th a t accom panied th e rise of
the bourgeoisie; so too is it w ith political economy, w hich is a science of the
p ro le ta ria t.” 25 Viewed in such a m an n er, th e scientific disciplines of the
nineteenth century were all expressions of the grow ing historical self
u nderstan d in g of an em erging bourgeoisie an d a necessary pre-condition
for in d u strial expansion. As such, they represented the “spiritual basis of
capitalism .” 26
B ut such a conception of science as “class science” did not en tail the view
th a t every class m aintains its own special set of scientific views, b u t "th at a
certain f o ^ of science can be b o th an object an d a w eapon of class struggle,
and th a t a class has an interest only in th e investigation an d diffusion of
railroads but also the ability to make them and the science which creates this ability. Natural
science, our knowledge of the forces of nature, our ability to reason and cooperate are all
important as factors of production. Technology rests not only on material elements alone, but
also on a strong spiritual elements.” Anton Pannekoek, “Het historisch materialisme,” De
Nieuwe Tijd, 1919, pp. 15-22, 51-58. By analogy “socialist politics” could be viewed as the
"technology of the proletariat” since it had a similar scientific and spiritual relationship to their
productive relationships. Anton Pannekoek, "Sozialistische Politik,” “Zeitungskorrespondenz”
article, May 1, 1909. From 1908 to 1914, while a full-time militant in the German SPD,
Pannekoek wrote a regular series of weekly articles which were sent to subscribing local SPD
papers (the number varied between 15 and 30). Pannekoek’s intention with these articles was to
develop a body of popularized theory easily understandable to the average worker. Dates cited
are those of the proof copies contained in the Pannekoek archives, International Institute for
Social History (Amsterdam). These articles can be found most regularly in the Leipziger
Volkszietung and Bremer Burgerzeitung, usually several days to several weeks after the proof
date copy.
25. Anton Pannekoek, "Klassenwissenschaft und Philosophie," op. cit. Pannekoek’s most
detailed treatment of the question of scientific consciousness and social development is contained
in his A History of Astronomy (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1969).
26. Anton Pannekoek (pseudonym John Harper), “Materialism and Historical Materialism,”
New &says, Fall, 1942. This article is a revised English version of his 1919 essay, “Het historisch
materialisme,” op. cit.
PREFACE / 11
those tru th s w hich directly advance its own living conditions.” 27T hus, while
the n a tu ra l sciences of the nineteenth century could be term ed “bourgeois” on
the basis of their objects and interests, there could be, in strictly
m ethodological term s, no such thing as a “bourgeois science” to be replaced
by a “p ro letarian science.” T h e question was one of a larger form of historical
consciousness. W h at a M arxist critique o f science m ust be directed against is
the c la s s-d e te ^ in e d ideological in terp retatio n an d c la s s -d e te ^ in e d practical
utilization of science whenever it conflicts w ith the needs of hum anity.
Historically, science, like the utilization of all other productive and h u m an
resources, was subordinated to the requirem ents of class relations w ithin a
given social system. As inheritors of a new social order, the p ro letariat will
have a m u ch g reater interest in building u pon the scientific traditions of the
past since they w ould eventually reap the full benefits from it. T h e science
and technology of the hypothetical socialist f u t u r e - n o m a tter how
a lte r e d - c o u ld , th erefore, only be based on all previous scientific and social
developm ents.
In a m ore im m ediate sense, Pannekoek saw a m ajor alteratio n in the social
character of tw entieth-century n a tu ra l science w hich had potentially great
significance. W hereas the n a tu ra l scientists of the m id-nineteenth century
“had stood in the avant-garde of the spiritual struggle as leaders themselves,
or as spokesm en of the new class, professing the doctrines an d ideals of a new
f o ^ of progress,” those of the tw entieth century were “either isolated in their
narrow specialities or b earers o f reactionary ideas or old illusions.” This did
not m ean th a t the n a tu ra l scientists o f the past were “a better breed of
scientists,” b u t illustrated simply “a difference of social significance caused by
chan g ed social conditions.” 28
This social decline an d frag m en tatio n of the n a tu ra l sciences, Pannekoek
felt, was p aralleled by the developm ent and expansion of a new and
qualitatively different f o ^ of scientific consciousness: historical m a te rial
ism - “the class science of the p ro le ta ria t.” T h e p rincipal gap in the scientific
outlook of the bourgeoisie, he argued, was th a t a “science of society lay
outside of its g ra sp ,” since it represented a class th a t could not see its own
lim itations an d eventual dow nfall.29 It could not, therefore, view the world in
its in terconnected unity, w ith com plete clarity an d w ithout illusions. As in the
case of the n a tu ra l sciences of th e n in eteen th century the new “pro letarian
science” o f M arxism was b o th a “theoretical expression” of a new stage of
27. Anton Pannekoek, “Klassenwiênschaft und Philosophie,” op. cit.

28. Anton Pannekoek, “Twee natuuronderzoeker in de maatschappelijk-geesterlijke strijd,”
De Nieuwe Tijd, 1917, pp. 300-314, 375-392.
29. Ibid.
12 I P ^Ê K O E K A N D THE WO^RKERS' COUNCILS
social developm ent an d one com ponent o f th e worldview of a new ascendant

class.30 As representatives of a rising new class, an d bearers of a new science
of society, M arx a n d Engels w ere th e first to transcend the lim itations of
bourgeois thought, an d could, therefore, be viewed as “the first class scientists
of the p ro le ta ria t.” 31
T h e new science of historical m aterialism , moreover, could arise only with
the developm ent of th e m o d ern p ro letariat, since the bourgeoisie has no
interest in allow ing th e tr u th ab o u t society to be discovered; a tru th w hich
would show th e tran sien t n a tu re o f its ru le : “T h e p ro letariat, therefore, has
every interest in discovering th e in n er laws of society an d th e sources of their
endless t o ^ e n t . Because th e w orking claw is th e only c la » w hich has nothing
to conceal, and, therefore, can look a t social p h enom ena in an unbiased
m ann er, it alone is in a position to discover an d advocate th e tru th
about society.' 32 Epistem ologically, this new social o r “spiritual science”
(Pannekoek uses th e term s interchangeably along w ith historical m aterialism
an d M arxism ) also differed fu n d am en tally in th e s e ^ ^ th a t for the
bourgeoisie science represented a system o f ab stract ideas an d concepts for the
intellectuals, while for th e p ro le ta ria t “his science” constituted an integral
p a rt o f “his own life’s experience.” Viewing science in the b ro ad D ietzgenian
sense as th e systemization a n d conceptualization of experience, this m ean t
th a t for th e worker “spiritual science” was m erely a f o ^ o f “ordered
knowledge, a short sum m ary of reality” based on his productive experiences,
which b o th explains an d clarifies these experiences an d serves as a guide for
his daily praxis: “It is very unlikely th a t m any of th e socialist w orkers have
ever re a d K a n t or H egel, a n d p erh ap s n o t even M arx, Engels or D ietzgen. B ut
they have som ething entirely different, life itself . . . it is their o w i life
experiences which represent the study f o ^ th a t gives them th eir determ ined
convictions.” 33
A lthough th e new “sp iritual science” of M arxism was linked w ith the
bourgeois scientific m ethodologies o f th e past th ro u g h the proceM of social
and historical developm ent, Pannekoek’s fu n d am en tal distinction between
social a n d n a tu ra l science ru le d o u t any connection betw een M arxism an d
physical theory: “T h e sp iritual sciences differ from th e n a tu ra l sciences on
the basis of b o th th eir object a n d m ethod. T h e goal o f n a tu ra l science is to
30. Anton Pannekoek, “Klassenwissenschaft un Philosophieop. cit.
31. Anton Pannekoek, “Twee natuuronderzoeker in de maacschappelijk-geestelijke strijd,"
op. cit.
32. Anton Pannekoek, ''Klaaenwissenschaft und Philroophic," op. cit.
33. Anton Pannekoek, "Die Arbeiter und die sozialistische Wi«enschaft," "Zeitungs-
korrespondenz,” October 23, 1909.
PREFACE / 13
develop an abstraction o u t of reality ; ' while the goal of spiritual science is to

discover an d describe a fixed p ro g re ^ io n an d unity in general an d p articu lar
ph en o m en a.” 34 T h e cen tral m ethodological question for b o th form s of
science concerns th e n a tu re of their laws an d predictions. Responding to those
who claim ed th a t physical science is characterized by the exactness of its
n a tu ra l laws an d predictions, Pannekoek contended: “W h a t certainty do I
have th a t th e event thus asserted and com puted really takes place? T he
answer can only b e: N one . . . . N o scientist assumes th a t for predictions on the
basis of known laws there is absolute certainty. H undreds of times it
happened, contrary to expectations, th a t it did not come true, and on such
cases depended the progress of science.” 35 O n this basis, it stood to reason
th a t an even m ore tentative causal relationship betw een laws and predictions
existed for the social sciences: “T h ro u g h th e im m ense com plication of social
relations ‘laws’ of society are m u ch m ore difficult to discern, and they cannot
now be p u t into the forn. of exact form ulas. Still m ore th a n in natu re they
may be said to express not the fu tu re b u t o u r expectations about the future. It
is already a great thing th at, w hereas form er thinkers were groping in the
dark, now some m ain lines of developm ent have been discovered."36 T hus,
just as the history of astronom y, for exam ple, was “full of predictions th a t did
not com e true, of disagreem ents th a t a l a ^ e d the scientists and had to be
explained by new unforseen circum stances,” so too would the new “class
science of M arxism .” 37 T o speak, therefore, of M arxism as a set of absolute
laws an d predictions would be “a half-defeat, a laying d o ^ of one’s
a ^ s . " 38
Pannekoek’s m ost sustained effort to apply his conception o f science and
M arxism can be found in his treatm en t o f the question of Marxism and
Darwinism. Few questions h a d m ore centrality to the ideology of the Second
In tern atio n al th a n the question of Darwinism . T h e link betw een M arx and
34. AntonPannekoek, "Marx Studien,” De Nieuwe Tijd, 1905, pp. 4-13, 129-142.
35. AntonPannekoek,"Das Wesen des Naturgesetzes,” Erkenntrns, 1933, pp. 389-400.
36. AntonPannekoek, Lenin as Philosopher, op. cit., p. 30.
37. AntonPannekoek, “What About Marxism?” Industrial Worker, February 7, 1948. On
the question of objectivity Pannekoek has noted: “Striving for objectivity as a principle of science
is part of the struggle for self-preservation. Thus, for the bourgeoisie striving for objectivity in
natural science is a class interest, a norm of action. In terms of maintaining themselves as a ruling
class Marx's doctrine about capitalism and its development represents a pernicious threat since its
validity would destroy their self-confidence and wiU to struggle. For the proletariat the scientific
validity of Marxism is equally necessary as a means of self-preservation since it gives them the will
to struggle. For the bourgeoisie it is a question of the validity of another doctrine. Both,
therefore, strive for objectivity as defined within their class." Anton Pannekoek to Ma^nillian
Rubel, August l, 1951, Pannekoek Archives, map 108, International Institute for Social History
(Amsterdam).
38. Anton Pannekoek to Maxmillian Rubel, April 23, 1953, op. cit.
14 I PANNEKOEK AND THE W ORKERS CO UNCILS
Darw in was officially f o c a li z e d from a Socialist perspective when Engels,

speaking a t the graveside of M arx, s ta te d : "‘J ust as Darw in discovered the law
of developm ent of organic n atu re, so M arx discovered the law of developm ent
of h u m a n h isto ry ."39 This verdict of Engels on the fu n d am en tal parallel
betw een M arxism and Darwinism was eventually to becom e a cornerstone of
M arxist th e o ry -o rth o d o x an d revisionist a lik e -re c e iv in g p a rtic u lar em p h a
sis in the works of K arl K autsky. As a young m an , Kautsky, in fact, h a d
initially com e to socialism th ro u g h his in te rp retatio n of Darwinist evo
lutionary doctrine, and some of his earliest theoretical efforts were devoted
to developing a M arx-D arw in synthesis. 40 Early in his career Kautsky had
w ritten: “T h e theory of history wishes to be nothing else th a n the application
of Darw inism to social developm ent. ”41 It was this conclusion w hich Kautsky
derived from D arw in th a t was to serve as a m ajor theoretical foundation of
the d e te ^ in is tic M arxism o f th e Second In tern ational.
Unlike m ost M arxists of the Second In tern ational Pannekoek, however,
rejected the d e te ^ in is m in h eren t in such a conception of M arxism and
Darwinism . Pannekoek first addreraed him self systematically to this question
in his 1909 b rochure, M arxism a n d D arw inism , a work he considered as
am ong his best. His im m ediate practical aim was one of com batting, on the
one h a n d , the “bourgeois D arw inists” who sought to use Darwinism as an
intellectual justification for capitalism , and the orthodox Marxists, on the
other, who saw it as “n a tu ra l p r o o f ’ of the inevitability of socialism. T h e basis
of P annekoek’s analysis was outlined in his earlier distinction between
the m ethodologies of n a tu ra l and social science and their historical
interconnection as scientific forms of class thought. “T h e scientific
im portance of M arxism as well as D arw inism ,” he wrote “consists in their
following o u t the theory of evolution, th e one u p o n the dom ain of the organic
world . . . th e other upon the dom ain of society.” 42 W h a t this m eant was t h a t :
“M arxism and Darwinism should rem ain in their own dom ains; they are
independent of each <other and there is no direct connection between
th e m .” 43 T o carry this theory from one dom ain into another w here different
39. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Selected Works (London; Lawrence and Wishart,
1968). p. 435.
40. Erich Matthias, “Kautsky und Kautskyanismus,” Marxismu. Studien, 1957. pp. 151
197.
11. Quoted in ibid. For a discussion of the role of Darwinism in the ideology of German
Social Democracy see Hans-Josef Steinberg, Sozialismus und deutsche Sozia/demokratie: Zur
Ideologie der Parted vor dem I. Weltkrieg, op. ci t p p . 45-56; Matta us Klein, et at., Zur
Geschichte der Marxistisch-Leninistischen Philosophic in Deutschland, op. cit., pp. 438-45.
42. Anton Pannekoek, Marxism and Darwnhm (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr, 1912), p. 7.
13. Ibid., p, 35.
PREFACE I 15
laws were applicable would necessarily entail w rong conclusions. This did not
m ean th a t they were opposed to each other, b u t th a t “they supplem ent each
other in the sense th at according to the D arw inian theory of evolution the
anim al w orld develops u p to th e stage of m an, an d from then on . . .th e
M arxian theo ry of evolution applies. ” 44 W h at was im p o rta n t in D arw in’s
work was th e recognition th a t “u n d e r certain circum stances some anim al
kinds will develop into other an im al kinds,” th ro u gh a m echanism of n atu ral
law. 45 T h e fact th a t this “n a tu ra l law ” b e c ^ e identified w ith a struggle for
existence analogous to capitalist developm ent did no t affect the validity of his
theory, nor, conversely, did it m ake capitalist com petition a “n atu ral law .”
T he differences betw een M arx an d D arw in were just as significant as their
sim ilarities. A nd th e failure of M arxists to recognize them was a m ajor
weakness of th eir scientific position.
Darwinism , like aU scientific f o ^ u la tio n s , was not m ere abstract thought
b u t an integral p a rt of the class struggles of its epoch. In this case Da^rwinism
functioned as a “tool of the bourgeoisie” in its struggle against both
rem nants of feudalism and th e p ro letariat. 46 By u n d e ^ i n i n g th e entire
foundation of orthodox C hristian dogm a, D arw in’s theory destroyed the m ain
ideological p ro p of the reactionary bourgeoisie. But Darwinism worked
equally well for the new bourgeoisie as a w eapon against the proletariat. By
seem ing to offer “scientific proof of inequality” an d teaching th a t “struggle is
unav o id ab le,” Darwinism could serve as a powerful counterw eight to the
socialist doctrines of equality and cooperation. 47 W hat M arx and Darwin
really had in com m on was to sh atter an old, rigid, immobile worldview. For
socialists, therefore, the real significance of Darwinism lay in the fact th at it
represented a precondition for th e u n d erstan d in g of historical m aterialism ,
rather than a doctrine directly related to it in any way.
It will readily be seen th a t th e conception of M arxism th a t emerges from
P annekoek’s tre a tm e n t of the problem of science and socialism represents a
radical d e p a rtu re from the orthodox M arxism of his contem poraries. As early
as 1901 Pannekoek h a d contended th a t it m attered very little w hether or not
44. Ibid., p. 33.
15. Ibid., p. 11.
46. Ibid., p. 22.
17. Ibid.,pp.28-29. Pannekoek sought to expand upon the ideas expressed in Marxism and
Darmnism some four decades later in a work entitled Anthropogwiests, in whi ch he attempted to
provide a more unified social and biological explanation for the rise of man in the animal world,
examining in particular the question of the development of abstract thought. This effor t can be
seen as an attempt to provide a biological foundation for Dietzgen’s theory of understanding.
Anton Pannekoek, Anthropogenesis: A Study of the Origin of Man (Amesterdam: North
Holland Publishing Co., 1953).
16 I P A N N E K O E K T H E W ORKERS COUNCILS
M arx’s theories, or even his basic m ethodology, were com pletely valid, b u t
ra th e r th a t they produced results th ro u g h practice ju st as th e n a tu ra l sciences
h ad continually produced significant findings w ith w rong m ethods.48 W hen
Pannekoek addresses him self to th e scientific c h aracter of M arxism , he
conceives of it as a new science fo u n d ed on the constitution o f a new
theoretical object: th e social form ation. For this reason, it has no connection
with physical theory, neither by analogy with physical process, nor by inferring
“laws of developm ent” from n a tu re . It is simply a set o f practical hypotheses
and n o t an ab stract philosophy o f th e universe. M arxism is concerned w ith
physical theory only insofar as such theory is used for specific class purposes.
It is a science to th e extent th a t th e social developm ent a n d revolutionary
activity which it reflects an d seeks to explain requires the com prehension of
its own subject m atter, m ethodological concepts and procedures. T h e
conditional validity of its propositions dep en d s b o th on the state of its external
subject m a tte r an d on th e in tern al articulation a n d developm ent of its o ^
discourse. T h e dialectic, ra th e r th a n a special scientific theory, represents
simply a “doctrin e o f historical developm ent” w hich seeks to clarify and
distinguish th e “special properties” in a p articu lar object by considering it as
an in terconnected totality. 49 F rom such a perspective, no statem ent about
M arxism can ever be considered final. M arx's tea c h in g does n o t stan d outside
th e course o f social evolution b u t undergoes a constant process of
transform ation, developm ent an d regression. In a b ro a d e r historical sense, it
is n o t the ideas o f M arx p e r se th a t have the g reater significance, b u t the fact
th a t these ideas represent the first systematic form ulation o f th e ideology
of a rising revolutionary w orking class m ovem ent. T h e theoretical a n d
philosophical fight of ideas is, fro m a p ro letarian point o f view, n o t th e basis,
b u t just th e transitory ideological f o ^ o f th e revolutionary class struggle. A
M arxism ossified in the doctrines o f M arx an d Engels n o t only is not, b u t can
never be, a theory o f p ro le ta ria n revolution.50
48. Anton Pannekoek, “Inlichting,” De Kroniek, August 31, 1901. There is a certain
similarity here with George Lukacs' celebrated statement: “Let us assume for the sake of
argument that recent research had disproved once and for all every one of Marx’s individual
theses. Even if this were to be proved, every serious 'orthodox’ Marxist would still be able to
accept all such modern findings without reservations and hence dismi& all of Marx's theses in
toto —without having to renounce his orthodoxy for a single moment.” George Lukacs, History
and Class Consciovusness (London: Merlin Press, 1971), p. 1.
49. Anton Pannekoek, “ProfeKor Treub over het historisch materialisme,” DeNieuwe Tijd,
1904, pp. 87-97. 159-172, 295-308. Pannekoek also states elsewhere that it was Dietzgen and not
Engels who developed the framework for a real Marxian dialectic. Anton Pannekoek,
"Historischer Materialismus und R elig io n Die Neue Zeit, 1904, pp. 133-142, 180-186.
50. In addition to the above, the most comprehensive source for Pannekoek’s views on the
nature of Marxism in his unpublished, 284-page manuscript “Historischer Materialismus.”
Pannekoek Archives, map 169, International Institute for Social History (Amsterdam). Also
PREFACE I 17
Geist a n d R e v o lu tio n : T h e Practical Im plications o f P a n nekoek’s Philosophy

Pannekoek's synthesis o f D ietzgen and M arx also had more than abstract
political significance. T h e th eoretical rejection o f d e te ^ in is m a n d special
em phasis o n th e non-econom ic an d “spiritu al” factors in th e revolutionary
process contained in this synthesis was only a starting point for Pannekoek,
who proceeded to apply it to a variety of m ore im m ediate political questions.
For Pannekoek, the ultim ate political question was the problem of
working class consciousness. Its im p o rtan ce in his th o ught stems in p a rt from
his early experiences in the D utch Socialist m ovem ent w here the lack o f firm
w orking class roots was especially acute. Pannekoek's conception of the
relatio n of philosophy to econom ic reality led h im to a view inl901 w hich held
th a t th e m aterial w orld a n d th e w orld of consciousness constitute an
inseparable entity in which each reciprocally conditions th e o ther. W ithout
changing the stru ctu re o f society one could not change the structure of
consciousness. B ut th e converse also rem ains tru e: a revolutionary upheaval
in th e econom ic a n d social structure o f society is im possible w ithout a
revolution o f the societies' fo^ns o f consciousness. P ro letarian revolution m ust
develop sim ultaneously in b o th th e econom ic an d the “spiritu al” spheres: “As
never since the first ad v en t o f p ro d u ctio n o f com m odities there has b een such
a fu n d a m e n ta l revolution, it m ust be accom panied by an equally
fun d am en tal sp iritual revolution . . .th e new u n d e rsta n d in g gains ground
step by step, w aging a relentless b a ttle against the trad itio n al ideas to which
the rulin g classes are clinging, this struggle is th e m en tal com panion of the
social class struggle.” 51 M en m ust, therefore, th ink change before they can
accom plish change. Socialist revolution can only come into being as the
expression of th e spontaneous consciousness o f th e workers. A lthough the
outcom e o f such a revolution wiU be decided by the physical pow er o f the
w orking class, it is not this pow er alone th a t is decisive, but the “spiritual
pow er” w hich p recedes it a n d determ ines its use. Revolution is thus a victory
of the m in d , o f historical u n derstanding an d revolutionary will. T he
useful are the Pannekoek-Rubel and Pannekoek-Mattick correspondence, ibid., map 108.
Toward the end of his life Pannekoek argued the need for a completely new ^rcialist
terminology, starting first with the word Marxism itself: "So I think we must make a close with
the old slogans and traditions of socialism and make a new start . . . . The science of Marx, the true
lasting part of his work, remains the basis of all our opinions and thoughts. But to put it crudely:
the word Marxism should disappear from our propaganda. Everything we tell is based upon what
we see and what every worker can se. Every explication based on 'Marxism' floats over the heads
of the mâss and disappears . . . . Future propaganda has to go to the masses because its contents
are. and are only, understandable by the workers themselves.” Anton Pannekoek to Paul
Mattick, June 11, 1946, op. cit.
51. Amon Pannekoek, “The Position and Significance of Joseph Dietzgen’s Philosophical
Works,” op. cit., pp. 12-13.
consciousness o f the p ro le ta ria t is as m uch a factor affecting historical

evolution as th e social an d econom ic factors it arises fro m . T h e class struggle,
while it corresponds to the m aterial environm ent o f society, is actually a
struggle of consciousness.
It followed from these assum ptions th a t the subjugation of the
working class was not entirely due to econom ics a n d force alone, b u t in no
sm all m easu re to “th e spiritual superiority o f th e ruling m inority” which
“presides over all spiritual developm ent, all science.” T h ro u g h its control over
institutions such as th e schools, th e church, an d the press, “it conatam inates
ever-larger p roletarian masses w ith bourgeois conceptions.” It is this
“spiritual dependence of the p ro le ta ria t on the bourgeoisie” th a t Pannekoek
regards as th e "m ain cause o f th e weakness o f the p ro le ta ria t.” 52 As an
obstacle to social revolution this "spiritual d o m ination o f the bourgeoisie” is
just as dangerous, if n o t m ore so, as its power o f m aterial dom ination a n d
exploitation. T h e p ro letariat is totally dependent intellectually an d culturally
on th e bourgeoisie a n d acquiesces in its o~wn enslavem ent. Viewed according
to th e trad itio n al M arxist categories o f base and superstructure, this
fo rm u la tio n -w h ic h assi^ra an equal, if not pred o m in an t, role to the
su p e rstru c tu re -re p re se n ts a m ajo r d e p a rtu re from the trad itio n al M arxist
position expressed by M arx in "P reface to th e C ritique o f Political Econom y.”
T h e sim ilarity o f these ideas w ith A ntonio Gram sci's theory o f hegem ony is
also readily a p p a re n t.53
Given the “spiritual- superiority" of th e ru lin g class an d the n eed for a
“spiritual revolution” of the working-class, the corollary question arises: w hat
is the precise n a tu re of this p ro le ta ria n consciousness an d how is it developed?
P ro letarian class consciousness, according to Pannekoek's conception, was not
identified w ith a p articu lar set of doctrinal beliefs, b u t w ith a certain
historical m ode o f abstraction. F or Pannekoek, p ro le tarian thought exists on
two m u tu ally in teractin g levels: th e level of science (or theory) and the level of
ideology or unconscious ideas. W hile both levels represent “abstract,
generalized expressions of concrete reality ,” they differ in the sense th a t
ideology (ideas) rests o n unconscious feelings, perceptions an d drives, while
science (theory) is a n a ttem p t to give conscious insight and understanding to
these spontaneous perceptions by abstractin g th e p artic u la r from the general
52. Anton Pannekoek, "Massenaktion und Revolution,” He Neue Zeit, 1929, pp. 541-50,
585-93, 609-16. See also Anton Pannekoek, “Der Sozialismus als Kultunnacht,” “Zeitungs-
korrespondenz,” December 24, 1911.
53. For an elaboration of Gramsci's theory of hegemony see Gwyn Williams, “Gramsci’s
Concept of Egemonia,” Journal of the History of Ideas, October-Decembcr, 1960.
PREFACE I 19
an d giving it concrete historical content. 54 W h a t em erges from the

interactio n b etw een th e two levels is a series o f “categories o f u n d erstanding”
u n iq u e to p ro letarian th o u g h t th a t Pannekoek considers the real content of
pro letarian class consciousnew. Pannekoek, however, is vague in specifying
precisely what these categories really im ply o th er than to state that they are
dialectical in th e sense th a t they a re based on co n ceptual opposites (which are
later resolved in p ro letarian strategy an d action) such as: revolution vs.
evolution, theory vs. practice, end goals vs. daily activity. A lthough opposites,
the categories are united in the sense th at they a re aU different sides of the
same procew o f developm ent—th e historical transition to socialism. T hey
differ fro m bourgeois categories of u n d e rsta n d in g th a t are static a n d can only
look a t the present. 55
Pannekoek's conception o f “false consciousness” was tied to his view o f the
relatio n o f ideas to econom ic reality. R a th e r th a n a d ire ct reflection of
econom ic conditions, ideas arise o u t o f “present reality an d the system o f ideas
transm itted from th e p a st.” 56 F or the f o ^ a t i o n o f p ro leta ria n class
consciousnew th e "th o u g h t systems” of the past were of p artic u la r im portance
since, alth o u g h detached from th e ir m a te ria l roots, they still constituted a
m ajor “spiritu al force" o f great social significance. T h a t certain thought
p attern s persist long after th e conditions o f life w hich produced them have
disappeared was n o t sim ply a consequence o f th e h u m a n m ind, b u t o f w hat
m igh t be t e ^ e d the “social m em o ry ,” or “th e perp etu atio n o f collective
ideas, systematized in the f o ^ of prevailing beliefs an d ideologies, and
tran sferred to fu tu re generations in books, in literature, in a rt and in
ed u catio n .” 57 It was this continued predo m in an ce of tra d itio n a l thought th at
has caused th e developm ent o f ideas to lag b eh in d the developm ent of society.
A lthough this “ tim e lag” of ideas was viewed by Pannekoek as the m ain
com ponent of false consciousness, he foresaw it being eventually resolved
through a procew of “spiritu al evolution” culm inating in a sudden “ripening
of new ideas.” T h ro u g h its en co u n ter w ith new productive forces and
relationships, “new a n d different im pressions en ter the m in d w hich do not fit
in w ith th e old im age. T h e n th ere be^gin a process of rebuilding, o u t of parts
of old ideas and new experiences. Old concepts are replaced by new ones,
54. Anton Pannekoek, We takti.schen WDif'ên%en in der Arbeiterbewegung (Hamburg:

Erdmann Dubber, 1909), p. 130. This work represents one of the most developed and systematic
products of Pannekoek's pre-war thought.
55. Ibid., p. 27.
56. Anton Pannekoek, “Het historisch materialisme," op. cit.
57. Anton Pannekoek, “Society and Mind in Marxian Philosophy,” Science and Society,
Summer, 1937. Expressed more simply, it might be said that these ideas constitute "the mental
store of the community.”
20 / PANNEKOEK AND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
f o ^ e r rules and judgments are upset, new ideas em erge.” 58 This proce^ is
uneven in the sense that not every mem ber of a class or group is affected in the
same way or at the same time. Intensive ideological strife then arises which
further accelerates the revolutionization of ideas. Since outdated ideas often
prevent gradual adjustment of ideas and institutions, their continued
predominance can also, under the impetus of certain unforseen events, lead
to “explosions," to sudden “revolutionary transform ations.” 59
For Pannekoek, the question of false consciousness also had a more
immediate second dimension. Taking the view that tactical and ideological
differences (i.e., anarchism and revisionism) within the international socialist
movement had a distinct social base, Pannekoek sought to explain these
differences as a struggle of social interests between different layers of the
proletariat based on different modes of thought. Given the uneven course of
social development, it stood to reason that the socialist movement would be
heterogeneous, composed of several different social groups. From this
perspective, anarchism could be viewed as the expression of the ideology of
d elassed petit bourgeois elements within the socialist movement. Their
ideology was merely a continuation of bourgeois individualism and the
tradition of bourgeois revolution. Their vision of a new society, unlike that of
socialism, failed to recognize the necessity of establishing a completely new
mode of production. 60 Revisionism, on the other hand, was based both in the
petit bourgeoisie and in certain groups within the industrial proletariat who
had achieved high wages and a shorter work week through strong
organization and a relatively privileged position, and who consequently no
longer felt the same need to overthrow capitalism as the other levels of the
proletariat.61 For them, “Socialism is not based on a completely new
proletarian worldview but represents merely a framework for achieving
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
60. Anton Pannekoek, Die taktischen Hfferenzen in der Arbeiterbewegung, op. cit., pp.
61-67. These ideas first appeared in less developed form in his earlier, “Theorie en beginselin de
arbeidersbewegung” De Nieuwe Tijd, 1900, pp. 602-62.
61. Ibid., pp. 125-126. Pannekoek was also among the first in Europe to employ the concept
of the “labor aristocracy” which held that a certain segment of the trade union movement had
been imbued with bourgeois values. This concept was first used in his 1905 article, “Lessen uit de
mijnwerkerstakmg,” De Nieuwe Tijd, 1905, pp. 250-263. By 1910 Pannekoek had become
embroiled in a series of controversies with the German trade union leadership with culminated in
a public debate with the trade union leader Karl Legien before an audience of 2,000 persons.
Further information on Pannekoek‘s “Zeitungskorrespondenz” articles: “Marx und die
Gewerkschafte,” November 13, 1901; “Unteroffiziere,” November 27, 1909; “Amerikanische
Arbeiterbewegung,” January 10, 1910; "Gewerkschaftliche Demokratie,” December 17, 1910;
“Das Vertretung^ystem in der Arbeiterbewegung," April 27, 1911.
PREFACE I 21
practical goals, while th e earlier bourgeois goals quietly continue to

coexist.”62 T h eir peaceful evolutionary doctrines and narrow conceptions of
day-to-day struggles rem ain ed u n connected to th e larger goal of proletarian
liberatio n . As a th o u g h t form , revisionist ideology was based on bourgeois
m oral categories such as freedom , justice a n d equality. Like anarchism ,
revisionism failed to perceive th e need for new fo:rms o f productive
relationships. For these reasons, “both anarchism a n d revisionism, by
com bining a bourgeois m ode o f th o u g h t w ith a p ro le taria n tem peram ent,
represent bourgeois tendencies w ithin th e workers’ m ovem ent.” 63
If th ere is a fu n d am en tal g ap in Pannekoek's theory o f class consciousness,
it lies p erh ap s in his failure to work o u t th e precise details o f how false
consciousness is transcended. His view, on one h an d , is th a t it occurs
spontaneously th ro u g h “spiritual evolution,” w hich is a n outgrow th of the
process o f both historical developm ent (in this case “large industrial
concentration”) a n d w orking class self-activity. Yet, from an o th er p e r
spective, h e feels th a t it can be consciously accelerated by an organized
socialist m ovem ent, th ro u g h its ed ucation a n d p ropaganda capabilities, its
ability to c h an n el w orking class self-activity tow ard specific socialist goals,
an d by its capability to w age intense ideological struggles. P ropaganda, here,
was viewed as an "am plification a n d ex p lan atio n ” o f w h at th e w orkers already
see an d perceive ra th e r th a n som ething directed a t them . 64 T h e ultim ate
objective o f this process o f “clarification" was th e developm ent of a “social
id eal” o r “m e n ta l p ic tu re ” o f a subsequent, m ore highly developed social
system: "Since everything w hich m an does m ust first exist in his m ind as
p u rpo se a n d will, therefore, every new order, b efore it becom es a reality,
m u st first exist as a m o re or less a d e q u a te conscious id e a l.” 65 B ut shorn of
th eir philosophical u nderpinnings, both o f these views were little m ore th an
variations o f sta n d a rd Social D em ocratic assum ptions o f th e era.
In view of his em phasis o n consciousness an d th e ideological subjugation of
62. Ibid., pp. 34-35.

63. Ibid., p. 60.
64. Anton Pannekoek to Frank van der Goes, August 7. 1900, van der Goes archives, map
1803, International Institute for Social History (Amsterdam). It is perhaps of some significance
that the bulk of Pannekoek’s practical activity as a militant was devoted to developing and
participating in socialist educational structures in Leiden, Berlin and Bremen. An account of his
educational work in Bremen and its impact can be found in: Karl Ernst Moring, Die
Sozialdem.okrati.sche Parteiin Bremen, 1890-1914 (Hanover: Verlag fur Literature, 1968); and
Gottfried Mergncr, Arbeiterbewegung und Inteltigenz (Stamberg: Raith, 1973). Pannekoek's
efforts to develop a body of popularized theory with his “correspondence articles” can also be
viewed as an attempt to addre» himself to this question.
65. Anton Pannekoek, “Socialism and Anarchism,” International Socialist Review, February
1, 1913.
22 / P A ^& K O E K A N D THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
the w orking class, it is not surprising th a t Pannekoek would move to displace

the problem of revolution from the^ party an d trad e unions to the ma&es.
Prior to 1910 Pannekoek's theoretical work viewed party a n d trade union
organizations as central factors constituting th e “power of the p ro le ta ria t,”
along w ith its size, role in th e productive process, consciousness and
theoretical knowledge. O rganization, in this case, was conceived of as a
“process” - o n e facet of th e p henom ena of social evolution — ra th er than as
som ething in d ep en d en t and m echanically separated from the other factors.
Integral to this conception was a theory of revolutionary parliam entarianism
which stressed the subjective effects of p a rli^ n e n ta ry activity, in this case its
poîbilities as a m echanism for ed ucating th e w orking class on the n a tu re of
society an d th e state. 66 As early as 1908, however, in a docum ent intended for
the factio n al struggle in th e D utch SDAP, P annekoek h ad expressed serious
reservations about the utility of b o th trad itio n al working cla» organizations
an d th e strategy of p a r li^ e n ta r ia n is m . N oting th at “D ietzgen teaches us not
to d o u b t the tru th b u t to have d o u b ts about the absolute validity of a tru th ,”
Pannekoek cautioned: "T his tru th is not absolute; it has its lim itations. T he
labor m ovem ent has ad ap ted itself to the strategy of parliam entarianism
m ore th a n is really n eceâry an d it is impossible to a tta in our goals through
these m ethods alone. A revolutionary struggle w ith other m ore powerful
m edium s is necessary.” 67
S tartin g in 1910, Pannekoek, u n d er the im petus of the sharpening
factional struggle w ithin G erm an Social Dem ocracy, and grounding his views
in what he felt were "new experiences in the class struggle” (i.e., the growing
wave of mass actions starting w ith th e Russian Revolution o f 1905), began to
see th e problem of revolutionary organization in a com pletely different way.
By now it seem ed clear to him th a t th e fundam ental problem of conscious
revolution was no longer one of leadership, b u t one of direct organization for
revolution at the level of class, w ith th e party a n d trade union organizations
acting as agents of the w orking class, especially on its assault on the state.
Speaking o f the capacity o f th e workers to u n d ertake revolutionary mass
actions on their own initiative, Pannekoek noted : “A nd it is not merely a
question of th e laboring masses simply acquiring consciousness of this task,
but one of them grasping it fim ly and decisively. T he movement will never be
able to take its proper course as long as they sit aro u n d w aiting for their
leaders to give the word. A n acceleration of our struggle is possible only when
66. See in particular: Anton Pannekoek, “Algemeen Kiesrecht,” De Neiuwe Tijd, 1906, pp.
1-10; Anton Pannekoek, “Theorie en beginsel in de arbeidersbewegung,”- op. cit.
67. Anton Pannekoek, “Joseph Dietzgen,” De Tribune, April 18, 1908.
PREFACE I 23
the masses themselves seize the initiative, leading an d pushing their

organizations fo rw ard .” 68
T h is conception was deepened a n d articu lated d u rin g the following years
into a full -fleged theory of revolutionary “mass actio n ,” which received its
m ost detailed expression in his 1912 N eu e Z eit polem ic with K autsky. W hat
Pannekoek envisioned was a continuous a n d expanding series of mass actions,
ranging from ordinary street dem onstrations to the general strike. These
actions w ould serve to educate, collectivize a n d strengthen th e p ro letariat for
th e com ing struggle for pow er while sim ultaneously w eakening the
foundations of th e capitalist state. For Pannekoek, the m ain rationale of these
actions lay not in their objective aims b u t in their subjective im pact on the
consciousnew of the w orking class. C entral to this process was his notion of
"organizational spirit” ( Organisationsgeist) or the spirit of solidarity,
collectivity, com m itm ent, self-sacrifice, sense of purpose a n d class identity
inherent in w orking class o rg an izatio n : "T h e organizational spirit is the living
soul of th e labor m ovem ent which derives its power an d capability for action
from its body. B ut this im m ortal soul, unlike the soul of C hristian theology,
does n o t float aro u n d lifeless in th e sky, b u t rem ains, in fact, always grounded
in an organizational body, living in th e com m on organized actions of those it
joins to g eth er. T h is spirit is not som ething abstract, p u t forw ard in place of
the ‘real, concrete organization’ of th e existing organizational f o ^ s , b u t it is
in fact som ething ju s t as real and concrete as these f o ^ s . It binds individual
persons ju st as firm ly together as any p rinciples a n d statutes could ever do so
th a t even if th e external b o n d of principles an d statutes were rem oved these
individuals w ould no longer b e loose atom s com peting against each o th e r.”69
It is this spirit that creates the capacity to struggle an d receives its fullest
expression in m ass actions. A n d it is this above all th a t would give a
“com pletely new c h a ra c ter” to th e com ing mass actions of the future. T o
ignore this principle, as K autsky d id , was to ignore w hat distinguished
pro letarian organization from any other f o ^ of organization.
• 68. Anton Pannekoek, "Die Organisation im Kampfe," “Zeitungskorrespondenz," April 9,

1910.
69. Anton Pannekoek, "Maênaktion und Revolution," op. cit. For further elaboration of
various aspects of this theory see Anton Pannekoek, He Machtmittel des Proletariats (Stuttgart:
Sozialdemokratischen Vereins Stuttgart, 1910), and the following “Zeitungskorrespondenz”
articles: “ProletarischeKriegstaktik,” April 16, 1910; ”Die Opfer desKampfes,” April 23, 1910;
“Geist und Masse,'1February 10, 1912; "Zum neuen Kampf,” May 25, 1912; “Der Instinkt der
Massen,” August 24, 1912; “Volksinterewe und Massenaktion,” October 26, 1912. Pannekoek’s
theory of ma% action also paralleled in many respects the revolutionary theories of Rosa
Luxemburg and was an outgrowth of the same lustorical situation. The main differences lie in
the lack of a philosophical base and the greater emphasis placed on the mass strike in Rosa
Luxemburg’s thought.
24 I PÂNEKOEK THE W ORKERS CO UNCUS
Several variations of this them e of socialism as a process of spiritual struggle

were restated by Pannekoek as events pushed his theoretical developm ent
forw ard. T hus, in a 1916 article analyzing the collapse of G e ^ a n Social
Dem ocracy in 1914, Pannekoek rejected th e notion th a t it collapsed simply
because it was too weak. T h e weakness was n o t th a t of a m aterial force b u t
was m u c h w orse: “a general inability to struggle, a lack of spiritual force, a
lack of will for class struggle.” 70 T h e resurrection of a new In tern atio n al an d
th e developm ent of a qualitatively different “new socialism of the working
m a ^ e s” would only be possible th ro u g h a long draw n-out process of spiritual
ren ew al: “Now is the tim e to g ath er togeth er everything in the way of new
ideas, new solutions, new propositions, to inspect them , to clarify t h ^ by
m eans of discussion an d thus to m ake them o f service to the new
struggle . . . . B ut this struggle is only m ade possible by a sim ultaneous
relentless struggle against all the elem ents of the f o ^ e r Social Dem ocracy,
which would bind the p ro letariat to the chariot of im perialism . . . . ” 71 It was
on these grounds th a t Pannekoek opposed L e n in ’s w artim e tactics of splitting
the existing socialist m ovem ent in favor of a strategy of appealing directly to
the masses. 72 H ere the g e ^ of w hat was later to be a t the root of the
differences betw een PannekQ tk and Lenin is already ap p aren t. A similar view
was again advanced in his analysis of the defeat of the G e ^ a n revolution in
1918. How was it possible, he asked, th a t victory eluded the workers at a tim e
w hen th e state was powerless an d they were seemingly in control? T his defeat,
he felt, proved th a t “still another source of power of the bourgeoisie existed,”
which p e ^ i t t e d them to newly construct th eir dom ination: “T his secret
power is the spiritual power of th e bourgeoisie over the p roletariat. Because
the p ro letarian masses w ere still com pletely ru led by a bourgeois m ode of
th o u g h t they rebuilt bourgeois dom ination again with their o ^ hands after
its collapse.” 73 It was a corollary of this th a t to re tu rn to an ou td ated strategy
of parliam en tarian ism an d tra d e unionism - a s Pannekoek felt L enin an d th e
T h ird In tern atio n al w ere atte m p tin g to d o - w a s to revert to a bourgeois
m ode of dom ination.
In shifting the problem of revolution to the subjective consciousne^ of the
70. Anton Pannekoek, “Der lmperialismus und die Aufgaben des Proletariats,” Vorbote.
number one. 1916.
71. Anton Pannekoek, "The Third International,” International Socialist Review, February
1917.
72. These differing conceptions are de tailed most concisely in Anton Pannekoek to William
van Ravestcyn, October 24, 1915, van Ravesteyn archives, map 15, Intemational Institute for
Social History (A ^ t e r d .
73. Anton Pannekoek, Weltrevolution und kommunistische Taktik (Vienna: Verlag der
Arbeiterbuchandlung, 1920).
PREFACE I 25
masses, it followed th a t P annekoek w ould criticize w ith p artic u la r force the

different nuances o f "d eath crisis” theories o f capitalist collapse w hich held
th a t th e collapse ■o f capitalism was an inevitable consequence o f th e “laws” of
capitalist rep ro d u ctio n . In Pannekoek's view, “n o thing is m ore foreign to
M arxism th a n th e n o tio n th a t capitalism will collapse th ro u g h an
u n av o id ab le econom ic crisis.” 74 As early as 1900, Pannekoek, in a le tte r to his
m ento r, th e econom ist F ra n k van d e r Goes, h a d o utlined w hat was to be th e
basis o f his conception. F or him , th e critical lin k betw een economics an d
revolution was n o t crisis b u t th e u n d erstan d in g a n d active intervention of the
revolutionary class ' w hich translates changes in the economic structure into
“social reality” th ro u g h political action. Viewing all h u m an actions as “equal
p ro d u cts” of m aterial conditions, P an n ek o ek ru le d o u t a sh arp distinction
betw een evolution an d revolution. Both f o ^ a "sim ilar p a n ” o f the same
process of developm ent an d it is only th e ir external appearance th a t gives
them th e designations evolution and revolution. 75 T h is f o ^ u l a t i o n was
subsequently expan d ed to e n c o m p a s an analysis o f b o th th e n a tu re o f
econom ic “laws” an d th e p a rtic u la r m ode o f th o u g h t underlying "d eath
crisis” theories. T h e fulcrum o f his analysis is a rejection o f w h at he t e ^ s
"m echanical necessity” in th e laws o f capitalist rep ro d u ctio n in favor of the
concept o f “social necessity." R a th e r th a n eith er a p redeterm ined and
necessary course o f developm ent or p u re voluntarism , “social necessity”
represents a m ajo r connecting link betw een econom ic conditions and the
desires an d actions of m e n : “W h at has occurred econom ically m ust first be
understood in th e thoughts a n d desires o f m en a n d th en tran slated into
a ctio n .” 76 T h u s im perialism , for exam ple, was n o t a n absolute economic
necessity for th e reproduction o f capitalism b u t was som ething capitalism
und ersto o d as useful a n d desirable a n d h ad th e capability to achieve. 77
Similarly, socialism w ould com e only w hen th e w orking class understands it as
necessary, wills it and has th e power a n d capability to attain it: "O nly the
self-liberation o f th e p ro le ta ria t will signify th e collapse o f capitalism . ” 78 To
74. Anton Pannekoek, “Ptjnzip und Taktik,” Proletarier, July and August 1927.
75. Anton Pannekoek to Frank van der Goes, August 7, 1900, op. cit.
76. Anton Pannekoek, "Prinzip und Taktik,” op. cit.
77.Anton Pannekoek, “De ekonomische noodzakelijkheid van het imperialisme/’De Nieuwe
Tijd, 1916, pp. 268-285. The intended aim of this article was a critique of Rosa Luxemburg’s
The Accumulation of Capital. An earlier, less comprehensive, version first appeared as a book
review in the Bremer Bilrgerzeitung, January 29 and 30, 1913.
78. Anton Pannekoek, “Die Zusammenbruchstheorie des Kapitalismus,” R.ltekorrespon-
denz, June, l 934. This work, which was dircctcd against the theories of the German economist
Henryk Grossmann, was part of a series of polemics within the International Council Communist
movement.
26 / PANNEKOEKAND THE WORKERS’COUNCILS
speak of a “final crisis" of capitalism apart from the intervention o f a

revolutionary class is to revert to a m echanistic bourgeois m entality, a
dangerous illusion not based on revolutionary practice. In bourgeois thought
capitalism is a m echanistic system which views m en entirely in econom ic roles
as capitalists, wage earners, buyers, sellers, etc. T heir role is a com pletely
passive one dictated by th e stru ctu re of the capitalist m arket. Marxist
thoug h t, by contrast, views the social forces of developm ent as not entirely
econom ic, but as p a rt of a larger totality of the h u m an environm ent in which
th e thoughts, desires an d actions of m en, although externally conditioned,
still play a prom inent role. 79
Pannekoek Agaz'nst L enin

T h e decisive turning p o in t in Pannekoek’s political career cam e w ith his
break w ith the C om intern in 1920. 80 By the late 1920s Pannekoek’s p o lit
ical developm ent h a d carried him to a theory of th e revolutionary self
organization of the w orking class based on the workers’ council structure,
which he counterposed to all other existing f o ^ s of working class
organization. T h e “Council C om m unist’*m ovem ent, according to this theory,
represented b o th the beginning of a qualitatively new revolutionary labor
m ovem ent and the em bryonic structure for a socialist reorganization of
society. A lthough this conception represented a m ajor d ep artu re from his
previous thought, m any of his m a in Council C om m unist themes are directly
related to the problem s Pannekoek h a d w orked out earlier. T h e D ietzgenian
dialectical theory of know ledge is here bro adened into a political-
philosophical theory u n itin g subject a n d object, in this case a com pletely
autonom ous thiriking and acting working class fully conscious of itself in the
context of a p articu lar stage o f d e v e lo p m e n t-a stage in which historical
consciousne^ is reunited w ith practical organization, one in which the
workers are tr a n s f o ^ e d from “obedient subjects” into “free an d self-reliant
m asters of their fate, capable to b u ild and m anage their new w orld.” 81
For Pannekoek, this new consciousness could only arise through the daily
experience of the p ro letariat, in p articu lar through their experience in th e
shop s: ‘‘In the factory the workers grow conscious of the content o f th eir life,
their productive work, th eir work com m unity as a collectivity that makes it a
79. Ibid.
80. For details on the break with the Third International see: Hans Manfred Bock,
Syndikalismus und Linkskommunismus von 1918-1923 (Meisenheim: A. Hain, 1969); Herman
de Liagre B5hl, Herman Gorter, op. cit.
81. Anton Pannekoek, Workers' Councils (Melbourne: Southern Advocate for Workers’
Councils, 1951), p. 34.
PREFACE I 27
living organism , an elem ent of th e totality of society. H ere in shop

occupations a vague feeling arises th a t they o u g h t to be entirely m asters of
production, th a t they ought to expel th e unw orthy outsiders, the com
m an d in g capitalists, who abuse it in w asting th e riches o f m an k in d and in
devastating the e a rth .” 82 W ithin this process th e role of the workers' councils
was conceptualized as one of an “org an of collective th o u g h t” - i n practical
t e ^ s a m echanism for organization, clarification and discussion, and in a
larger sense the “sp iritual f o ^ o f th e p ro le ta riat.” 83
C om plem enting this theory was his view of th e Soviet U nion as a state
capitalist society sustained by a pseudo-M arxist ideology. 84 A lthough others
had advanced sim ilar theories justified on social and econom ic grounds,
Pannekoek sought to go a step fu rth e r by giving his theory a philosophical
base as well. T o show w hat he felt the M arxism of the Russian Revolution
really im plied, Pannekoek undertook a d etailed critical exam ination o f the
philosophical basis of Leninism , published as L enin as Philosopher in 1938.
L enin's philosophical ideas were first expressed systematically in his 1908
work, M aterialism and E m piriocriticism , w hich was later to becom e a canon
of Soviet M arxism . Shortly after th e tu rn of th e cen tury certain intellectuals in
the R ussian socialist m ovem ent h a d taken an interest in W estern n atu ral
philosophy, particularly in th e ideas o f th e physicist E rnst M ach and R ichard
A venarius. A kind of “M achism ” with Bogdanov a n d L unatcharsky as the
leading spokesm en h a d developed as an influential tren d w ithin th e Bolshevik
party, which L enin sought to u n d e ^ i n e in M aterialism an d E m piriocriti
cism. C haracterizing th eir position as a f o ^ of subjective idealism , Lenin
defended dialectical m aterialism on w hat he regarded as the chief points at
issue: the status an d ch aracter o f m a tte r an d the n atu re of knowledge.
O pposing th e view that m a tte r is a construct of sensations, L enin argued th at
m a tte r is ontologically prim ary, existing independently of consciousness.
Likewise, space an d tim e are n o t subjective modes of ordering experience b u t
objective f o ^ s o f th e existence of m a tte r. O n the question of knowledge
L enin a f f i x e d a “copy theory,” of perception which contended th a t
sensations depict o r m irro r th e real w orld. O n this basis, L enin defended the
possibility o f objective tru th , em phasizing p ractice as its criterion.
Pannekoek's aim was to confront the scientific an d philosophical content of
Leninism by a consideration of th e philosophical and social background out
82. Ibid., p. 78.

83. Ibid. See also: Anton Pannekoek, “Five Theses on the Class Struggle,” Southern
Advocate for Workers' Councils, May, 1947.
84. Pannekoek’s most succinct analysis of the social nature of the Russian Revolution and
Soviet state is contained in his unsigned article, “Theses on Bolshevism," International Council
Correspondence, December, 1934.
28 I PANNEKOEK AND THE W ORKERS COUNCILS
o f which Lenin's M aterialism and Em piriocriticism arose. F u n d am en tal for

Pannekoek’s analysis is his a tte m p t to establish a definition o f m a tte r based on
a synthesis o f th e concepts of m o d e rn physics w ith th e philosophical ideas of
Dietzgen. For Lenin, m a tte r was defined exclusively as a physical concept
based on atom s an d m olecules, th e m ovem ent o f w hich was governed by
unch angeable n a tu ra l laws. Pannekoek, however, challenged this conception
and sought to show th a t th e physical m a tte r w hich was so central to Lenin's
work was in reality noth in g b u t an abstraction. T h e w hole course o f m odern
physics, says Pannekoek, denies th e m aterial notion o f m a tte r a n d replaces it
instead w ith an abstract m ental concept (ab stract in th e sense th a t it is a
concept based on an a tte m p te d expression o f w hat is general and com m on in
a p a rtic u la r set o f p h en o m en a): “Atom s, o f course, are not observed
phenom ena themselves; they a re inferences o f o u r thinking. As such they
share th e n a tu re o f all p roducts o f o u r thin k in g ; th eir sh arp lim itation and
distinction, their precise equality belong to th eir abstract ch aracter. As
abstractions they express w hat is general an d com m on in th e phenom ena,
what is necessary for p red ictio n s.” 85 In a larger philosophical sense,
this d efin itio n was b ro a d e n e d -fo llo w in g D ie tz g e n - to define m a tte r as
everything w hich actually exists, w hether in n a tu re or in th e h u m a n m in d :
“If . . .m a tte r is tak en as th e n am e for th e philosophical concept denoting
objective reality, it em braces far m ore th a n physical m atter. T h e n we com e to
the view . . .w here the m aterial w orld was spoken of as the n am e for the entire
observed reality. This is th e m eaning o f th e w ord materia, m a tte r in
Historical M aterialism , th e designation o f all th at is really existing in the
world, 'including m in d an d fancies,’ as Dietzgen sa id .” 86 L enin, therefore, in
criticizing M ach an d Avenarius (an d for that m a tte r Dietzgen to whom he
devoted a ch ap ter en titled: "How C ould Josep h Dietzgen H ave F ound Favor
with th e R eactionary Philosophers?”) for their alleged subjectivism (i.e., their
view th a t reality is com posed o f purely m en tal elem ents) h ad failed even to
reach th e conceptual sophistication o f their systems. T his was not to say th a t
M arxist criticism o f M ach an d A venarius was n o t needed; it clearly was, b u t
on different grounds th a n L en in chose to do so.
Pannekoek, however, did not content him self with dem onstrating the
distance betw een Lenin's M aterialism and Em piriocriticism and the
developm ents in m odern physics, but attem p ted to pinpoint the basis o f these
errors an d assess their im plications for th e revolutionary m ovem ent.
Pannekoek's m ain pole o f reference was a distinction betw een bourgeois
m aterialism a n d historical m aterialism . Bourgeois m aterialism , says Panne-
85. Anton Pannekoek, Lenin as Philosopher, op. cit., p. 20.

86. Ibid., p. 61.
PREFACE I 29
koek, initially developed as an ideological w eapon o f th e bourgeoisie in

th eir fight against th e aristocracy. For th is reason, it was a type o f m aterialism
whose reference p o in t was individualistic, a m aterialism whose principal tool
was n a tu ra l science a n d whose principal enem y was the religious ideology in
w hich th e absolutist status q uo rationalized itself. A ccording to this doctrine
all phen o m en a o f h u m an life, including h u m an ideas, have th eir origins in
th e chem ical an d physical processes o f cellular substance an d ultim ately can
be explained by th e dynam ics an d m ovem ents of atom s. H istorical
m aterialism , on th e o th e r h an d , was a w eapon o f the p ro le tariat in th e ir
struggle against th e bourgeoisie. Its reference point is society, an d its science
is a social ra th e r th a n a n a tu ra l science, w hich reveals to th e p ro le ta ria t th eir
tru e relationships w ithin th e capitalist system. For these reasons it considers
ideas a social ra th e r th a n a physical phenom enon. T hus, for exam ple, in the
case o f religion it seeks to explain its social base an d does n o t fight it directly,
b u t attacks th e econom ic stru ctu re o f society.
F or Pannekoek, it was n e ith e r an accident n o r an aberration th a t L enin
used an o u td a te d f o ^ o f m echanistic bourgeois m aterialism for his p o int of
d ep artu re, b u t a n a tu ra l outgrow th of th e prevailing socio-economic
conditions in pre-revolutionary Russia. In tsarist Russia th e revolutionary
intellectuals, L enin am ong them , were confronted w ith the sam e task and
problem s as h a d been th e bourgeois revolutionaries of a previous historical
epoch: th e overthrow o f an absolutist land-based ru lin g class w hich was
im peding th e developm ent o f m o d ern industry. B ut in Russia th e bourgeoisie
was too w eak an d too d ep en d en t u p o n tsarism to carry out this revolutionary
task itself. T his role, therefore, fell to th e intelligentsia, a class com posed of
technical a n d professional people o f n on-noble origin often em ployed by the
state, who were aided in th eir task by Russia's ra th e r lim ited an d backw ard
p ro letariat. L enin provided not only th e organizational form (the vanguard
p arty o f professional revolutionaries) for carrying out an essentially bourgeois
revolution, b u t also a philosophy suitable for its practical activity. Since a
m ajor ideological p rop of th e tsarist aristocracy was religion it was necessary
th a t th e m ilitan t wing o f th e rising bourgeoisie devote first priority to waging
a cam p aig n against it. L enin’s reversion to th e m ilitan t bourgeois m aterialism
of th e past historical epoch provided th e necessary ideological and
philosophical basis for this struggle. Indeed, th e last p a ra g ra p h in
M aterialism and Em piriocriticism seems to suggest th a t th e m ost im p o rtan t
ideological struggle in th e w orld is betw een m aterialism an d religion.
Consequently: “T o th e Russian M arxists th e nucleus o f M arxism is not
contained in M arx's thesis th a t social reality d e t e ^ in e s consciousness but in
the sentence o f th e young M arx inscribed in big letters on th e Moscow
Peoples' House that religion is the opium o f the people. ’’ 87 Both in his
obsolete m aterialist philosophy a n d in his theory o f revolution L enin h id
him self from th e historical tru th th at th e R ussian Revolution was b o und to
rem ain a belated successor to th e g re a t bourgeois revolutions o f the past. O n
these grounds, Pannekoek concluded th a t “th e alleged M arxism o f L enin and
the Bolshevik p arty is n o th in g b u t a legend. L enin never knew real
M arxism .”®8 T h e question was n o t so m uch th at L enin was w rong or that his
logic was fallacious, b u t th at his th o u g h t was bourgeois. Leninism was,
therefore, the theory o f a new state capitalist m id d le cla» revolution installing
a new ru lin g class which si^Mfied for the workers ju st an o th er form o f slavery
and ex ploitation. T h is was th e tru e significance o f L enin as philosopher.
How, then, shall one assess Pannekoek's legacy? T he theoretical an d
political conceptions th a t evolved out o f his basic M arx-D ietzgen synthesis, as
we have seen, a re far rem oved from the scholastic in terp etatio n o f M arx
em bodied in the M arxism o f b o th th e Second an d T h ird Internationals.
R a th e r th a n a finished theory in itself, Pannekoek's work represents a critical
m ethodology open to all new social developm ents, in w hich all hypotheses are
adm issible, all conclusions tentative. Yet, viewed in its entirety, the
arch itectu re o f Pannekoek’s th o u g h t contains a coUection of elem ents of
critique, analysis a n d constructive conceptions w ith sufficient coherence to fit
together into a single conceptual framework. A nd while it rem ains tru e th at
his theories never becam e identified w ith a political m ovem ent o f any
significance, or even any cogent political practice, it is Pannekoek's chief
m erit to have p robed in to th e problem s of b o th the n a tu re of M arxism and
w orking class self-activity fa r m ore persistently a n d coherently th a n perhaps
any o th e r revolutionary theorist before o r since. I t seems clear on these
grounds alone th a t A n to n Pannekoek, if n o th in g else, has appreciably
w idened the classical perspective o f M arxist analysis.
87. Ibid., p. 71.

88. Ibid. Pannekoek’s analysis of the philosophical content of Leninism ^rosesses certain
close affinities with the theories developed contemporaneously by the G eân Marxist Karl
Korsch, also a Council Co^mmunist. Although Korsch, like Pannekoek, concluded that Lenin was
the philosopher of an e&entially bourgeois revolution, he arrived at his conclusions from an
entirely different starting point and through entirely different theoretical formulations. See in
particular: Karl Korsch, Marxism and Philosophy (London: New Left Books, 1970).
AUTHOR'S INTROD UCTION
by Serge B ricianer
In a period ■ma.rked by the eclipse o f th e revolutionary m ovem ent in the

industrialized countries, A n to n P annekoek co u ld scarcely have been th e fo c u s
o f m u ch attention. T h is m a n n e v e r exercised th e least power, no r d id his life
ever take a traragic turn. His n a m e ^was, o f course, m en tio n ed with some
fre q u e n c y by th e m ost p ro m in en t M arxist theoreticians o f the early tw entieth
century, and today this ea'rns h im a fo o tn o te when early pa m p h lets are
reissued. However, his o'um. xwrittings are m u te d by a th ic k veil o f silence, since
they contain nothin g to captivate th e refurbishers o f old id e a s - n o
ready-m ade aphorisms, no system to excite th e exegetes, no m anifest links
with a state or with any organized political tendency. H is was a body o f
th ou g h t attached solely to the cause o f com m unist revolution, presenting an
intellectual developm ent lin ked with types o f action whose very echoes had
alm ost ceased to fe e d the p a n ic and th e hatred o f the dom inant cllases.
A n to n P annekoek died, alone, in the little D utch village o f W ageningen on
A ^ l 28, 1960. A fe w articles were then p u b lish ed about h im ,i a n d again a
veil o f silence descended. D uring the past fe w years, however, his nam e has
been cropping up, not in learned works but in conversations am ong young
people in quest o f a new direction. W ho, then, was this P annekoek o f w hom
L en in speaks well in T h e S tate an d th e Revolution an d w ith s m fia o n in
L eft-W ing C om m unism : An In fan tile D isorder, which, as it happens, are
the only easily accessible sources?
T he aim o f th e present collection o f his r a tin g s is to answer this question,
n o tju s t to sing the praises o f a dead m an but to disengage broad outlines o f a
highly significant developm ent. T h e life o f A n to n P annekoek ts inseparable
fr o m the various controversies which have raged since the beginning o f the
century a m o n g th e ranks o f th e w orld workers’ m ovem ent, especially in
the m idst o f its m ost extrem ist te n d e n c ie s-p a rtic u la rly w ithin council
l. Cf. particularly H. Zanstra (a fellow of the Academy of Sciences) “Lebensbericht. ..,"
Jaarboek der Koniglijke Nederlands Akademie van Wetensrhappen (1959-1960); G.B. Albada
(disciple and longstanding political friend) "In Memoriam. . .,” Folio Civitas (University of
Amsterdam), 14:5, 1960, pp. 3-4; Paul Mattick, "Anton Pannekoek (1873-1960),” New Politics,
Vol. l, No. 2 (Winter 1962), pp. 107-114.
32 / PANNEKOEK AND THE W ORKERS COUNCILS
com m u n ism (as distinct fr o m parliam entary c o m m u n ism )-a lso derogatively
called “the u ltra -le ft." P annekoek, o f course, was not intensively involved
(quantitatively speaking) so m uch in these controversies as in the
organizational patte'rns o f which they were the special expression, except
during the great period extending roughly fr o m 1900 to 1920. This by no
m eans precludes the fa c t that the most developed o f his political
w r itin g s - th e p a rt which today, especially since the M ay Days o f 1968,
assumes indisputable relevance - was written during subsequent periods.
P a n n eko ek’s w ork includes two key interconnected ideas: 1) the idea o f a
developm ent which is both a n th ro p o lo ^ca l a nd cosmological, based on
historical m aterialism ; 2) the theory o f mass action, which, with the fir s t great
revolutionary crisis o f the tw entieth century, becam e the idea o f the
workers' councils. H ence the introduction to this collection will be devoted
m ainly to the first, a nd th e anthropological p a rt will be pivoted on the second.
This collection is presented, therefore, as a contribution to the history o f
ideas or, m ore precisely to the history o f t h e fo rm a tio n o f com m unist theory in
the tw en tieth century. For this reason its m eth o d and organization m il
infringe som ew hat the usual rules o f the genre. I n particular, the reader will
not f i n d a com pactly organized biography, the biographical m aterial being
dispersed through the various chapters a n d interw oven m ore or less with the
historical developm ent or with th a t o f theoretical problem s. O f course, this
fo rm u la will entail repetition; at the sam e tim e, lim itations o f space will
constrain us to pass over questions o f relatively m inor im portance within this
fram ew o rk. T h e introductory parts to each section o f the book an d the notes
will a tte m p t to m eet any such deficiency. W here nece&ary, a sum m ary o f
passages which had to be o m itted -will be given, rem aining as close as possible to
the original text.
In our view, th e a tte m p t to p la ce the changing direction o f the class
struggle in historical perspective, especially in the developed countries, is
infinitely more im p o rta n t th a n to inform the reader that Pannekoek was o f
rather sm all staiture, that he h ad startling blue eyes, that the Pannekoeks were
on calling term s with their neighbors, the Kautskys, during their stay in
Berlin, or th a t they lived in an elegant bungalow in one o f the best districts o f
A m sterdam .
A ntonie ( G e ^ a n form : A nton) Pannekoek w asb o rn o n Ja n u a ry 2, 1873, a t
V a^ e n , a little village o f G elderland, a n ag ricu ltu ral region, th en one o f the
m ost backw ard provinces o f th e N etherlands. F rom his rural childhood he
seems to have k ept a taste for a simple language little graced with literary
artifice, a n d a t times som ew hat rough. H e studied m athem atics a t the
University o f Leyden w hich, in 1902, was to confer on him a D octorate in
INTRODUCTION I 33
Astronom y. Am ong the professors under whom he studied was the illustrious
K apteyn o f G ronigen, one of the first to apply photographic techniques
system atically to the observation o f celestial bodies and to the study of their
distribution in space. It was, then, to studies concerning the precise m otion of
the stars th a t the young Pannekoek first devoted his intellectual energies.
A fter several series o f observations over a period of four years (1891-94), he
published a p a p e r on the brilliance variations o f B Lyrae, 2 a binary
s t a r - o n e com posed o f two stars revolving aro und a com m on center of
gravity. T his m ovem ent entails p a rtia l eclipses w hich cause periodic brilliancy
variations. T h e intrinsic lum inosity o f theses stars varies, therefore, w ith th eir
period, in accordance with a law w hich can be experim entally expressed by a
curve. P annekoek’s work consisted in correcting this curve, such as it h ad
been established u p o n the basis o f fo rm e r series o f observations a n d statistics.
(His doctoral thesis — 1 9 0 2 -is abo u t ano th er variable binary star, Algol - o r
B P e r s e i- a n d belongs to the same field o f research.)
H e then carried out various geodetic undertakings as attache to the Royal
Dutch commission for the m easurem ent o f the m eridian (1896-99). A fter
th a t, he worked at the Leyden O bservatory until 1906, when, m arried and
with a family, he began a long stay in G e ^ a n y - w e shall come back to
th is —retu rn in g to live in H olland only u p o n the d eclaration of war. T here he
ta u g h t m athem atics in various high schools, and in 1916 he was aw arded his
agregation in the history of astronom y at th e University of Leyden. In the
same year he published a work of popularized scholarship, T he W onders o f
the W orld (De wonderbouw der wereld) w hich was to have a considerable and
lasting success.
In 1918, his peers, in recognition of his com petence, proposed him for the
then vacant post o f D irector of the Leyden O bservatory; b u t, ”as though his
pro p ag an d a activities m ight be a risk to the stars, ” 3 the m inister flatly
tu rned down th e proposal. Pannekoek rem ained, therefore, in th at p a rt of the
educational field where nom inations were in the hands o f th e m unicipal
authorities ra th e r th a n the m inisterial bureaucracy. T h e University of
A m sterdam , where he also gave courses in m athem atics as p a rt of the
pre-degree course in chem istry, d u ly offered him a lectureship post. Assigned
to the astronom y course in 1925, he becam e titu la r professor in 1932. Eleven
years later, in 1943, he retired.
2. Anton Pannekoek, “Untersuchungen fiber den Lichtwechset von B Lyrae,” Verhandeligen

der Kon. Neder. A^kad. van Wetenschappen, 1, V, 7, 1897.
3. Anders and Wauters, “Qu’est-ce que l’fecole hollandaise?,” la Correspondance Interna
tionalle, 21:12, 1921.
“W hile still young, ” writes one o f his biographers,4 “Pannekoek was

en th ralled by the beauties o f th e Milky W ay .” L ater, in his early twenties, he
was to compose two authoritative atlases o f these stellar groups. T his body of
work b ro u g h t h im fam e in scientific circles; an d , in 1925, he was elected to
th e N etherlands A cadem y o f Science.5 In 1927 he was appointed to lead a
small research group on a n expedition to L ap la n d to study the
chrom osophere —a claîc u ndertaking o n th e occasion of a solar eclipse. As a
result, he m ade some im p o rta n t observations concerning spectrum rays and
th e intensity variation o f certain o f these rays, works necessitating th e
ad ap ta tio n of an ap p ro p riate m ethod.
However, it was in th e d o m ain of research into stellar atm osphere th a t
P annekoek m ad e his special m ark. In 1921 (later we shall see in w hat political
context), he established th e Institu te o f A stronom y o f th e University of
A m sterdam . Situ ated in th e suburbs o f th e t o ^ , this institute was also quite
close to K apteyn's lab o rato ry at G ronigen, whose equipm ent our researcher
was therefo re able to use; for, while th e construction o f m odels of stellar
atm osphere involves a n essentially theoretical problem , it w ould be
inconceivable w ithout em piric spectrographic verifications. As one specialist
stresses, however, it p rim arily involves appealing to “th e physical in tuition of
the theoreticians. ”6 From th e study o f certain questions linked with such work
(radiation), some of th e fundam ental laws o f m odern physics h ad already
been derived.
By an d large, it can be said th a t P annekoek was p articularly interested in
the in teratom ic Stark effect, an d that he proposed m ore sophisticated m odels
designed b etter to account for th e stru ctu re o f hydrogen rays. 7 (T he
f o ^ u l a t i o n o f a statistical an d physical theory of the expansion of rays
dem anded calculations o f f o ^ i d a b l e com plexity at th a t period.) In a passing
reference to this research, B ru u n V an A lbada has som e illum inating things to
say: "It is not only w hat Pannekoek d id th a t is characteristic, b u t also w hat he
did n o t do. W hile showing a k een interest in theories about th e in tern al
arran g em en t o f th e stars, he m ad e no personal contribution to the
elabo ratio n o f such theories. In fact, as long as th e origin o f stellar rad iatio n
rem ain ed unknow n, these theories could d o little to advance th e theory of
4. Van Albada, loc. dt.

5. Pannekoek, we note in passing, never saw fit to refuse academic distinctions: Doctor
honoris causa of Harvard, Laureate of the American Astronomical Society, in 1951 he received
the gold medal of the Royal Astronomical Society of England.
6. Daniel Barbier, les Atmospheres stellaires (Paris, 1952), p. 16.
7. Subsequently, the basic hypothesis adopted by Pannekoek proved inadequate along with
its results, as is usual in science. Besides, the problem has long been “a nightmare for the
theoreticians,” and only recently has it begun to be clarified (Barbier, op. cit., pp. l58ff).
INTRODUCTION I 35
evolution; and statistics never ranked am ong Pannekoek's prim ary concerns.”
T h a t is why he centers his works o n the physical n a tu re of the stars, thus
highlighting “the im m ense im p o rtan ce o f th e study o f the spectrum in regard
to th e d e te ^ i n a ti o n of mass. ” 8
Besides astronom y proper, Pannekoek's scientific activities covered the
whole history of this science,9 a h isto ry to which he ascribed exem plary value:
“In early times, w hen physical theory was only abstract speculation,
astronom y was already an ord ered system o f knowledge giving practical
o rien tatio n in tim e an d space. In la te r centuries, astronom ical research was
d irected m o re a n d m ore towards theoretical know ledge of th e structure of the
universe, fa r beyond any practical application, to satisfy the craving for truth,
or, in o th er words, for intellectual beauty. T h e n the m utual relation of the
sciences becam e the opposite of w hat it h a d been. Physics, chemistry, and
biology took off w ith increasing rapidity. T h ro u g h technical applications they
revolutionized society an d changed th e face o f th e earth . B ut astronomy stood
aside in this revolution. H ow could th e stars co ntribute to our technical
developm ent, our m aterial life, o r o u r econom ic organization? So their study
becam e m ore a n d m ore an idealistic pursuit tending toward a physical
know ledge of the universe. W hile the o th er sciences won brilliant trium phs in
a tr a n s f o r a t i o n of the h u m an world, the study of astronom y becam e a work
o f cu ltu re, a n adventure o f th e m in d .” 10 A nd, o n this basis, Pannekoek
presented "th e developm ent o f th e n o tio n o f astronom y as a m anifestation of
h u m an ity ’s g ro w th .” 11
T h is aspect o f th e biography o f A nton Pannekoek c an b e sketched here
only in broad outline. It would often supply his social-dem ocratic or
Bolshevist adversaries with an o p p o rtu n ity for facile sneers as "the Cosine
scho lar,” implying th a t an astronom er can n o t fail to have his im practical
head in th e clouds. 12 It d id n o t m a tte r th a t the m a n so contem ptuously
8. Van Albada, loc. cit.

9. Cf. in particular Pannekoek's preface and erudite notes to an edition of the astronomical
works of Simon Stevin (vol. III [Amsterdam, I 961 ]). Stevin was a famous Flemish mathematician
and physicist of the second half of the sixteenth century.
10. Disciplines in astronomy have certainly taken a tum since World War Two. Celestial
mechanics is used to calculate the orbits of artificial satellites; solar physics has brought to the
fore the influence of solar eruptions on the propagation of radio waves on the surface of the
globe; the most advanced study of the properties of the ionosphere will probably facilitate
progress in the transmission of certain radio signals; etc. But Pannekoek’s thesis in no way rules
out this return to practical applications of astronomy (or rather of peripheral disciplines).
I I. Anton Pannekoek, A History of Astronomy (London, 1961). pp. 14-15. (First Dutch
edition, 1951).
12 As a sample of the type of denigration, cf. Radek, “An astronomer who spends his life
contemplating the stars, and therefore never sees a flesh and blood worker,” Protokoll der III
labelled was in his day the only M arxist theoretician o f repute capable of
tackling an y question connected w ith the n a tu ra l sciences. No claim is m ade,
o f course, th a t this com petence autom atically im plies any superiority
w hatsoever; b u t it can be u rg ed th a t this type of professional activity m ust
have greatly developed c e rta in intellectual qualities in Pannekoek: the gift of
theoretical intuition, th e pow er o f intellectual abstraction, a n impressive
range a n d d ep th of knowledge, intellectual exactitude an d m ental serentiy, a
sense of team -w ork. Such qualities, invigorated by revolutionary enthusiasm ,
would enable him to organize and to generalize ideas bro u g h t to the surface
by th e developm ent of the p ro letarian struggles of the tw entieth century.
Consequently this D u tch m an was one of the few M arxists to attem p t a real
assessment o f contem porary scientific ideology.
In this connection, his article in De N ieuw e Tijd, published in 1917, is
am ong the m ost in terestin g .13 “T h e re was a tim e ,” he writes, “roughly towards
the m iddle o f the n in eteen th c e n tu r y - th e p erio d m arked by the rapid
developm ent o f the b o u rg e o isie -w h e n the intellectuals, the scientific
researchers, figured as leaders in ideological w arfare, and, as the m outhpiece
of the new c la ^ , provided new slogans an d ideals o f p ro g re ^ .” T his tim e has
long passed. "A nother type o f researcher has now a p p e a re d ,” professing
reactionary ideas an d fostering old illusions. "O f course, this does not im ply
th a t these researchers have sold o u t to the existing o r d e r ; ” there is no question
o f abusing o r deploring a d egeneration “o r a retreat, o r of regarding
yesterday's researchers as superior to those o f today. T his developm ent is quite
sim ply th e result o f th e t r a n s f o r a t i o n o f society.”
I n the eigh teen th century, says Pannekoek, the bourgeoisie waged a
merciless war against the crum bling old order, a war in which the n a tu ra l
sciences played a role of the first im p o rtan ce b o th as a fac to r of technical
developm ent an d as forceful elem ent in the co m b at o f this new class against
spiritual traditions, especially belief in God. However, as soon as the
bourgeoisie, having strengthened its grip on society, saw the pro letariat
facin g u p to it, it ab ondoned w hat h a d u p to th e n been its special w ar
h o r s e - t h e theory o f evolution. W hile the n a tu ra l sciences co n tin u ed to
progress, doubts were cast o n the evolutionist optim ism o f the preceding era,
on ideas such as the physico-chem ical origin of all life processes, which were
r e d u c ib le - it h a d been m a in ta in e d - " to a m echanics o f atom s.”
“T h e re was no question, o f course, of a com plete an d im m ediate
about-face; these tendencies ap p eared a t first sporadically an d gradually
Kongress der K.J. (Hamburg, 1921), p. 259.

13. Anton Pannekoek, “Twee natuuronderzoekers in de maatschappelijk-geestelijke strejd,"
De Nieuwe Tijd, 22 (1917), pp. 300-314, pp. 375-392.
INTRODUCTION I 37
strengthened each other before em erging fully defined in a systematic,

explicit form . In political a n d social practice th e old progressivist or liberal
trad itio n co u n te d for less an d less an d was slowly reduced, in an alm ost
im perceptible way, to a few basic representations; w hile th e old form ulas in
th e ir pristine p u rity w ere defended only by a few individuals, a n d th e masses
rem ain ed indifferent to them . T h e sam e was tru e at th e spiritual level. T h e
m ajority o f scientific scholars stood aside from political a n d social life, seeing
in th e la tte r little m ore th a n sordid conflicts o f interest a n d cheap demagogy.
Some, for ethical or h u m an ist reasons, joined th e cam p o f th e r e f o ^ e r s , b u t
from sentim ent m u ch m ore th a n from a critical knowledge of th e social
situatio n ; others, on th e contrary, reverted to th e f o ^ u l a s o f another age
an d were caught u p in reactionary currents o f C hristian in sp iratio n .” 14
G oing on to analyze in detail th e works o f th e two D utch intellectuals, Lotsy
a n d K ohnstam m , P annekoek traced th e conservative qualities in them . T h e
first advocated a m ystique o f "life,” generally very close to Bergsonian
s p e c u la tio n s -th e elan vital a n d th e rest. In o th er respects, Lotsy reduced
h u m a n social behavior to im pulses w hich were by n a tu re essentially instinctive
an d incom prehensible. T h e masses, he said, act blindly, governed by a deep
spirituality at once religious a n d patrio tic. In P annekoek’s view, we have here
an o th er exam ple o f th e necessity to u n ite th e n atio n by dim inishing class
antagonism s in th e age o f im perialism . K ohnstam m , on his p a rt, deduced
from th e B o h m a n n th eo ry —a n d from th e substitution o f statistical laws for
the old causal d e te ^ in is m —th a t nearly all th e accepted laws of physics had
to b e set aside, an d th a t, in th e last resort, th e origin o f th e world was
inconceivable w ithout th e existence o f a C reato r. 15 A gainst this view
Pannekoek set th e idea of th e universe as a process o f constant interactions.
Not content, however, to argue within his adversary’s field o f m odern physics,
Pannekoek show ed how “in th e tw entieth century, a positive C hristianity
arose in th e ranks o f th e bourgeoisie an d th e intellectuals” w hich postulated
an im m u tab le o rd er o f th in g s a n d fu n d am en tally contested th e idea o f
evolution. W e have already seen the- m aterial reasons for this attitude.
Tw enty years later, in L e n in as Philosopher, Pannekoek was to criticize anew
a reactio n ary a tte m p t to base a theory o f knowledge on d a ta with scientific
pretentions which, this tim e, was aim ed a t restoring th e old bourgeois
14. Ibid., p. 305.

15. Clearly, Kohnstamm did not make assertions of this kind without having previously
attempted to buttress them with long considerations concerning various theoretical aspects of
contemporary physics. Here we cannot enter into the details of this argument and its refutation.
We merely note that Pannekoek, in support of his thesis, appealed to examples drawn from
astronomy and from the kinetics of gases.
38 I PANNEKOEK AND THE W ORKERS COUNCTLS
m aterialism . 16
T h e special field for the application of th e theory o f evolution is, needless to
say, the hum an sciences. Pannekoek devoted m any studies to this subject. T h e
following is a sum m ary of one of th e principal of these: M arxism and
D arw inism . 17
B oth D arw in an d M arx have placed the p rin cip le of evolution at the basis
of m o d ern science. T h e f o ^ e r has shown th a t th e evolution of the species is
subject to a l a w - t h e law o f n a tu ra l s e le c tio n -b y virtue of which the species
best ad ap ted to an environm ent survive in th e struggle for life, while the
others succum b. M arx, for his p a rt, m ain tain s th a t th e basic cause of the
evolution of societies was th e developm ent o f th e im plem ent, and, in a
bro ad er sense, of technique. T echnical progress issued in a m odification of
the social fo^rms o f la b o r th ro u g h confrontations, at certain times, between
the classes which m ake u p society an d to which m en belong according to the
place they hold in p roduction. T hus, social developm ent has a d e t e ^ i n e d
direction. For both thinkers, evolution is th e outcom e of a struggle: the
struggle for life for D arw in; th e class struggle fo r M arx.
M arx m aintains, however, th a t while the trem endous forw ard surge of
technique n e c e sita te s th e replacem ent of capitalism by socialism, this
substitution depends on th e struggle w aged by th e m a s s e s -a n d th a t this, in
tu rn , depends on th e t r a n s f o r a t io n , in an d th ro u g h this struggle, o f the
m entality of these m aês. Like M arx’s theory, D arw in’s is som ething other
than an ab stract scientific tru th . D id it not serve th e bourgeoisie, especially,
in Germ any, as a w eapon in th e ir fight against th e aristocracy and th e priests,
since it substituted th e play o f n a tu ra l laws for Divine intervention?
In this sense, th e Social D em ocrats could justifiably see here a c o n f i^ a tio n
of th eir m aterialist theses. However, "socialism has as its fundam ental
prem ise n atu ral equality am ong m en, an d seeks to give practical expression to
th e ir social equality." O n th e o th er h an d , D arw inism , having m odeled itself
on capitalist com petition, constitutes “the scientific basis of inequality.” 18
H ence it not only encounters socialist opposition, but also arouses the
objections o f r e f o ^ e r s a n d oth er bourgeois philanthropists. T hey are
concerned only with th e ethical aspect of th e social question a n d rely on
certain legal im provem ents to abolish th e m ost flag ran t excesses which create
the struggle for life in a cap italist rfegime, a struggle which they ^ as
em bodying a n a tu ra l law. Is it n o t clear, however, th a t th e laws governing th e
16. Cf. below, Chapter Eight.

17. Anton Pannekoek, Marxismus und Da^rwinismus (Leipzig, 1909), p. 44.
18. Ibid., p. 20.
INTRODUCTION I 39
anim al kingdom are not applicable to h u m an societies, since each society

adapts to conditions peculiar to itself?
Certainly, m an belongs to the anim al kingdom , b u t he is a very special
anim al whose social existence, a fte r a certain stage o f developm ent, is no
longer entirely subject to the laws of n atu re. T h e cohesion of the h u m an
group is m ain tain ed by one power, the social instincts (which Pannekoek lists
as “ab negation, courage, devotedness, discipline, loyalty, honesty” - a l l of
which a re ideas envisaging not th e individual person b u t the group, the class).
This pow er of social instincts is developed by the struggle for life, which tends
to endow it w ith an absolutely prim ordial ch aracter. W e have here, then, an
altruistic consciousness which exists, though to a le ^ e r extent, in the anim al
kingdom , and which is in basic opposition to the values of bourgeois egoism,
especially to the nationalist sentim ent.
W h at radically distinguishes m an from aU the other anim al species is, on
the one h an d , the ability to m ake im plem ents and to use them for
pre-designed purposes; and, on the other, “language, and therefore abstract,
conceptual thought, ratio n al thought, the first having directly engendered
the second an d the im plem ent serving as an extension of the hum an h a n d .” In
short, “practical life, labor, is at th e o rig in o f technique and o f thought, of
the im plem ent and of science. It is thanks to lab o r th a t the ape-m an has been
raised to the condition of man."i<l T h u s the division of labor, the distribution
of functions linked w ith different applications of the im plem ent, has opened
up to m an unlim ited perspectives of developm ent. A nd on this point
Pannekoek concludes: “W ith the anim al, the fight for life has led to a
constant developm ent of the bodily organs (for exam ple, the muscles and
teeth of the lion); this is the basis of the transform ist theory, the nucleus of
Darwinism . W ith m an, it has led to a constant developm ent of the
im plem ent, of technique, of productive forces; this is the basis of M arxism .”
In this respect, the two doctrines have a fu n d am ental com m on p rin c ip le : the
law of evolution.
Life in society an d the use of the im plem ent, therefore, f o ^ the basis of
m a n ’s evolution, a long evolution at whose e n d th e vast m ajority are deprived
of the im plem ent, an d becom e the m achine for the benefit of a sm all
m inority. But the class struggle unites recently separated g r o u p s - n o longer a
struggle against n atu re by m eans of the im plem ent, it is a struggle for the
im plem ent, a struggle to p u t technical equipm ent at the disposal of all
hum anity by means of organized action, the movement of the w orking class.
And this struggle will end in the abolition of classes, in the emergence of a
19. Ibid... p. 37. Engels, as we know, was the first socialist to stress "the role of work in the
hominization of the ape.”
40 I PANNEKOEK AND THE WORKERS’ COUNCILS
single great com m unity of u n ited producers. 20

O n th e whole, this booklet c o n f o ^ s with th e views on th e subject, at least
at th a t tim e, held by th e “o rth o d o x ” M arxists o f Social Dem ocracy. However,
if it is com pared today w ith one o f th e m any w orks which Kautsky w rote at
th a t tim e on th e same question, one strik in g d ifference a p p e a rs: the emphasis
on "th e social instincts" developed, according to Pannekoek, in the class
struggle. Certainly, K autsky stresses th e “new m oral id ea l,” th e “ethical
in d ig n atio n ,” constituting a “pow er,” a “w eapon” for the socialist class
struggle. B ut, in his view, this pow er is not a d irec t p ro d u ct of the class
struggle an d of a rad ical t r a n s f o r a t i o n of attitudes, b u t th e p ro d u ct of a
factor linked “with d e t e ^ i n e d m aterial conditions” - w i t h the econom ic
developm ent which, he says, assures th e im m in en t abolition of the classes.21
W e shall see la te r that this difference, scarcely noticeable at the tim e, is m uch
m ore th a n a m a tte r o f words.
T his, of course, does n o t im ply that Pannekoek ever held that the ethic, the
m oral sentim ents p red o m in atin g in a given society, could be separated from
the m ode of p ro d u ctio n characterizing th at society. On th e contrary, indeed,
he strongly em phasized this relationship in a booklet, Ethics a n d Socialism,
published th e same year as th e o n e we have ju st been discussing. T his was
a c o n trib u tio n to a d eb ate in connection w ith th e great q u arrel about re
visionism th en raging w ithin G e ^ a n 22 a n d in tern atio n al Social D em o
cracy. "B ernstein,” w rote Pannekoek, “has frequently ap p eale d to the
ideas of K ant to com bat th e dogm atic m aterialism in our ranks; the
neo-K antians m a in ta in th a t the historical-causal foundations w hich M arx
an d Engels have ascribed to Socialism operate w ith a certain coldness which
should be countered w ith th e wa:rn.th of K a n t’s m oral id ea l.” 23 T h e
20. This latter theme is omitted in the much more searching study which Pannekoek later
devoted to anthropogenesis, the “birth of man.” The reason for this is simply that the work was
published under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences. On the other hand, he there deals in
detail with the connections between the use of the implement and the emergence of the upright
position, the development of the brain, the gradual elaboration of articulate language, etc.
(“Anthropogenese. Een studie over de onstaan van de mens," Verhandelingen der Kon. Akd., II,
l, 1945; the current edition appeared in 1951 with the subtitle as title). By far the most
outstanding work on anthropogenesis to appear recently is that of M. Leroi-Gourhan, le Geste et
la Parole (Paris, 2 vols., 1965), a study somewhat marred, however, by an excesive “end of
civilization” pessimism, whose social origins Pannekoek would no doubt have liked to trace.
21. Karl Kautsky, Ethik und materialistische Geschichtsauffassung (Stuttgart, 1906), pp.
14lff.
22. We refer the reader to Lucien Goldmann’s summary of this discusion (Recherches
dialectiques [Paris, 1959], pp. 280-298), from a viewpoint different in several respects from
Pannekoek's.
23. Anton Pannekoek, Ethik und Sozialismus (followed by Unwltkungen im Zukunftsstaat)
(Leipzig, 1906), p. 7.
INTRODUCTION I 41
D u tch m an inserts in this connection a m aterialist critique of K antian

philosophy, th e essential argum ents o f w hich we shall deal w ith soon.
B ut he also stresses th a t th e m oral sentim ent h a d not been disposed of by
having been presented “for w hat it really is : a m ystified expression o f class
interests.” H e continues as foilows :24 ‘'.Just as im m ediately and vigorously as
o th e r m en, we Social D em ocrats ju d g e this o r th a t act to be m oral or
im m oral. T hus, therefore, th e m oral sentim ent is a phenom enon linked with
h u m a n n a tu re , a sentim ent w hich science c a n ta k e into account w ithout
being subjected to its influence, an d not an im posture o r an illusion which it is
the d u ty o f science to elim inate. I f m oral ideas a re engendered by claw needs,
they a re not necessarily identical w ith such needs; th a t is why th e analysis
m ust be carried fu rth e r. T h e im m ediate m o ral ju d g m en t can n o t be replaced
by a detailed an d attentive consideration o f w hat is useful or ha'rm ful to the
com m unity; th ere is a difference, therefore, betw een w hat is m oral and w hat
is useful to th e com m unity, a n d it is th is difference w hich we shall now
ex am in e.”
T o m ake his p o in t m o re clearly, P annekoek uses a concrete exam ple. “In
1903,” he recalls, “th e D utch railw ay workers stopped work in sym pathy w ith
th e striking dockers of A m sterd am . T hey h a d to choose betw een a struggle
against the powerful p riv ate com panies who owned the D utch ra ilw a y s -a
struggle involving considerable risk to th e ir own interests - a n d a neutrality
which w ould m ake th em strike-breakers. T h ey chose the first alternative, an d
th e railw ay traffic in th e western provinces was in te rru p te d fo r a whole day.
H ad one asked a bourgeois person w h at h e th o u g h t o f this, no d o ubt he w ould
have voiced his h o rro r a n d in d ig ia tio n a t seeing th e personal interests o f some
individuals given precedence in this way, w ith chaos in society as a result. His
view would have been th a t th e gove^rnment ought im m ediately to condem n
such actions as crim inal, a ‘crim e’ being, in his view, an y th in g w hich disturbs
‘o rd e r’—th e conditions necessary to peaceful profitm aking, allowing th e rich
to get rich er while h u n g er to:rments th e workers. By contrast, the workers
w ould react very differently, ap p lau d in g a n d adm iring th e courageous m en
who h a d sacrificed th e ir own interests to solidarity w ith th eir class brothers.
“T h u s the ethical judgm ents w ould differ com pletely in accordance w ith
the class differences. T h e cleavage betw een these respective opinions was to be
m ost clearly shown in the press controversy w hich followed. It was impossible
to get the two sides to u n d erstan d each other. T h e w orkers could not be m ad e
to un d e rsta n d w hat w rong they h a d com m itted by stopping work for a day in
support of a group of workers at w ar w ith th eir employers. T h e bourgeois
24. Ibid., pp. 20ff.

journalists argued along these lin es: ‘I f it had been a m a tte r o f defending the
legitim ate an d p a rtic u la r interests o f th e railw aym en, th en n o th in g could
have been m ore n a tu r a l; b u t to go on strike for others, th ro u g h solidarity!
Sheer m adness indeed! W h at w ould things com e to if such ideas becam e
w idespread am o n g w orkers in general! Do these people im agine th a t the
splendors o f exploitation could one day lose th e ir luster? O ne th in g a t least
was c le a r: while these journalists h ad th e ir own p a rtic u la r way of
u n d erstan d in g th e interests o f th e workers, th e w orking class virtues seem ed to
th em to be expressions o f insanity. T his exam ple shows clearly th at, in
p ractice, each regards as m o ral an d good w hat suits th e com m unity, an d
therefore the class, to w hich he belongs. T his is a fact o f general application,
and therefore the present experience throws light on th e m oral ideas o f other
eras a n d o th er n atio n s.” 25
R etu rn in g a little la te r to this q u e s tio n - in o rd er to illustrate, he said, the
n a tu re o f ethics according to D ietzgen—P annekoek w rites: “A fte r the
railw aym en’s victory, th e bourgeoisie began to clam or for a special law which
it w o u ld be th e governm ent's duty to im plem ent. T h e w orking class, in a
united front, declared their solidarity with th e railw aym en, who had resolved
to force the issue o f their right to strike by again stopping work. This tim e,
however, th e strike failed. T h e workers sustained a terrible defeat w hich dealt
a devastatin g blow to th e whole workers' m ovem ent, from w hich it was able to
m ake even a p a rtia l recovery only after several years o f indefatigable
p ro p ag an d a. T hus, th e first, glorious ‘sym pathy' strike set u p repercussions
w hich, for some years at least, proved m ore disastrous th a n advantageous to
th e workers m ovem ent. Does it follow th a t this strike was im m oral? If it were
tru e th a t whatever is useful to th e com m unity a n d therefore to th e class
involved is m oral, an d w hatever is h a t f u l is im m oral, th a n one should
reg ard this strike as im m oral. A nd yet no w orker w ould so re g a rd it. H e w ould
say: ‘Q u ite possibly this strike has been disastrous, b u t nonetheless it
represents a beautiful, ad m irab le action, a highly m oral a c t.’ So we see th a t
a n act can be regarded as good even if it has proved m o re h arm ful th a n useful
to th e class. T his exam ple will also enable us to highlight th e difference
between th e useful an d th e m oral.
“L e t us then ask ourselves th e question: W hy did the workers see in this
action a p a tte rn o f virtue? T h e answer is self-evident: because in this action
solidarity—th e individual's sacrifice o f self-interest to w hat he regarded as the
interests o f his class—was plainly shown. B ut why re g a rd as virtue th e m ere
fact th at he showed his solidarity? Because, as a general rule, a show o f
25. Ibid., p. 16.

INTRODUCTION I 43
solidarity is useful to the w orking class: not always (we have just considered a
case in which solidarity had h a ^ n fu l effects), but nearly always it is useful and
even indispensable to th e extent that w ithout it a definitive victory w ould be
out o f th e question. In this sense there is virtue even in th e exceptional cases
w here, because o f special circum stances, th e action is useful w ithout involving
risk. T h e difference betw een class interest a n d th e m oral elem ent is therefore
p la in : w hat is m o ral is not w hat is useful to the class, but w hat is useful in
general to the class, w hat generally serves its interests. A m oral act is not
always an act to be recom m ended, a ratio n al a c t ; in practice, one should not
respond to the spontaneous prom ptings o f the h eart b u t act so th at, as a result
o f m a tu re reflection, the action is seen to be in accord w ith its purpose in the
given circum stances. W h at is su ited to its purpose, w hat is useful, is inscribed
in ou r feelings a n d d e t e ^ i n e s the m o ral ju d g m e n t; b u t th e rationality o f an
action is decided by th e test o f w hat, in th e p a rticu la r case, is suited to the
p u rp o se.” 26
Pannekoek sums up his account as follows: "K ant in d icated the m ajor
outlines o f ethics w hen he said that it serves as a general rule for im m ediately
determ in in g the m o ral ju d g m en t w ithout a w eighing o f the pros an d cons. He
was u nable, however, to discover its tru e origins; failing to take into account
the division o f m an k in d into classes, he saw only the antagonism betw een the
individual a n d the h u m a n race as a whole. K an t h a d to believe, therefore, in
the existence o f a n absolute ethic endow ed w ith universal validity; and, since
h e was therefore unable to assign it an earthly origin, h e was com pelled to see
it as som ething su p ern atu ral. M arxism h ad uncovered th e origins of
m orality —nam ely, class in te r e s ts - a n d has opened the way to the
in terp re ta tio n o f ethics as a n a tu ra l phenom enon. W hat essentially
constitutes ethics becomes perfectly clear, thanks to Dietzgen's profound
vision o f the n atu re o f th e h u m a n m ind.
“W e set off from the everyday experience that the will, a n d therefore the
conduct of m an , are d e t e ^ i n e d by two kinds o f fa c to rs: on the one hand, his
interests, his needs; on th e other, ethics. W hen we undertook this
investigation we did not as yet know w hat precisely the t e ^ ethics signified,
b u t now w e are able to give it exact definition. T h e opposition between
interest a n d ethic can now be seen as an opposition betw een tw o types o f
interests: tem porary, personal interest a n d p e ^ a n e n t , general interest,
which appears essentially as class interest. W e are now in a position to assert
th a t o u r will is d eterm ined by two kinds o f factors: our own im m ediate
interest, an d the interest o f o u r clara. In o u r day, new an d vigorous m oral
26. Ibid .. p. 22.

44 / PANNEKOEK AND THE WORKERS COUNCILS
m otivations, new virtues, are developing within the working class. T hese
m otivations a n d virtues f o ^ a considerable source o f power and are
necessary for the t r a n s f o r a t i o n o f the w orld, since w ithout this pow er there
can be no social upheaval o f any m a g iitu d e , n o p a r a g e to socialism. A n d if
we now enquire into the source o f this power, th e answer is sim p le: it is n o t a
power descending from th e skies; it is th e p roduct of effective earth ly
conditions, an d q u ite simply shows th a t each m em ber of the w orking c la « has
a poten tial w hich can en able him to rise above his own personal, lim ited
interests an d to lift his m in d from th e p a rtic u la r to th e general, to the level of
w hat is d em an d ed by his class a n d by society as a w hole.” 27.
In these lines at least one fact is clear: we are not dealing with a university
philosophy, a system o f precepts p rim arily in ten d ed as logical speculation (in
the final analysis obeying, like everything else, the c la ^ im peratives, a
situatio n in the age). In an o th er article on th e sam e subject,28 Pannekoek
replies to those (then num erous am ong th e inteilectual revisionists) who,
discovering in M arx the existence "of a n in d ig n atio n w hich erupts whenever
he describes disgraceful ex p lo itatio n ,” take this as evidence of an ethical
attitu d e . Now, P annekoek stresses, “th e m aterialist theory of M arx does not
rule o u t th e ethical, and therefore does n o t deny the power o f th e m oral
sentim ents. W hat it does deny is th a t these sentim ents originate in an ethic
w hich hovers above th e h u m a n race. It sees th e ethical itself as a p ro d u ct of
m aterial, social factors. T h e virtues which are now growing am ong the
w o rk e rs-so lid a rity an d discipline, th e spirit of sacrifice an d of devotedness to
th e class com m unity a n d to socialism —represent th e basic condition for the
abolition of exploitation; w ithout this new p ro le tarian m orality, th e active
fight for socialism w ould be inconceivable. But this m orality does n o t just
ap p e a r w ithout a p p a re n t cause in th e w orker; it is th e fru it o f capitalism , o f
exploitation, of th e co n centration o f capital, o f conflictual experience—in a
w ord, o f the whole of the m aterial living conditions o f the p ro le ta ria t.”
In fact, o u r author's ta rg e t is precisely "th e civil an d unctuous m orality o f
th e p reach er, the ideology o f th e self-contented bourgeois” who aspires only to
conciliation betw een th e classes w ithout th e need to censure th e excesses of
capitalism tbo severely. "T h e praxis o f th e workers' m ovem ent has n o th in g in
com m on w ith this ethical way of looking at th e world. W hen we denounce the
frightful crim es of capitalism against th e life an d th e health o f the workers,
and w hen we take a stan d against governm ental violence an d injustice, our
point o f view is quite d istinct from th a t o f th e redrew er o f wrongs w ho is
27. Ibid., pp. 23-24.

28. Anton Pannekoek, "Marxder Ethiker," Bremen BUrger-Zeitung, Oct. 16, 1910. (One of
the few Pannekoek texts whose title contains an explicit reference to Marx).
INTRODUCTION I 45
m orally in d ig n an t at such flag ran t w rongdoing. It is the cry of indignation of

the victims a n d th e oppressed themselves, the cry of h a tre d a n d of m enace
against the to rtu re r; it is the shout of the fighter calling on his com rades, still
drowsy an d crushed w ith anguish, to join w ith him , rem inding them of the
t o ^ e n t s they are enduring. A nd this cry of indignation, this rousing battle
cry, has as little to do w ith ethics as has th e anguished cry of a to rtu red anim al
or the exciting shouts of m en fighting for their freedom . It is n a tu re itself
w hich decides the m atter. A person who finds him self crushed and m astered
m ust defend himself, an d cannot do otherwise. T here is no question of any
m oral indignation whatsoever tow ard the oppressor; such a person acts quite
simply from the sheer n atu ral instinct of self-preservation. T h e sam e is true of
the w orkers’ m o v em en t: it does n o t com e forw ard like a valiant knight m oved
by ethical indignation, who seeks to free the hum an race from the im m orality
of capitalism ; ra th e r, it fights capitalism because it m ust, because for it there
is no o ther way of salvation, because othe^vise it will quite simply be
pulverized by the e n o ^ o u s w eight of capitalism .
“T h u s the splendid discourses about M arx th e ethicist are false for two
reasons. F ar from ethics being the basis of M arxism , it is the latter which
provides a m aterialist in terp retatio n of ethics. A nd the strong critical,
fighting passion em an atin g from the works of M arx has just as little to do with
ethics. It simply proves th at, in his scientific works a n d in his critique of
capitalism , he was merely the representative an d one of the vanguard fighters
of the p ro le ta ria t who acted as th e interpreter of their feelings an d who gave
them his works as a weapon in their fight for freedom .”
H ere we are poles a p a rt from speculative research an d exegesis. But this
app eal to evidence of a p rim ary kind, expressed in words as sim ple as they are
vigorous (perhaps a little crude for the academ ic), should not be allowed to
obscure the fact th at Pannekoek, th ro u g h o u t his life, took a learn ed interest
in philosophical questions. W e can only m ake passing reference to the very
first article he published a t the tim e w hen he f o ^ a l l y accepted D utch Social
D em ocracy: a d etailed critical analysis of K an tian philosophy which was
followed by a list of “the philosophical a ttain m en ts” of M arxism according to
Dietzgen an d concluded w ith a discussion of neo-K antian revisionism,
particu larly th at of B ernstein. 29 Instead, we shall exam ine a m ore concise
study of precisely the sam e subject, which serves as a preface to a n A m erican
29. Anton Pannekoek, “De Filosophie van Kant en het Marxisme,” De Nieuwe Tijd (1901),
pp. 549-564, 605-620, 669-688. (Pannekoek once said that the starting point of his political
evolution had been the critique of Kantian philosophy [cited by Van Albada in “In
Memoriam . . ."]; he also liked to remark, in conversation, that this evolution was in a sense a
natural extension of his scientific activities.)
46 / PANNEKOEK AND THEWORKERS' COUNCILS
anthology o f Dietzgen extracts. 30

Essentially, Pannekoek says th at the history of philosophy reconstitutes the
various successive f o ^ s in w hich th e ideas of th e do m in an t classes have been
clothed. Besides, in course of tim e, th e philosophic an d religious systems have
in teg rated the discoveries m ad e "by the h u m a n m in d both ab o u t itself a n d
ab o u t th e universe.” T his is som ew hat so in th e case of K ant, who holds th a t
“God an d Liberty are concepts whose tru th is non-dem onstrable, unlike the
n a tu ra l tru th s draw n from experience.” T his a ttitu d e was in perfect accord
with th e contem porary condition o f scientific a n d econom ic developm ent. At
the- tim e, science was d e p e n d e n t on the inductive m ethod with a strictly
m aterialistic b asis: experim ent an d observation. But religious faith persisted
n o n e th e le ^ , an d igno ran ce concerning th e origins of life a n d o f m an m ade it
possible to uphold th e ideal o f a system of su p ern atu ral ethics.
“K an tian ethics m irrors th e inn er antagonism s o f bourgeois society: the
antagonism created by th e fact that th e c h a ra c ter o f production is individual
on th e one h a n d a n d social on th e other, which engenders om nipotent b u t
incom prehensible social forces which ru le the destiny of m a n k in d .” T his
antagonism lies at the root o f th e contradictions an d the pronounced dualism
o f K antian philosophy.
F u r t h e ^ o r e , these in tern al contradictions were to b rin g ab o u t the
b a n k ru p tcy o f th e e n tire system a t th e very m o m ent w hen th e contradictions
within the bourgeoisie were becom ing obvious. However, to deal them a
decisive blow it was necessary to grasp th e m a te ria l origins of m orality, its
relative an d non-absolute ch aracter. “M arx's discovery of class struggle and
capitalist p roduction dislodged faith from its u ltim ate sanctuary.”
C ontem porary with th e restoration o f m o narchic pow er in G e ^ a n y , the
philosophy of Hegel was triu m p h in g over th e "bourgeois dualism ” o f K ant.
Pannekoek recounts th e essential features o f th e H egelian system, in which
“the revolutionary dialectic, the theory o f evolution, regarding all com pleted
things as provisional, leads to a conservative conclusion by ending all new
developm ent as soon as absolute tru th is attain ed . All f o ^ s o f know ledge of
the tim e were a lig n e d a place at one o f th e stages of developm ent. Many
scientific concepts later discovered to be erroneous were presented w ithin this
fram ew ork as neceâry tru th s resting on dedu ctio n ra th e r th a n experience.”
W hence th e im pression, very w idespread a t th e tim e, th a t Hegel regarded
em pirical research as uselew an d its influence on the n a tu ra l sciences as
insignificant. B ut it was q u ite otherwise as regards the “abstract sciences.”
T h e H egelian conception o f history as a pro g reîve evolution “in which the
30. J. Dietzgen, The Positive Outcome of Philosophy (Chicago, 1906), pp. 7-37.
INTRODUCTION I 47
previous state appears as a necessary an d p rep arato ry stage to the subsequent

states, a n d therefore as n atu ral a n d ratio n al. represented a great advance for
science.” F u rth erm o re, it uncovered th e constant interactions a n d the
contradictory relations existing betw een individuals a n d social units (the
fam ily, civil society, th e state), m o ral precepts, expressions of the general
will, “represented in th e n atu ral laws of civil society a n d in th e au th o ritarian
laws of th e sta te .’’ In its m onarchic form , th e la tte r appears as th e ultim ate
consum m ation of social evolution.
T h e theory of the restoration, therefore, was b o u n d to m ake a radical
criticism o f the revolutionary bourgeois philosophy w ithout, however,
rejecting it root an d b ra n c h : like the latter, it preserved a faith in the
su p e rn a tu ra l tinged with scepticism. However, th e H egelian system could not
survive th e test to which it was subjected as soon as “capitalism , reaching
m atu rity , began to revolt against th e shackles which th e reaction was trying
to place u p o n i t .” Feuerbach set out to b rin g religion down “from the
transcen d en tal heights of abstractio n to th e physical m a n .” Marx th en
showed th a t the u ltim ate reality of bourgeois society is class antagonism , and
discovered th a t real historical developm ent rests on th a t of m aterial
p ro du ctio n . Neverthelew, “H egel’s philosophy is of very great im portance
even in ou r age, since it constitutes an excellent theory of the h u m a n m ind as
long as we strip off its tran scen d en tal c h a ra c te r.” T his was th e im p o rt of “the
dialectical an d m aterialist theory of know ledge” conceived by Dietzgen.
It is th e m erit of Dietzgen, writes Pannekoek, “to have raised philosophy to
th e position of a n a tu ra l science, as M arx d id with history. T h e h u m a n faculty
of th o u g h t is thereby stripped of its fantastic garb. It is reg ard ed as a p a rt of
n a tu re , a n d by m eans of experience a progreîve understanding of its
concrete a n d ever-changing historical natu re can be gain ed .” T h e re is no
longer any question, therefore, o f a philosophic system preten d in g “to give
absolute tr u th ,” since, as D ietzgen em phasizes, one deals at best with “p artia l
tru th s ” which, however, deserve preservation insofar as they are valid. This
new conception is fundam entally m aterialist, but n o t in th e sense o f the old
bourgeois m aterialism : “m a tte r to it m eans everything which exists an d
furnishes m aterial for th o u g h t, including thoughts a n d im aginings.” From
this view point, th e h u m an m in d appears as a com ponent of th e universe, with
“an equal place am ong th e other parts of th e universe,” a n d “its content is
only the effect of th e other p a rts.” T hus Dietzgen establishes a p e ^ a n e n t ,
direct relatio n of th e m in d to th e world, a n d highlights th e way th e m in d
reacts to th e world in f o x i n g ideas. T h e cerebral activity of m a n comprises a
constant system atization, one of whose expressions is science. Of course, as a
result of th e m ode of p ro d u ctio n this system atization can take the f o ^ of
48 / PANNEKOEKAND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
transcendental beliefs, for instance, “th e bourgeois idols: Freedom , R ight,

Spirit, Force, which Dietzgen shows to be only fantastic im ages o f abstract
conceptions w ith a lim ited validity.” 31
T h e present-day read er m ay not be fam iliar w ith the work o f Dietzgen,
w hich was published m ore th a n a century ago. B ut in a perio d such as
o u r s - a period which, in m any respects, is living on its capital of general ideas
without being able to ex pand th a t c a p i ta l - t h e reader may well accept these
reflections on Dietzgen by Pannekoek, since, alth o ugh their source is old, they
are still valid as a categorical refutation o f every species o f d o ^ n a tism : “T h e
m ind is th e faculty of generalization. O ut of concrete realities, a continuous
and u n b o u n d ed stream in p erp etu al m otion, it forms abstract conceptions
th a t are e«entially rigid, bounded, stable, a n d u nchangeable. T his gives rise
to th e contradiction th a t our conceptions m ust always a d a p t themselves to
new realities w ithout ever fully succeeding; th a t they represent the living by
w hat is dead, th e absolute by w hat is incom plete; an d th a t they are
themselves finite in p a rta k in g of the n a tu re of the infinite. T his contradiction
is understood an d reconciled by insight into th e n atu re of the faculty of
u nderstanding, which is sim ultaneously a faculty of com bination and of
distinction, which fo^ns a lim ited p art of the universe and yet encompasses
everything; it is solved, m oreover, w hen the n a tu re o f the world becomes
intelligible. T h e w orld is a congregation of infinitely num erous phenom ena
an d com prehends w ithin itself all contradictions, so th a t they becom e relative
and balance each other. W ith in it there are no absolute opposites: it is the
m ind which constructs th em , because it has n o t only the faculty of
generalization b u t also th a t of distinction. T h e practical solution of all
contradictions is th e revolutionary practice of an infinitely progressing science
which m olds old conceptions in to new ones, rejects some, substitutes others in
th eir place, im proves, connects an d dissects, striving for an always greater
unity an d an always w ider differen tiatio n .”
“If a worker wants to take p a rt in the self-em ancipation o f his class,”
Dietzgen once rem arked, “th e basic req u irem en t is th a t he should cease
allowing others to teach h im and should set ab o u t teaching him self.” If
Pannekoek did not specifically adopt this f o ^ u l a , he clearly acted on it, as on
the rest of the tenets of p ro letarian m aterialism . Everything in his political
writings, an d th erefore in his m ilitant action, tends to provide instrum ents for
31. Ibid., pp. 28-32. In Lenin as Philosopher, Pannekoek reports with approval this
aphorism of Gorter: “Marx has clarified what the social matter makes of the mind; Dietzgen,
what the mind itself does.” H. Gorter, Het historisch materialisme (Amsterdam, 1920) first edition,
1907), p. 98, n. 1.
INTRODUCTION I 49
thought an d for action. W as he n o t convinced, w ith Karl M arx, th at "theory

changes in to m ateria! force as soon as it penetrates the masses?" H e was, of
course, aware th a t this p en etratio n is linked with g re at historical conflicts, with
a n e n o ^ o u s upsurge of forces w hich itself is th e fru it o f a whole com plex of
circum stances; b u t he was equally aw are that consciousness is an elem ent of
these forces. He said s o - o n one occasion am o n g m any, since every
th eo retician inevitably repeats h im s e lf - in one of his m ost rem arkable
studies: “H istorical M aterialism .” 32
H ere especially one finds the idea, developed by Dietzgen, th a t spiritual
factors such as “love of freedom , patriotism , co ^ ^ rv a tism , the feeling of
frustratio n , th e spirit o f submission, th e revolutionary will,” act equally with
m aterial factors as d e t e ^ i n a n ts o f h u m a n action. B ut this in no way implies
the prim acy o f th e one over th e o th e r since, in fact, they are inseparable.
Thus, "th e d o m ain o f technique includes not only m achines, factories, mines,
railways, an d o th er m aterial things, b u t also th e capacity to create them and
the science fro m w hich they i^ u e . T h e n a tu ra l sciences, w hat is kno-wn about
n a tu ra l forces, the capacity to im plem ent th em by work, m ust therefore be
equally reg ard ed as productive forces. H ence it is th a t technique includes not
only a m a te ria l elem ent b u t also a pow erful sp iritual elem ent. From the
view point of historical m aterialism this is self-evident since, in contrast to th e
fan ta stic abstractions o f bourgeois philosophers, it places the living m a n an d
his corpus o f physical needs a t th e cen ter o f evolution. T h e m aterial elem ent
an d th e spiritual elem ent in m a n constitute a unity so firm ly established th a t
they can n o t be separated. T hus, w h en we ta lk ab o u t h u m a n needs, we are not
referring m erely to the stom ach's needs b u t equally to the needs o f head and
h eart, b o th types o f need being by th e ir n atu re a t once m aterial an d spiritual.
H u m an work, even at its simplest, inevitably exhibits these two aspects, and
any a tte m p t to separate th em involves a n artificial abstraction.
“N o d o u b t this abstraction has a n historical m eaning. By the very fact th a t
it has entailed division of lab o r an d separation in to classes, historical
evolution h as p artly tr a n s f o ^ e d the spiritu al elem ent linked with the labor
process in to a distinct fu n ctio n p ecu liar to certain people, to certain classes,
an d has thus induced a shrinkage of ‘h u m a n quality’ a t both levels. Hence,
these specialists, th e intellectuals, are com ing to reg a rd th e ir work, the
spiritual, as a h igher fo rm ; they are thereby becom ing blind to the organic,
social unity o f these two elem ents. T h a t is why th eir idea o f historical
m aterialism can n o t fail to be w rong in every p a rtic u la r.”
32. Anton Pannekoek, “Het historisch materialisme,” De Nieuwe Tijd (1919). There is a
French translation of this in Cahiers du communisme de consetls, I (1968).
50 I P ^ A N E K O E K T H E WORKERS' COUNCILS
It does n o t follow from this th at ideas d eterm in e historical events; their

influence, says Pannekoek, is beyond question, but can n o t of itself account
for such events. In an article published in 193 7 33 he offers th e following
solutio n : “T h e thoughts and aim s of a n active m an are considered by him as
the cause of his deeds; h e does not ask where these thoughts come from . T his
is especially tru e because thoughts, ideas, a n d aim s are n o t as a ru le derived
from impressions by conscious reasoning, b u t a re the p ro d u ct of subconscious
spontaneous processes in o u r m inds. For the m em bers of a social class, life’s
daily experiences condition, an d th e needs of th e class m old, the m in d in to a
definite line of feeling an d thinking, to p roduce definite ideas about what is
useful a n d what is good or b a d . T h e conditions of a class are life nece«ities to
its m em bers, an d they consider w hat is good o r b ad for them to be good or
b a d in general. W hen conditions are ripe, m en go into action an d shape
society according to th e ir ideas. T h e rising F rench bourgeoisie in the
eighteenth century, feeling th e necessity of laissez-faire laws, of personal
freedom for th e citizens, proclaim ed freedom as a slogan, an d in th e French
Revolution co nquered pow er a n d transfo:rm ed society.”
O f course, this class saw in freedom only w hat suited its own interests. It
was an abstract form ula whose real m eaning rem ained hidden. “T h e
m aterialistic conception of history explains these ideas as caused by th e social
needs arising from th e conditions of th e existing systOT. of p ro d u ctio n .”
However, to in terp ret th e F rench Revolution “in term s of a rising capitalism
w hich req u ired a m o d ern state with legislation a d a p te d to its needs does not
contrad ict the conception th a t th e Revolution was b ro u g h t about by the
desire of th e citizens for freedom from restrain t . . . . M an is a link in the chain
of cause an d e ffect; necessity in social developm ent is a necessity achieved by
m eans of h u m a n action. T h e m aterial world acts upon m an, dete:rmines his
consciousne^, his ideas, his will, his actions; an d so he reacts upon the world
and changes it.” 34 T h is is poles a p a rt from th e “m echanical m aterialism ”
w hich “ assumes th a t our thoughts a re dete:rmined by th e m otion o f atom s in
th e cells of our brain s. M arxism considers our thoughts to be determ ined by
our social experience observed th ro u g h th e senses or felt as direct bodily
needs. ” 35 Nor is th ere any absolute necessity acting on m a n “as a fatality to
which m a n has to su b m it,” but in stead a constant interaction betw een m an
an d the w orld through “historical activity.” 36
33. Anton Pannekoek. "Society and Mind in Marxian Philosophy," Science and Society, l :4
(1937).
34. Ibid., pp. 448-449.
35. Ibid., p. 445.
36. Ibid., pp. 449-50.
INTRODUCTION I 51
T h e bourgeois ideologists o f th e early p a rt of the century a ttrib u te d (indeed

in a m ore prim itive way th a n do their present succewors) a u n ilateral
determ ining role not to ideas alone b u t also to personalities. In this
connection Pannekoek was to a ttack the ideas of philosophers such as Dilthey
and W in d elb an d as well as those o f neo-K antians a la M ax A dler. 37 W e are
interested in this article only insofar as it contains the form ulation of an
essential concept —th e p o p u la r masses, a concept which thoroughly
scandalized th e platitu d in o u s orthodox M arxists. 38 H ere, as elsewhere in his
writings, Pannekoek does n o t stra in after originality since, in h is thinking,
what is new is so intim ately linked w ith classical elem ents—a t least with their
enduringly valid aspects—an d is expressed in so straightforw ard a way, th a t it
does n o t always em erge at th e outset, a n d som etim es appears only in the
conclusions.
“ . . .H istory is not the history of persons, but that of ma&es. W hereas w ith
the individual personal qualities always play a considerable role, these
qualities lose their prom inence am ong masses, w here exceptional traits m erge
into a n average. W e are dealing, therefore, w ith som ething general,
som ething which can be th e object of a n interpretive science. Incidentally,
here the reason comes to light why all bourgeois efforts to create a science of
society are necewarily doom ed.
“If one considers the mass in general, th e m a s as a unit, the people as a
whole, one sees that th e rem oval of m utually opposed ideas an d wills does not
by any m eans result in an indecisive, fickle, passive m ass, constantly divided
betw een apathy a n d frenetic activity, volatile, oscillating betw een irre-
prew ible b ru ta l im pulse an d th e m ost dism al indifference—in accordance
with th e p ictu re w hich liberal publicists see fit to present. In fact, this p ictu re
could not be otherwise as long as bourgeois w riters con tin u e to re g a rd the
people simply as a characterless m a s , since such w riters are convinced th at,
given th e endless diversity of individuals, abstraction of th e individual can
lead only to th e abstraction of everything which m akes m an a n active being
endow ed w ith a will. T hey see no in term ed iate category betw een the smallest
unit, th e person, a n d th e totality in which differences are obliterated, the
inert mass. T hey are unaw are o f th e existence o f classes. In contrast, the
stren g th of th e socialist theory o f history lies in the fact th a t it introduces
order a n d system in to the endless diversity of individuals, by m eans of the
division of society in to clases. W hatever its kind, a claw brings together
37. Anton Pannekoek, “Teleologie und Marxismus,” Di'ee Neue Zeit, XXII, 2, J905, pp.
428-35, 468-73.
38. Pannekoek took up the parage cited below during his famous controversy with Karl
Kautsky in 1912.
52 I P/ÂN K O EK AN D THE W ORKERS COUNCILS
individuals whose interests, aims, an d feelings are to all intents and purposes
identical an d opposed to those o f oth er classes. T h e chaotic representation to
which we have just alluded disappears as soon as one distinguishes, w ithin the
mass m ovements, the classes which com pose them . There im m ediately
em erges a clear an d distinct cla» struggle, whose aspects vary in th e highest
degree: offense, retreat, defense, victory, a n d defeat. In this reg a rd it is
enough to com pare M arx’s account of th e 1848 revolution w ith those of
bourgeois writers. W ith in society, the c la » constitutes a totality endow ed w ith
a particu lar co n tent; suppress this p articu lar co n ten t in order to secure an
undifferen tiated ‘total m a n ,' an d even th e slightest positive elem ent no longer
exists.”
Pannekoek then stresses th a t “th e spiritual behavior o f classes stem s from
their m aterial situation” in production, a n d th a t one can und erstan d th a t
behav io r only “by visualizing oneself in the sam e situ atio n .” T h ere is no
attem p t h e re to deny th e role o f personality b u t simply to place it, in each
case, in its socio-historical fram ew ork. Besides, “every m a n lives only as a p a rt
o f the m ass; ” 39 and, in this sense, he evolves w ith th e w orld. B ut w hat exactly
does this m ean? O u r a u th o r is repeatedly led to clarify "the process by w hich
h u m a n consciousne^ ad ap ts itself to society, to the real w orld.” O ne o f his
fullest treatm ents of this question is found in the conclusion o f his 1937
article: "W hen the w orld does not change very m uch, w hen th e sam e
phenom ena an d the same experiences are constantly reproduced, the habits
o f actin g a n d thinking becom e fixed w ith g re a t rigidity. N ew im pressions on
th e m in d fit in to th e im age f o ^ e d by previous experience a n d intensify it.
These h ab its a n d concepts a re n o t personal b u t collective: they survive the
individual. Intensified by th e m u tu al in tercourse am ong m em bers of a
com m unity who are all living in the sam e w orld, they are transferred to the
next generation as a system of ideas an d beliefs, an ideology—the m ental
ap p a ra tu s of th e com m unity. W here for m an y centuries th e system o f
production does not change perceptibly, as for exam ple in old agricultural
societies, the relations betw een m en, their h ab its o f life an d th e ir experience
o f the w orld rem ain practically th e same. In such a static situation ideas,
concepts, a n d h ab its of thinking will petrify m ore an d m ore into a dogm atic
self-enclosed ideological body of e te rn a l truths.
"W hen, however, as a consequence of the developm ent of the productive
forces th e world begins to change, new a n d different impressions enter the
m ind which can n o t be a d a p te d to th e old representations. Thus begins a
process o f reconstruction, p artly on the basis o f old ideas an d partly on new
39 Anton Pannekoek, "Teleologie und Marxismus,” pp. 432-433.

INTRODUCTION I 53
experiences. O ld concepts are replaced by new ones, f o ^ e r rules a n d

judgm en ts a re stood o n their heads, new ideas em erge. N o t every m em b er o f a
class or group is affected in th e sam e way or at the same tim e. Ideological
strife arises in close connection w ith class struggles 40 an d is eagerly pursued,
because all the different individual lives are linked in diverse ways with the
p ro b le m of how to p a tte rn society a n d its system of production. U nder
m odem capitalism , econom ic a n d political changes take place so rapidly th at
th e h u m a n m in d ca n h ard ly keep pace w ith them . In fierce in tern al struggles
ideas are revolutionized, som etim es rapidly by spectacular events, sometimes
slowly by continuous w arfare against th e old ideology. In such a process of
unceasing tr a n s f o r a t io n , h u m a n consciousness ad ap ts itself to society, to the
real w orld.
“H ence, M arx’s thesis th a t th e world d e t e ^ i n e s consciousness does n o t
m ean th a t ideas are d eterm ined solely by th e society in w hich th ey arise. O ur
ideas a n d concepts a re the crystallization, th e eMence, of th e w hole of o u r
present a n d past experience. W h at was fixed in th e past in abstract m ental
fo:rms m ust henceforth b e included w ith such ad ap tatio n s to the present as are
necessary. New ideas thus ap p e a r to arise from two sources: present reality,
a n d th e system o f ideas inherited from th e p ast. O u t of th is distinction arises
one o f th e m ost com m on objections against M arxism : th a t n o t only the real
m aterial w orld b u t also to a lesser extent ideological e le m e n ts -id e a s , beliefs
a n d id eals—d eterm ine m an's m ind, a n d thus his deeds a n d the fu tu re of the
w orld. T h is w ould be a correct criticism if ideas originated by themselves
w ithout cause, or from th e innate n a tu re of m an , o r from some su pernatural
spiritual source. M arxism , however, says th a t these ideas m ust o rig in ate in the
real w orld a n d a re related to social conditions.
“As forces in m o d em social developm ent, these trad itio n al ideas ham per
the spread of new ideas th a t express new necessities. In taking these traditions
in to account we need not ab a n d o n M arxism : q u ite th e contrary. For every
trad itio n is a f r a ^ n e n t of reality, ju st as every idea is a n integral p a rt of the
real w orld living in h u m a n th o u g h t. It is often a very pow erful reality in
determ ining h u m an actions. I t is an ideological reality th a t has lost its
m aterial roots w ith the disappearance of the conditions w hich produced
them . T h a t these traditions could persist after th eir m ate ria l roots have
40. These lines no doubt refer especially to the religious f o ^ . In this connection, we note
that Pannekoek traced the “irreligion” of the contemporary proletariat to “the state of mind
engendered by intellectual participation in the present struggle for emancipation,” and saw it as
“a fruit of the knowledge acquired both by theoretical foâtion and by experience." Without
abandoning a materialist propaganda clarifying the origins of religion, he stresed-as did the
cla&ic Social Democrats-that "in our party, religion remains a private matter” (Re^ligion und
[Bremen, 1906].
54 / P jÂ N K O EK A N D THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
disappeared is not simply a consequence of th e n a tu re of the h u m an m ind,

w hich is cap ab le of preserving the im pression of th e p a st in m em ory or
subconsciously. M uch m o re im p o rta n t is w hat m ay be t e ^ e d th e social
m em ory, th e p erp etu atio n o f collective ideas system atized in th e f o ^ of
prevailing beliefs an d ideas, a n d tran sm itted to fu tu re generations th ro u g h
oral com m unications, books, literatu re, a rt a n d instruction. T h e su r
ro u n d in g w orld which d e t e ^ i n e s th o u g h t consists not only of th e contem
porary econom ic world, b u t also of all th e ideological influences arising
from continuous h u m an intercourse. H ence com es the power of tradition,
w hich in a rapidly developing society causes th e developm ent of ideas to lag
behin d th e developm ent o f society. In th e end, trad itio n m ust yield to the
power of incessant b a tte rin g by new realities. Its effect u p o n social
developm ent is th a t, in stead of p e ^ i t t i n g a regu lar, grad u al adjustm ent of
ideas a n d institutions in line w ith ch an g in g necewities, these necessities, w hen
they com e too strongly in contradiction w ith th e old institutions, lead to
explosions, revolutionary tr a n s f o ^ a tio n s , by w hich lagging m inds are draw n
along a n d are themselves revolutionized. ”41
T h e activist critical in ten t of this set o f ideas will becom e clear in the
following pages. In one form or another, it constitutes a n essential key to
understanding not only o u r au th o r, but also th e M arxist revolutionary
c u rre n t in th e tw entieth cen tu ry w hich Pannekoek ap p ro p riately called "W est
E uropean com m unism .” For, needless to say, th e p receding relates to th e very
personality of A nton Pannekoek, whose ideas are inseparable from those of
his com rades in arm s, w h eth er em inent theoreticians or rank-and-file
m ilitants.
T h a t is why we shall not a tte m p t to retrace ideational connections from
individual to individual, b u t shall concern ourselves instead with agreem ents
a n d divergences linked w ith th e difficult ascent or decline, w ithin a given
phase, of new f o ^ s of organization and of theoretical aw arene^, as
exercizing d ire c t influence on th e developm ent of pro letarian struggles.
(However, space lim itations necew itate a very sketchy, incom plete treatm en t.
T his is of little consequence in th e case of L enin a n d the Russian Bolsheviks,
since th ere th e read er has ready access to m any and varied sources of
inform atio n . Of g reater consequence are m atters concerning the G e ^ a n
Leftists an d others, especially R osa L uxem burg a n d the Spartacus L eague;
however, we have nonetheless decided to give a m inim um of i n f o ^ a t i o n
about these tendencies w hich, at least for th e m o m ent, are entirely forgotten.)
T h is lim itation will n o t prevent us from seeing Pannekoek as a n exem plary
41. Anton Pannekoek, "Society and Mind .. pp. 452-5S.

INTRODUCTION I 55
figure, and his life as a systematized epitom e o f the theoretical attainm ents of
th e em ancip ato ry m ovem ent. H e was one of th e few M arxist thinkers of his
day to follow his conclusions to th e ir u ltim ate consequences, an d to rem ain
consistently faith fu l to them . A ccording to political proclivities, one m ay view
this atta c h m e n t to principles which did not necewarily fit th e dem ands of
im m ediate situations eith er as a n in curable u to p ian w him (we shall re tu rn to
this) o r as a display of personal integrity. However, in the second case, it m ust
be rem em b ered th a t Pannekoek, d u rin g th e relatively short tim e he was a
"professional revolutionary,” h ad th e advantage of a very special position;
an d th a t, generally speaking, his m aterial situation enabled him to escape by
th e d irect an d indirect day-to-day restraints of party life. However, the
g u aran tee of intellectual independence is one th ing; the use m ade of it is
som ething else - a n d a t this level personality certainly intervenes. In this
connection, to quote V an A lb ad a: “Pannekoek was a m a n endow ed w ith
extrao rd in ary capacities; b u t first a n d forem ost, he was a p u re a n d upright,
courageous an d devoted p erson.” T o these virtues, we shall add freshness of
m ind a n d revolutionary e n t h u s i a ^ .
CH A PTER ONE
GERM A N SO CIA L DEM OCRACY
W h en the w orkers’ m ovem ent m ad e its app earance in the old countries of
E urope in the n in eteen th century before it spread w ith capitalism to most of
the w orld, it took two basic f o ^ s : th e trade union f o ^ an d the p arty f o ^ ,
Both had the same p u rp o se : to prom ote the specific interests of the workers.
T he first sought to secure the sale of labor power at its value within the
fram ew ork of capitalist dom ination and the capitalist m arket. However, in
the W estern E urope of the second half of the n in eteenth c e n tu r y - th a t is, in
the course of a more 01 le ^ com pleted bourgeois revolution—the workers an d
others am ong the m ost underprivileged sections o f the p o pulation could not
hope to m ake th eir interests prevail in a lasting way, or to secure for these
interests the authority of law, except th ro u g h political action whose
instrum ent was the party foirm. T his party form. was born and developed,
assum ing very distinctive characteristics in consequence of the course of this
bourgeois revolution d uring its phase o f peaceful grow th as a parliam entary
system. (T h e same is tru e of the tra d e unio n form to a m uch m ore lim ited
extent since it showed analogous traits, in general, in all the developed regions
of Europe d u rin g the opening years of the present century.)
I n Geirmany, therefore, the developm ent of the party f o ^ was subject to
the p a rtic u la r conditions of the bourgeois revolution and the spread of
capitalism in th a t country. T h e bourgeois revolution—in the classic French
m ean in g of the term J—h a d been effectively crushed in G erm any in 1848; it
co n tin u ed , no doubt, b u t u n d e r th e aegis of a sem i-absolutist state power in
the h an d s of the aristocracy (especially in Prussia). Politically vanquished, th e
bourgeois liberal elem ent was integrally absorbed by an expansion of the
econom y, whose acceleration, at first irregular, becam e constant a fte r the
F r a n c o - G e ^ a n W ar of 1871. T h e oppositional elem ent, doom ed to
powerlessness at the political level by the relations of forces, took shape in the
workers’ party. B ut h ere let us yield to P annekoek h im s e lf - th e Pannekoek of
1. Free political growth of the middle class; administrative centralization secured at the
expense of feudal privileges and those of the old state bureaucracy; development of military
power; state intervention to facilitate the setting up of new industries; unfettered growth of
banking, industry and commerce; etc.
1942, of W orld W ar II: “Left alone in th eir struggle against th e oppressive

police state, they were not a tta c h e d to th e m id d le class by the trad itio n o f a
com m on fight for political freedom . W hereas in o th e r countries the h a rd
industrial bow co m m an d ed resp ect by seizing pow er over th e state a n d
m odernizing it, in G e ^ a n y th e ^ ^ f f m aster m the snop proved the
submissive cow ard in politics, giving exam ples in servility only. T h e G e ^ a n
w orkers stood directly over again st th e allied classes o f la n d owners and
capitalists; they h a d to fight on th e political at th e sam e as on th e econom ic
field. C oncentrated by th e ra p id developm ent o f industry in large num bers in
the factories a n d th e towns, they h a d to b u ild th eir organizations an d fin d
th eir o'wn way, in d ep en d en t o f m iddle class influences and traditions.
“T h e ra p id rise o f social dem ocracy d em o n strated this political
independence. Its n ^ n e expresses th e basic idea th a t socialist production
m ust be won by m eans o f dem ocracy, by th e masses conquering pow er over
the state. Its p ro p ag an d a o f class struggle aroused th e increasing num bers o f
workers to devoted fight, its p ap ers a n d pam phlets educated th em to
know ledge of society an d its developm ent. I t was the energy a n d rapidity of
capitalist developm ent th a t aroused th e energy of th e G e ^ a n w orking class
a n d soon m ade them th e forem ost and directing power in the in tern atio n al
w orkers' m ovem ent. It was th e submissive politics o f th e G e ^ a n capitalist
cla&, in placing th e m directly over against th e en tire ru lin g class, th a t
re n d e re d th e m class-conscious, th a t forced th e m by theory to d eep en th e ir
insight in social forces, an d th a t m ad e th e m th e teach ers of the workers o f all
countries. Just as in F rance th e sharp opposition betw een m id d le class and
nobility h a d given origin to an extensive lite ra tu re on political theory, so in
G e ^ a n y th e sharp opposition betw een w orking claM an d bourgeoisie gave
origin to an extensive lite ra tu re on social theory, m ostly based on th e scientific
w ork o f M arx. T h is in tellectual superiority, together w ith the g allan t fight
against oppression and despotism , alone against th e m ighty rulers, attra cted
all progressive an d idealistic elem ents am ong th e o th e r classes, a n d collected
aro u n d them all who longed for liberty an d h a te d th e degrading Prussian
m ilitarism . In G e ^ a n y a deep gap, social as well as spiritual, separated two
worlds, one of insolent pow er a n d w ealth. w h ere servility glorified oppression
and violence, th e o th er o f idealism a n d rebelliousness, em bodied in the
w orkers' claw struggle for lib eratio n o f hum anity.
“T h e infiltration w ith idealistic m id d le class a n d intellectual elem ents
ten d ed to call u p ideas of peaceful petty cap italist r e f o ^ and dem ocracy,
though they w ere entirely a t variance w ith th e actu al big capitalist conditions.
L *her influences w ent in th e sam e direction. T h e increased power o f the
wo. lc.ers-politically. by finally, in 1912, m ustering one-third of all the vote,
GERMAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY I 59
econom ically by th e rap id grow th o f th e tra d e unions to giant o rg an i

zations—aw akened the desire fo r direct progress in social r e f o ^ . T hough
tra d itio n a l p ro g ram a n d theory spoke o f revolution as the goal of all activ
ity, th e real outcom e was to ascertain to th e workers th e ir place in capitalîsm
acknow ledged not officially, b u t actually, a n d only a t th e cost of continual
fight. So reform ist tendencies got an increasing h o ld on the workers. A t the
deepest root o f r e f o ^ i s t m ood lay, of course, th e economic prosperity th at in
the tw enty years before th e first world w ar enorm ously swelled G e ^ a n
capitalism . All this m e a n t a strong influence o f capitalist an d m iddle class ideas
upon th e workers.
“T h e spiritual pow er of the G erm an bourgeoisie over th e working m ass was
not due to its political, b u t to its economic achievem ents. Leaving politics and
governm ent to others, concen tratin g all its atten tio n on industry an d
com m erce, the capitalist class h ere unfolded such capacities an d energy as to
push G en n an econom y in an unrivalled tem po to th e fo refro n t o f w orld
developm ent. T h is vigor com m anded respect in th e workers a n d carried them
along in th e feeling of p a rtic ip a tin g in a m ighty w orld process. T hey felt the
e n o ^ o u s an d enormously increasing pow er a n d b ru n t of capital, against
w hich th e ir organizations a p p eared insufficient a n d against w hich even their
o'wn ideals seem ed to fade. So, in th e ir subconsciousness, they were to a
certain extent d ragged o n in th e m iddle class stream of nationalism , in the
desire for n atio n al greatness a n d w orld pow er th a t b u rst out in th e first world
w a r.” 2
T h is provides th e best in tro d u ctio n to Pannekoek’s Die taktischen
D ifferenzen in der A rbeiterbew egung (tra n sla te d in the next ch ap ter), a work
he published m ore th a n th irty years earlier (1909). I t was b o m in the heat of
controversy, in a blossoming o f ideas whose richness th e workers' m ovem ent in
general was not to re a c h again.
T h e controversy, o f course, was n o t centered in the re alm of pure ideas. It
im m ediately involved th e o rien tatio n an d even the very n a tu re of socialist
activity. U p to th e en d of th e last century, a practical m ovem ent and a
theoretical m ovem ent h a d coexisted w ithin Social D em ocracy—n o t w ithout
clashes an d even violent crises which, however, were nonetheless kept in
bounds. W hile at local an d som etim es even regional levels politicians and
adm inistrators waged savage w ar to w in seats o n m unicipal councils and other
elective bodies, th e theoreticians w ere slowly absorbing the substance o f the
writings of M arx a n d Engels.
T h e p a rty w as living o n th e E rfu rt pro g ram (1891), w hich associated w ith
the fin a l purpose, “th e abolition of th e classes,” a whole body of dem ands
2 Workers’ Councils (Melbourne, 1948), pp. 125-26.
aim ed at prom oting im m ediate, day-to-day p o litical action, the K leinarbeit.

T h e p ractical m ovem ent was interested alm ost exclusively in this second p a rt
of the p ro g ram ; it p a id its d u e respects to th e first part only d u rin g electoral
cam paigns in w orking class districts. T h e aristocrats a n d the bourgeoisie, for
th eir p a rt, w ere aw are only o f the first p a rt a n d were extrem ely a l a ^ e d by i t .
T h e m ore inform ed elem ents am ong them , however, only m ade a pretense of
being afraid . Bismarck h ad taught them th a t this very real fear en ab led the
state to keep a tight rein o n th e lib eral bourgeoisie (an d the princelings) a n d
to adm inister c e rta in b ran ch es o f p ro d u ctio n in th e ir place.
T h e B ism arckian bran d o f state reform ism was to last only for a short tim e.
As it concerns this discussion, it h a d two fu n d am en tal consequences: firstly, it
established th e bases o f a n econom ic expansion w hich ended by arousing at
least the political am bitions o f certain sectors of th e bourgeoisie; secondly,
over a p eriod of some dozen years, it legislated to prevent Social D em ocracy
from expressing itself as a "revolutionary p a rty ” w hile a t the sam e tim e
open in g u p the possibility th a t it could act as the sole legal opposition to the
absolutist im perial regim e, an d thereby snatch electoral victory u p o n victory
a n d im plant itself deeply in the day-to-day life of the nation.
U ltim ately, this developm ent could not fail to have repercussions at the
theoretical level. B e rn s te in -w h o m Engels h a d in a sense designated as his
h eir b y m aking him a n d K autsky his e x e c u to rs -to o k p a rtic u lar care to invite
the p a rty to b rin g its theory into line w ith its practice, 3 an d to advocate
henceforth the ad ap tatio n o f English-type bourgeois liberalism to G e ^ a n
conditions in th e guise of an “organizing liberalism .” T h a t is why he u rg e d the
rejection o f th e “dictatorship o f the p ro le ta ria t” an d o ther “decidedly
o utm o d ed ” concepts associated w ith th e idea of violent revolution: 4 in short,
the en d in g of a priori opposition (in connection w ith the budget vote, for
exam ple), a p erm an en t subject o f discord.
B ernstein, as he him self adm its, s did not expect his ideas to create a
“sensation.” In his view, "M arxist theory” h a d a twofold ch aracter: on the one
h an d it was “B lanquist," because o f its insistence on the idea of an
e x p ro p ria tio n o f th e bourgeoisie resulting fro m “revolutionary b ra w ls;” on
the o th er, it h ad a “pacifically evolutionist" c h a ra c ter and extolled “universal
suffrage a n d p arliam en tary action as m eans o f w orkers’ em an cip a tio n .” W ith
3. "In my view, the task of revision lies in the domain of theory, not in that of practical
action” (at the Dresden Congress, 1903; Protokoll fiber der Verhandlungen des Parteitages der
Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutsch/ands, p. 391. Subsequent references here: P rotokoll. . .) .
4. E. Bernstein, Socialisme theorique et social dtm ocratie pratique (Paris, 1912), pp.
202-237.
5. My articles, he wrote, “were beginning to attract attention in a completely unexpected
manner" (ibid., Preface to the French ed., p. vii).
the support of texts, he linked the first of these aspects with a past historical
phase, on Engels' own adm ission. 6 B e ^ t e i n , however, was n o t just an expert
M arxologist; he proposed a fresh analysis of contem porary social devel
opm ent. R ejecting the thesis of the rapid polarization of society into two
antagonistic claves, he sought to show with statistics th a t the incom e of all
social groups had increased, and that the irise in general living standards was
b o un d to continue, given the m itig atio n o f crises th ro u g h cartellization and
credit, or, in a word, th ro u g h the progreîve regulation of the m arket.
C ertainly econom ic expansion h a d n o t yet elim inated th e distortion between
supply an d dem an d in workers' consum ption; but with the devlopm ent of
trade unionist, cooperative, parliam en tary , m unicipal an d other types of
action, the exercise o f dem ocracy w ould rem edy it. T hus, w ithout m eddling
too m uch w ith private property (or “even w ith the principle of individual
econom ic responsibility”), 1 there would be progress tow ards a higher
civilization, morally m ore satisfying th a n the present one. “T he m ovem ent is
everything; the goal is n o th in g ,” he concluded in a fam ous form ula.
In a sense, B ernstein touched M arxism a t its vulnerable spot. It is a
fundam entally critical theory, able to clarify the real significance of a critical
phase of history and to incite the direct producers, on this basis, to take th eir
affairs into th eir own hands. O n the o th er h an d , in grow th periods, th e
periods of relative social h a ^ o n y w hich M arxism foresaw, its basic concepts
lost th eir critico-activist relevance an d served only to describe the econom ic
developm ent after a fashion. 8 A t th a t level, as a historically specific, d ated
theory, M arxism could cope with im m ediate situations only at the price of
systematic adjustm ent. In this respect it is th e f o ^ of political organization
or the c la ^ to w hich the th eoretician adheres which dom inates the theoretical
vision: Bernstein, a d efender o f th e dem ocratic p a rty form , therefore stressed
6. Ibid., pp. 50ff.
7. Ibid., p. 220.
8. Karl Korsch said somewhat the same thing when he wrote as follows concerning the
Be'msteindebate: “During the long period when Marxism was slowly expanding without having
any practical revolutionary task to fulfil, the revolutionary problems had ceased, in the eyes of all
Marxists, both orthodox and revisionist, to have any terrestrial existence, even at the theoretical
level” (Korsch, Marxisme et philosophie [Paris, 1964], p. 100). Pannekoek reached an analo
gous diagnosis when, in 1919, he wrote: “In phases of accelerated development, the mind glows
with enthusiasm; it grows in flexibility and in dynamism, and crushes old ideas more rapidly. ln
the course of the past few decades, the capitalist system and the proletariat have reached a high
degree of development, and the effect of this has been to curb and even to halt the process of
political revolution. That is also why, during this period, the process of spiritual development
went on at a diminished rate, especi aUy when one compares it with the headlong foâtion of
ideas during the bourgeois revolutions of the past. This was bound to entail, after the prelimi nary
and brilliant emergence of Marxism, a decided recoil: revisionist doubt, revival of the bourgeois
critique, and dogmatic sclerosis among some of the radicals.” (“le Mat£rialisme historique,” loc.
cit.).
factors calculated to justify th e practical action o f th a t p arty . However, w hen

social evolution took a critical tu m w ith th e econom ic crises o f 1901-02,
1907-09, an d 1913, an d th e n w ith th e outb reak o f W orld W a r I (followed by
the first intern atio n al wave o f revolution in history), his thesis was com pletely
enfeebled an d his ethical u topian, optim istic prophecies were nullified.
Nonetheless, m uch to his own surprise B ernstein caused a trem endous hue
and cry against him self th ro u g h o u t both th e G e ^ a n and th e in tern atio n al
m ovem ent. H a d he n o t invited th a t m ovem ent “to d a re to ap p ear as w hat it
is : a m ovem ent of social a n d political r e f o ^ ? ” A m ovem ent to seek an overt
alliance w ith the lib eral m iddle class whose first indications w ere only just
com ing into th e open. “T h e Bebels an d th e Kautskys, th e Victor A dlers, the
Plekhanovs an d th eir like heaped abuse on this insolent fellow who had
divulged th e carefully g u a rd e d secret. A t th e H anover P arty Congress of
1899, d u rin g a debate opening w ith Bebel's six-hour re p o rt an d lasting four
days, B ernstein was subjected to a f o ^ a l trial. H e ju st m anaged to escape
expulsion. For m any years, B ernstein was constantly abused by m ilitants and
constituents in th e press a n d at p a rty m eetings.” It was easy to attack the
theory o f a p a rtic u la r individual ra th e r th a n th e actual practice which he
im prudently b u t faithfully exprew ed. W ith equal ease one thereby verbally
safeg u ard ed th e revolutionary c h aracter o f th e p arty , as was to h a p p en later
in th e “construction o f socialism” in Stalinist R ussia.9
W ith o u t going into th e details o f the discussion, we can note th a t th e two
most im p o rtan t critiques o f B e ^ t e i n a t th e tim e were those o f K arl
K autsky10 an d Rosa L uxem burg. Both sought to refute the dangerous errors
of a unique 11 th eo retician ; b o th sum m oned a wealth o f statistics 12 in th eir
9. On this point, we cite and follow Korsch (“The Passing of Marxian Orthodoxy,”
International Council Correspondence, 11-12, Dec. 1937). Korsch verifies and enriches a thesis
previously advanced by Georges Sorel: “[Bernstein] saw, therefore, no other means to keep
socialism within the frame of realities except to suppress anything misleading in a revolutionary
program in which the leaders no longer believed. Kautsky, on the other hand, wanted to preserve
the veil which hid from the workers the true activity of the party” (G. Sorel, Reflexions sur la
violence [Paris, 1930, 3rd edition], pp. 328-29).
10. From the viewpoint that concerns us here, the best biography of Kautsky remains the
short essay by Paul Mattick: “From Marx to Hitler,” Living Marxism, IV, 7 June 1939, pp.
193-207.
11. “Bernstein's theory was the first, but also the last, attempt to provide a theoretical basis
for opportunism” (R. Luxemburg, Reforme ou revolution[Paris, 1947], p. 79); later, Rosa
incidentally admits that “in the majority of the socialist parties of Western Europe, a link exists
between opportunism and the intellectuals" (Marxisme contre dictature, [Paris, 1946], pp. 27,
30-32).
12. We note, with the writer ofthe preface to a Dutch version of Ethique et socialisme (Daad
en gedaachte, Nov. 1966, pp. iv-v) that, unlike the other critics of Bernstein who essentially
oppose an “orthodox” interpretation to a “heretical” one, Pannekoek gives priority to questions of
method, to the materialist analysis of the revisionist current in the broad sense.
suppo rt. K autsky cited M arx extensively, finally, and not w ithout contortions,
conceding a n em inent role for p a rliam en tary an d tra d e union activity.
L u x em b u rg d eclared, am o n g o th e r things, th a t th e great days o f tra d e union
activity, th a t “la b o r o f Sysiphus,” belonged p e ^ a n e n t ’y to th e past. But
Rosa's expectations proved w ro n g : in G e ^ a n y , th e m em bership o f th e trad e
unions increased alm ost tenfold in th e tw enty years betw een 1891 a n d 1912.
A t th e tim e Pannekoek w rote Tacitical Differences, th e fram ew ork o f th e
discussion h a d ch anged profoundly. T h e avowed revisionist tendency as such
rem ain ed an insignificant c u rre n t whose m em bers, generally intellectuals,
could claim favor w ith university lib e ra ls; b u t th e a ttitu d e tow ard them in the
p a rty was hostile. O n th e o th e r hand, a rad ical tendency 13 firm ly im planted
in th e m ost industrialized regions o f th e c o u n tr y - th e “red belts” o f the big
t o ^ s - s l o w l y g ath ered stren g th as a relatively autonom ous force at the local
level, w h ere it often controlled th e p a rty m achine, th e body functionaries o f
pe:rm anent salaried officials, a n d p a rtly controlled th e e d itin g o f th e
publications o f th e p a rty a n d its p erip h eral organizations (women, youth,
etc.). T hings were com pletely different a t the central level. T h e re pow er was
in th e hands o f executives o r adm inistrative bodies which were essentially
conservative, even if in tim es o f social crisis they d id tem porarily rely on the
radical te n d e n c y - th e “leftists,” as they w ere sometimes called. T h e latter,
despite a m ode o f represen tatio n a t the congresses which was highly
unfavorable to them , 14 succeeded in certain circum stances in securing the
adoption o f a “line” which was in c o n f o ^ i t y w ith their ideas b u t was doom ed
to rem ain a d ead letter. 15
As a whole, the ra th e r scattered rad ical organizations achieved only a po o r
degree o f organic cohesion, w hich varied w ith th e general situation (or in d eed
with local personalities). It was only from about 1910 th at this cu rren t suc
ceeded in tak in g on a clearer fo:rm, especially as a result o f intense factional
struggles. T hese confrontations occu rred on th e basis o f a body o f ideas in h e r
ited from th e p ast: orthodox M arxist “tactics.” T hese tactics sought to assign
precise limits to p arliam en tary an d trad e unio n action and to subject th at ac
tion, a t least in its tendencies, to th e realization o f th e “final goal” —socialism.
13. We here translate the German radikal as “radical,” “extremist,” or sometimes, according
to context, “Left.” On the other hand, it seems inadvisable to render Radikalismus by “Leftism”
or even “Ultra-leftism,” both for this and the subsequent period, since these terms belong to the
post-1920 Leninist vocabulary and have little to do with the ideas of Pannekoek and of his
political comrades.
14. Cf. Carl Schorske, German Social Democracy 1905-1917 (Cambridge, Mass., 1955),
Chapter V, passim.
15. Thus the famous resolution of the Dresden Congrew (1903) condemning revisionist
attempts at “adaptation to the existing order,” a resolution noted, however, by the revisionist
delegates themselves.
Besides, looking upon p arliam en tarian ism and tra d e unionism in themselves
as the p rin cip al elem ents o f r e f o ^ i s t practice, th e leftists vigorously s tre se d
the general strike a n d m ass actions as th e suprem e m eans o f th e claw struggle
a n d consciousneK.
T his was not a purely theoretical attitu d e. B etw een th e onset o f the century
an d th e outbreak o f W o rld W a r I, industrial expansion constantly increased
th e size o f th e p ro letariat, a n d strikes a n d d em onstrations w ere n u m erous and
som etim es violent. W ith a few m ajo r exceptions, however, they rem ained
lim ited in ex ten t: especially in ^ ^ r o a n y , th e leadership or the p a rty and,
even m o re so, o f th e tra d e unions was on th e alert against any “excesses" an d
kept a h a n d o n th e o rganizational netw ork. Faced w ith th e pow er o f this
workers' bureaucracy, rad ical theoreticians w orked o u t a new concept o f
organization as a process, whose elem ents derived largely from reflection on
th e 1905 Ruraian Revolution a n d th e mass strikes in W estern E urope b u t were
also n o t u n re la te d —despite denials as vigorous as they were sincere - t o the
ideas of certain anarchist thinkers an d F rench tra d e unionists.
Rosa L u xam burg fo rm u lated this concept as follows: “T h e rigid,
m ech an ical-b u reau cratic conception can n o t conceive o f th e struggle save as
the p ro d u c t o f organization a t th e certain stage o f its strength. O n the
contrary the living, dialectical ex p lan atio n m akes th e organization arise as a
p ro d u c t o f th e struggle . . . . H ere th e organization does not supply th e troops
for th e struggle, b u t th e struggle, in an ever grow ing degree, supplies recruits
fo r th e organization. . . . I f th e social dem ocrats, as th e organized nucleus of
th e w orking class, are th e m ost im p o rta n t v a n g u a rd o f th e entire body o f the
workers an d if th e political clarity, th e strength, a n d th e u n ity o f th e labor
m ovem ent flow fro m th is organization, th e n it is n o t p e ^ is s ib le to visualize
the class m ovem ent of th e p ro le ta ria t as a m ovem ent of th e organized
m inority” 16 o f th e pa rty o r th e tra d e unions. She adds th a t this is th e only way
in which “th a t com p act unity o f th e G e ^ a n lab o r m ovem ent can be attain ed
w hich, in view o f th e com ing political class struggles and of th e peculiar
interest o f th e fu rth e r developm ent o f th e tra d e unions, is indispensably
necessary.” 17 T o take u p a la te r n otion b o rn in com pletely different
conditions, th e "d egeneration” o f th e workers organizations, inevitable in a
perio d o f calm , will be s u ^ o u n t e d only through th e most active claw
struggle. A lthough th is consequence o f th e theory was ra re ly dra'wn in an
explicit way a t th e tim e, 18 no one could doubt th a t th e idea o f th e c la s
16. Rosa Luxemburg, “The Ma^ Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Unions" in Rosa
Luxemburg Speaks, ed. Mary Alice Walters (New York, Pathfinder Press, 1970), pp. 196, 198.
17.Ibid., p. 217.
18. Such, for example, was the perspective of Pannekoek himself, during the war.
GERMAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY / 65
consciousness proceM sought, as one o f its a i ^ , to "redrew ” the current

course o f th e p a rty and th e tra d e unions, a n d to regenerate structures which
had becom e rig id a n d reactionary. H ence th e welcome it got w ithin the p arty
from b o th revolutionary workers an d rad ical functionaries.
N eith er o f these groups was considering a breakaw ay. Fetishism of the
organization was sustained by a n u m b e r o f circu m stances: th e b read th and
constan t grow th o f the m ovem ent; th e extrem ely wide an d varied field of
activities it su p p lied fo r each a n d all; th e day-to-day advantages it offered
w ith its cooperatives, dispensaries, and cu ltu ral and o th er circles; the
stren g th o f h ab its; th e keen hostility w hich th e bosses and the authorities
displayed tow ards it; th e salaried o r honorary positions secured w ithin the
different organizations; also th e petty-bourgeois im pregnation which
Pannekoek n o te d ; a n d even m ore, perhaps, th e absence up to th en of one o f
those “g reat historic battles" to w hich M arx tra c e d the existence o f classes.19
All these circum stances co n trib u ted to m a in ta in th e u n ity o f G e ^ a n Social
Dem ocracy. B ut it was very different in H olland.
T h e industrial developm ent o f H o llan d was slower th a n th a t o f G erm any,
in whose w ake it occurred. O n th e o th er hand, the proceffi o f bourgeois
political a n d cultural revolution h a d reach ed a m uch m ore advanced stage in
H olland. T h e re th e socialist m ovem ent h a d consequently presented, at least
in its beginnings, a m o re “F rench" ch aracter, in th e sense th a t it centered
m ore on an arch ism th a n on M arxism . Its leading light was the highly gifted
ex-clergym an, Domela Niew enhuis. E lected deputy with the sole intention,
originally, o f using his p arliam en tary seat to propagandize the Social
D em ocratic M ovement (Sociaal-D em ocratisch Bond), this f o ^ e r corres
p o n d en t o f M arx soon realized th a t this was a forlorn hope. H e tu rn e d to
anti-p arliam en tarian ism a n d becam e a zealous advocate o f th e idea o f the
general strike, reg ard ed as th e da'wn o f the “great d ay .20
A lthough it was fa r from securing electoral successes com parable to those
o f th e G e ^ a n Party, th e SDB's p arlia m e n ta ry pow er visibly increased
tow ards th e en d o f th e century. A fter sustained controversies a split occurred
in th e p a rty and, in 1894, th e SDAP cam e into existence, f o ^ e d on the
G e ^ a n m odel b u t even m ore centralized an d au th o ritarian . Soon th e
intellectuals lent it th e ir s u p p o rt: G orter an d H en riette R oland-H olst in
19. In his f^nous letter to Weidemeyer (5 March 1852) published 1907 in Neue Zeit.
20. Much later on, Gorter, recalling with what enthusiasm the aged Nieuwenhuis had
greeted the Ruîan Revolution, was to note: “The difference between him and us is that we are
for revolutionary methods in a time of revolution, while he advocated them in a completely
different period." (Anonymous, “Die Marxistische revolutionflre Arbeiterbewêgung in Holland,”
Proletarier, II, 1, Feb. 1922, p. 16).
1897, Pannekoek in 1901 (the la tte r at first reg ard ed as “one of the bi^vigs of
M arxist orthodoxy”). 21 This group very soon clashed with the p arty
leadership an d w ith its chief, th e lawyer T roelstra, one of whose favorite d icta
was: “first life, th en th eo ry ,” m eaning th a t su p p o rt had to be given to the
cause o f th e small peasants, or approval to governm ent subsidies to the
denom inational schools.22
This antagonism increased after the big strikes of dockers an d railw aym en
in 1903. T he p arty leadership gave lip-service support while attem p tin g to
curb th e m ovem ent, 23 provoking th e enraged criticism o f G orter, am ong
others, who reproached the party with contem ptuously despising “the
p ro letarian instinct” an d “the revolutionary energy” o f th e m asses.2* T hings
becam e worse when, in 1905, the p arty leadership (particularly T roelstra)
brazenly violated a resolution ad o p te d by the P arty Congress prohibiting all
p arliam en tary su p p o rt for the liberal bourgeois governm ent (whose political
life depended on such supplem entary votes.) T he left wing, in w hich
Pannekoek was very active, advocated intensive cam paigns of agitation
am ong the workers and an attitude of u ndeviating opposition tow ard
p arliam en t. T roelstra and his followers, the “m ajority g ro u p ” who dom inated
the p arty m achine, reg ard ed the leftists as “dogm atists,” “u n ilateral
doctrinaires” unable to ap preciate how useful it was to play “on the divisions
am ong the bourgeois grou p in g s,” who if they were heeded would reduce the
p arty to a “p ro p ag an d a c lu b .” 25 T h u s the differences were far m ore lively
th an in G e ^ a n y , since they took on an im m ediate practical character. In
1907, the m inority group financed an in d ep en d en t weekly paper, De Tribune
(w hence th eir n a m e - “T rib u n ists”); two years later, the split was com plete.
T h e new party (SDP) was tiny (400 m em bers) and, in the 1913 elections,
received ten times fewer votes than its rival. From the viewpoint of electoral
effectiveness, w hich continued to be the viewpoint o f the G erm an leftists, t his
was a singular failure and an added reason for setting aside any idea of a
schism.26 W hile the m ajority party drew sup p o rt from the “n e u tra l” trad e
21. W. van Ravesteyn: De wording van het communisme in Nederland 1907-192.5

(Amsterdam, 1948), p. 26.
22. Anonymous, Die Griindung der "Sociaaldemocratische partij in Nederland" (Berlrn,
1909), pp. 4-5.
23. Ibid., p. 7.
24. At the Ninth Party Congress; cited by A. C. Rliter, De Spoorvegetakingen van 1903
(Leyden, 1935)} p. 573. Ten years later, Rosa Luxemburg defined the strike in general in the
same te^nns, as “the expreaion of a high tension ofrevolutionary energy" (Gesammelte Werke, IV
[Berlm, 1928], p. 637; she also regarded it (1910) as “a means of moral and political
education" —ibi'd., p. 613).
25. Die GrUndung. . ., p. 14.
26 As Paul FrSlich notes in the introduction to Rosa Luxemburg: Gesammelte Werke, III
unions o f th e G e ^ a n kind, th e m ajo r beneficiaries o f th e 1903 strikes, the

m inority p arty was w orking in conjunction with a relatively small and
anarchistic trad e unio n o rganization which was active in those years. 27
T h e split o f th e N etherlands P arty could n o t fail to have repercussions
w ithin th e Socialist In tern atio n al. In fact, it provided the occasion on w hich
L enin, fo r the first tim e in his political career, took a n active position in the
organ izatio n al life o f a W estern E u ro p e a n p a rty -n e e d le s s to say, on th e side of
the T rib u n ists. 28
lr. m e course o f the long controversy which preceeded th e split, G orter and
P annekoek often criticized “opp o rtu n ism ” a n d u rged their own conception o f
orthodox M arxism . A t th a t tim e th e special p l a t f o ^ fo r th eir ideas was De
N ieuw e Tijd, a leftist-controlled p arty theoretical organ. B ut, th e two m en
differed greatly in tem p eram en t. Som ew hat older th a n Pannekoek, G orter
(1864-1927) was already fam ous, p erhaps th e greatest poet th en w riting in
D utch . His verses com bined rhy th m ic b eauty an d perfection o f f o ^ w ith
inspiration o f a pansexualist kind, notably in M e i (1889), w hich was to
develop (Pan, 1912) tow ards a lyricism celeb rating "the unification o f
m an k in d a n d th e cosmos” 29 in w hich th e socialist universe ap p ears as the final
ra d ia n t goal o f th e h u m a n race. G o rter was to resum e this them e in the often
classically constructed poems o f his posthum ous collection De Arbeidersraad
(“T h e W orkers’ C ouncil”). N evertheless, in politics the poet displayed m ore
concrete th in k in g th a n th e astronom er. A n extrem ely active m an , a great
sportsm an, trib u n ist, an d ag itato r, G orter deliberately directed his energies
to p ractical m atters a n d questions o f organization, w hich may partly explain
why, a fte r 1920, he was m ore deeply involved in im m ediate political activity
th a n was his friend.
T h e bonds betw een these. tw o M arxists always rem ained th e closest: in all,
they com plem ented one an o th er adm irably. Pannekoek, absorbed in arduous
theoretical problem s, sometimes hesitated an d ignored details o f practical
ap p licatio n ; w hereas G orter flu n g him self o n his adversary, an d usually
confined his a tte n tio n to m atters o f im m ediate concern. Long after his
(Berlin, 1925), p. 28.

27. Van Ravesteyn, op. cit., pp. 36, 127. "The NAS [trade union)was the body, and the SDP
[minority party] the head,” says even this author, himself of the majority party.
28. At the eleventh reunion of the Bureau of the International; in the article he devoted to
this question (Sotsial-demokrat, 10 Dec. 1909; Collected Works, SVI, pp. 140-44), Lenin fully
answered for his part the arguments of the Dutch Left. Rosa Luxemburg would hear nothing ot a
split. In August 1908 she wrote to her friend Henrietta Roland-Holst: “Nothing more fatal than
a splitting of the Marxists . . ., One cannot remain outside the organization, lose contact with the
masses! The worst among the workers' parties is better than no party at all!" (Cited by J.P. Nettl,
Rosa Luxemburg [London, 1966], p. 656).
29. H. Roland-Holst, Herman Gorter (Amsterdam, 1938), p. 137.
68 I PÂNEKOEK AND THE W ORKERS COUNCILS
frien d ’s d eath , Pannekoek was still defending h im against th e accusation of

havin g been “a p oor p o litician .” H e rem inds his read ers th a t those who
a ttem p t “to h elp th e exploited ma&es g ain th e strength to effect th e ir own
em an cip atio n are labeled, in p arliam en tary jarg o n , po o r p oliticians.” 30
U ndeniably, in this sense G orter, Pannekoek, a n d m any others were “poor
p o litic ia n s;’’ a n d this is to th e ir credit.
In te rru p tin g his university career in 1906, Pannekoek left for G e ^ a n y
accom panied by his w ife A n n a. T hey rem ain ed th ere u n til th e delcaratio n of
w ar. As an o rthodox M arxist, Pannekoek had been invited to G e ^ a n y by the
party leadership to te a c h th e history o f m aterialism a n d o f social theories at
the school w hich they h a d decided to open in B erlin in conjunction with th e
leaders of th e tra d e unions confederation. H ow ever, on the eve of th e second
school sem ester th e Prussian police th reaten ed to d ep o rt b o th Pannekoek and
his colleague, H ilferding, also a foreigner; the two teachers h a d no option b u t
to subm it. 31 P annekoek defined as follows th e aim s o f th e school (w hich were
also those o f all his own w o rk ): “W e m ust clearly und erstan d th e n a tu re of
capitalism , not ju st to incite th e w orkers to fig h t it but also to discover th e best
m ethods of com bat. W h ere this u n d erstan d in g is lacking, tactics are governed
by established traditions or by a superficial em piricism . W h en one m erely
takes account o f th e present, th e im m ediate, ap pearances inevitably prove
deceptive an d coherence u p o n solid foundations is neglected.” 32
H aving h a d to give u p his B erlin teach in g post, Pannekoek th e n becam e a
salaried p ropagandist. As a journalist a n d traveling lecturer, he soon gained a
considerable rep u tatio n as a theoretician in G e ^ a n y an d East^™ E u ro p e .33
In 1909 h e settled in B rem en a t th e invitation o f th e party b ra n c h a n d the trade
union coalition of th a t town, w here th e factional struggle was a t its height. In
B rem en, th e local p a rty m ach in e h a d b een organized “for action" by
F ried rich E bert. W h en E b ert left for B erlin in 1906 to take on th e
adm inistrative leadership o f th e p a r t y - a n d to becom e, as h e was justly
called, “m utatis m utandis, th e Stalin of Social D em ocracy’'3 4 - h e left b ehind
h im a n a u th o rita ria n stru c tu re of great stren gth. Nevertheless, th e big
H anseatic town was experiencing lively social conflicts; in p articu lar, there
30. "La politique de Gorter,” la Revolution proUtarienne, 64, Aug. to Sept. 1952, p. 254.
31. The revisionist wing of the party strongly attacked this venture, alleging the “doctrinaire”
quality of the teaching.
32. Anton Pannekoek, “The SD Party-School in Berlin,” Inte-^rnational Socialist Review,
VIII, Dec. 6, 1907, p. 322.
33. A biography of translations of socialist “literature" into the Serbian language (up to
1914) gives 68 Kautsky titles as against 58 Pannekoek titles (W. Blumenberg, Karl Kautsky's
literarisches Werk (The Hague, 1960], p. 16).
34. Schorske, op. cit., p. 124.
w ere freq u en t strikes am ong the dock w orkers (we shall re tu rn to this). In the
schools a nucleus of teach ers was th re a te n in g to stir things u p in o rd e r to
su p p re ^ religious in stru c tio n .35 T h e opposition, d ire cted by y o ung officials
such as H ein rich Schulz, W ilhelm Pieck a n d A lfred H enke, h a d vigorous ran k
an d file sup p o rt. D espite a certain provincialism , th e political life o f B rem en
p resen ted a lively exam ple o f c u rrect th eo retical controversies.
P annekoek, however, especially because of his scientific train in g , was
inclined to generalize. H is political views w ere those o f the .left, the orthodox
M arxist tactic conceived in accordance w ith th e basic principle which he
him self f o ^ u l a t e d in Tactica l D ifferences w hen he w rote: “T h e conditions
for revolutionary t r a n s f o r a t i o n exist g e ^ i n a l l y in daily actio n ,” a n d w ith
these conditions, th e sp re a d o f r e f o ^ in to revolution. N o d o u b t, in his ow n
p a rtic u la r way he strew ed th e im p o rtan ce o f sp iritual factors, geistlich, in the
class struggle a n d the direct link betw een th e m a tu ra tio n o f these factors an d
th e f o ^ o f organization. B u t in this as in others m atters, th e D utchm an was
no t a p re c u rso r; his originality consisted in deeply scrutinizing th e theoretical
achievem ent of a p a rtic u la r c u rre n t o f ideas in th e spirit o f M arx an d Engels
in close connection w ith the p ractical situation.
Some years ago Heinz Schurer, a L ondon political scientist, drew attention
to th e role played by P annekoek's ideas in "th e origins o f L eninism .” 36 “In fact,
com m enting o n Tactical D ifferences, L en in said th a t it contains “deductions
whose com plete correctness can n o t be d e n ie d .’37 B ut P annekoek him self once
described this type o f abstract research in to th e kinship o f p u re ideas as "sterile
an d m isleading,” as a distinctive m a rk of “official academ ic science,” as "th e
fu n d a m e n ta l vice of criticism as professed in m odern universities” which
ignored everything referring to real historical conditions. 38 Shurer has
decided to apply this very “m eth o d ” to th e process by which ideas are f o ^ e d
a n d tra n sm itte d w ithin th e M arxist w orkers’ m ovem ent. However, to regard
this process as d ep en d en t on individuals is certainly a m istake. Schurer is
m istaken w hen h e writes in connection w ith Pannekoek’s Tactical Differences,
th a t here, “fo r th e first tim e in th e M arxist cam p, an au th o r established th a t the
tactical differences betw een th e rig h t w ing a n d th e left w ing o f th e workers'
m ovem ent orig in ated in th e class stru ctu re o f th e la tte r —nam ely, th a t it was
weighed do'wn' by "th e new m iddle c la « ," th e intellectuals, a n d th e “labor
35. Cf. H. Schulz, “Die Bremer Lehrschaft und der Religionsunterricht,” Die Neue Zett,
XXIII, 2, 1905.
36. Heinz Schurer, "Anton Pannekoek and the Origins of Leninism," The Slavonic and East
European Review, X LI, 97, June 1963, pp. 327-44.
37. Lenin, "Divergences in the European Workers' Movement," Zvezda, Dec. 1910;
Marx-Engels-Marxisme (Paris-Moscow, undated), pp. 148-55.
38. “Teleologie und Marxismus," loc. cit., pp. 471-73.
70 _ / PÂNEKOEKAND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
aristocracy.” 39
T h a t theoreticians an d m ilitan ts closely linked w ith the m ovem ent should
have rem ain ed b lin d to a phenom enon o f such m agnitude m ight seem
s tr a n g e - a n d indeed, such was not the case. As early as 1895 Kautsky pointed
o u t th e existence o f “a whole p a rty o f ‘intelligentsia’ anim ated w ith r e f o ^ i s t
sentim ents,” an d recom m ended th a t in dealing with them the positions of
D em ocratic Socialism should b e m a in ta in e d unyieldingly in order to w in over
the best o f them , especially am ong th e students, on a clear, explicit basis. 40
Four years later, in a polem ic with B e ^ t e i n , Kautsky noted that although
the intellectuals who have reached th e h ig h er echelons becom e “th e most
reactio n ary o f reactio n aries,” th e ir constant n u m erical increase exposes th em
to th e increasing risk o f proletarianization, push ing them tow ard th e party.
However, these social groups, “reg ard in g themselves as above c la «
antagonism s,” seek “to substitute social r e f o ^ s for revolution” 41 a n d to
t r a r n f o ^ th e organization “in to a p a rty for everyone,” a “p o p u lar p a rty .'’’42 In
this connection, as we shall see, Pannekoek’s analysis brings him into direct
line with a conception widely expressed in th e p a rty ranks. H e was in no sense
an innovator.
T h e sam e can b e said ab o u t th e “theory” o f th e lab o r aristocracy.
Twenty-five years earlier Engels, d iscu în g E n g land an d its m onopolistic
pow er, h a d described this social g ro u p as a factor in r e f o ^ i s m operating
th ro u g h big tra d e u n io n f o ^ a t i o n s . “T h e m etal lathe workers, the
carp en ters” an d others, h e wrote in 1885, “f o ^ an aristocracy within the
w orking class; they have succeeded in creatin g a relatively com fortable
situatio n fo r the:mselves, a n d they re g a rd th a t situation as fixed and
se ttle d ."43 Clearly, therefore, judgm ents o f this kind w ere c u rre n t am ong
M arxists o f every ten d en cy an d in m an y n a tio n s—am ong G e ^ a n M arxists,
needless to say, 44 b u t also, as Pannekoek h im self p o in ted o ut, am ong
39. Cf. H. Schurer, op. c#., p. 329. This very well documented article provides many
indications of the connections between the theoretical work of Pannekoek and the evolution of
the political thought of Lenin, Bûkharin, and Zinoviev (Cf. also Robert Vincent Daniels. “The
State and the Revolution,” American Slavic and East European Review, XII, I Feb. 1953, pp.
22-43).
40. Karl Kautsky, "le Socialisme et les carri£res lib6rales,” le Devenir social, 1895, 2 and 3.
41. Karl Kautsky, le Marxisme et so critique Be'^tein, (Paris, 1900), pp. 242-54; cf. also
Chapter Two, note 18.
42. Letter to Victor Adler, May 5, 1901; Victor Adler, Briefwechsel. . . (Vienna, 1954), p.
355.
43. F. Engels, DieNeueZeit,June 1885; Marx-Engels Werke, XXI, pp. 19lff. Considerations
of this kind often recur with Engels in this period.
44. Thus about 1900 Bernstein (with qualified approval from Kautsky) stated that "trade
unionism will always rest principally on those categories of the working class whom it is usual to
call the workers' aristocracy” (in a preface to the G eân translation of the Webbs' "History of
A m ericans. 45 It could, of course, be argued that in every case the reference was
to th e A nglo-Saxon la b o r aristocracy; b u t if so, th e n P a n n e k o e k - a n d la te r on
L e n in - w o u ld m erely h av e generalized a n id ea w hich h a d b ee n kep t w ithin
a rb itra ry bounds.
I n any case, Pannekoek’s a ttitu d e shows th a t, far from indulging in
utopianism an d mysticism, h e always took his bearings from the realities o f
th e m ovem ent a n d its developm ent an d bearings from the realities of the
m ovem ent an d its developm ent a n d generalized them , n o t in an arb itrary way
b u t in t e ^ s of its practical a n d theoretical attainm ents. Besides, he was
read y to a b a n d o n an idea w hen it seem ed to h im ill founded; a case in p o in t
bein g this very n o tio n o f a labor aristocracy, to w hich he never again reverted
to the best o f o u r know ledge. 46 P erhaps, on reflection, he cam e to realize th a t
in this way o n e g a in s only a very incom plete a n d historically lim ited tru th ,
fu rth e r increasing the division a n d confusion in th e “p ro letarian ” ranks (at
th e tim e, th e w orker aristocrat was a salaried artisan, a n d alm ost all th e G er
m an workers’ leaders, including th e radicals, h a d com e fro m this stratum . 47
T h e conceptual core o f Tactical D ifferences is elsewhere. In a positive way,
it lies in a p articu lar em phasis o n spiritual factors, on geistlich, on social life
generally, an d on th e fu n d am en tal role o f claw consciousness (and not of
specialized organizations) in th e revolutionary class struggle. Besides, it
highlights th e id ea th a t th e socialist m ovem ent does n o t have, or no longer
has, a hom ogeneous class n a tu re (whence, once again, the necewity for
recourse to m ass action as a basic cohesive factor). A t the n a tio n a l level, in
W estern E urope a n d in A m erica, th e m id d le classes weigh on th e
developm ent o f th is m ovem ent a n d crystallize in "opposed a n d unilateral
tendencies," revisionism a n d anarchism , “alth o u g h these labels leave m uch to
Trade Unionism” —a work translated into Russian by Lenin during his exile in Siberia). Cf. also
K. Radek, In den Reihen der deutschen Revolution (Munich, 1921), p. 316.
45. Cf. Chapter Two, n. 24.
46. Pannekoek makes no allusion to the workers' aristocracy in an important text which can
be regarded as the first sketch for Die tatischen Diferenzen: "Theorie en beginsel in die
arbeiders beweging,“ De Nieuwe Tijd, 1906. Nor does it appear in his article, “The New Middle
Clau," Jnte-^wtional Socialist Review, October 1909, pp. 317-36.
47. With Lenin and his disciples, on the other hand, this idea was to supply an essential key
to understanding Social Democratic and trade unionist “opportunism" (for a recent treatment,
cf. Eugdne Varga, Esais sur Nconomie politique du capitalisme (Moscow, 1967], pp. 138-56).
However, with the spread ofa minimum and uniform level ofskill. the political and social weight
of the workers’ aristocracy, stiU very considerable at the beginning of the century, has clearly
diminished, as Zygmunt Bauman has shown in connection with England (cf. Studie Soztologiczno
Polityczne, 1958, 1, pp. 25-122). Something quite different, of course, would be a critique of the
widespread division of the proletariat into categories with specific and anti-egalitarian demands
at the material level and of the over-estimation of levels of competence, one of the ideological
bases of the exploitation of man by man on the spiritual plane in the West as in the East.
be d e sire d ."48 Sim ilarly a t th e in tern atio n al level, in th e East beyond the
V istula, 49 in an effort to em ancipate themselves from the dom ination of
foreign cap ital th e em erging bourgeoisie is a tte m p tin g to ad ap t socialism to its
interests, given the proven im m inent b an k ru p tcy o f liberal ideology.
T h is is a discerning extrapolation, even if it does n o t accord w ith
im m ed iate em pirical d a ta . T h e re is no longer a special conern w ith refuting
a n individual theoretician (Bernstein), d en o u n cing an am bitous politician
(M illerand, T roelstra), o r stigm atizing some controlling body o f the p a rty o r
o f th e tra d e unions. Instead, th e effort is to m ove forw ard a c ritiq u e o f a
specific social a n d historical process which is b o th detailed an d linked with
action.
48. Anton Pannekoek, “Theorie en begi^nse in die arbeiders beweging,” op. cit., p. 13.
49. In Rusia at the same period, Waclaw Machajski showed, following Bakunin, that
socialism was the "class ideal” of intellectuals destined to succeed the capitalists (cf. the study by
S. Utechin in Soviet Studies, XX, Oct. 1958, pp. 121-22); and Lenin, often regarded at the time
as "anarcho-marxist,” ceaselessly emphasize, with proofs, the deeply bourgeois character of other
tendencies of Russian socialism.
CH APTER TW O
T A C T IC A L D IFFERENCES W IT H IN T H E W O R K E R S’ M O V EM EN T 1
I. T he A im o f Class Struggle
“T h e tactics of the p ro letarian c la « struggle represent an application o f
science, o f theory, w hich clarifies the causes a n d the tendencies o f social
developm ent.
"T h e capitalist m ode of p ro d u ctio n transfo^rms the p ro d u ctio n o f socially
necessary use value in to a m eans of en larg in g c a p ita l. T h e owner o f capital
buys the la b o r pow er of th e worker, w ho has n o m ean s o f p ro d u c tio n ; he uses
this la b o r to set his m eans of p ro d u ctio n in m o tio n ; and thus appropriates th e
p ro d u c t o f labor, the value cre a te d by labor. Since la b o r po w er creates a
value g reater than th e value necessary to its rep ro duction, the exploitation of
this la b o r power constitutes a m eans o f a m a z in g w ealth. T h e surplus
v alu e —th e value which the w orker pro d u ces in e x c e s o f th e value o f his labor
p o w er—reverts to th e capitalist a n d serves fo r the m ost p a rt to augm ent
capital.
“T h e m ost im p o rta n t quality of capitalism is not derived, however, from
this stru ctu re, from this exploitive c h a ra c ter in general, but from its constant
rap id evolution tow ards new form s. The driw ng fo rc e o f this developm ent is
com petition.
“T h ro u g h th e op eratio n of th e laws of com petition, the total surplus value
created by th e whole body o f capitalist enterprise is not distributed
proportionately a m o n g th e enterprises. T hose with the m ost productive
m achinery a n d m ethods, who th erefo re can p ro d uce at lowest cost, secure a
surplus pro fit, whereas less productive ones m ake only a small profit, break
even, o r even register a lo « .
“T h e first result of this situation is a steady grow th o f the social productivity
o f labor. T h e discoveries of the n a tu ra l sciences an d their ra p id developm ent
lead to b e tte r m ethods of la b o r a n d im p ro v ed m achinery. T h e policy is to use
the best tech n iq u es; less efficient techniques are a b a n d o n e d ; th e production
capacity o f m achinery an d th e lab o r yield continually increases . . . . ”
T h e big fi^ n s are the beneficiaries of this evolution. T his entails a decline
I. Diee takti.schen Differenzen m der Arbeiterbewegung (Hamburg, 1909), p. 132. Here as

el^where, all italics are by Pannekoek hi^mself.
of th e m iddle class of small producers an d in d ep en d en t m erchants, a n d an

increase in the pro letariat, this increase com prising “b o th f o ^ e r m em bers of
the p etty bourgeoisie and u p ro o ted peasants absorbed into big industry. T h e
n atu ra l grow th of big cap ital is not sufficient of itself to secure concentration
o f capital-, co n centration is accelerated by th e fact th a t th e jo in t stock
com panies an d the banks absorb small capitals a n d thus create large masses
of cap ital. Business organization is tran sfo rm ed ; the capitalist who h ith erto
personally d irected p ro d u ctio n recedes fu rth e r an d fu rth er into the
backgro u n d ; 2 control is placed in the h an d s of salaried employees,
m anagers, co m m an d in g a whole staff of d ep artm en tal chiefs, overseers,
technicians, engineers, chem ists, an d so forth. T h ese m anagers f o ^ a new
m iddle class whose d ep endent situation distinguishes it from th e old m iddle
class. T h e capitalist thus loses all active p a rt in th e pro d u ctio n process a n d is
reduced m ore an d m ore to a mere parasite. 3 P ro d uction goes on without him ,
but continues to serve his interests . . .. ”
T h u s, while the mass of producers founder in m isery and en dure
insecurity of em ploym ent, production is socialized an d comes into conflict
with th e private f o ^ of appro p riatio n . Ever-increasing concentration of
capital entails a corresponding dim inution of com petition a n d the em ergence
of g ian t monopolies, which attack the u n b o u n d ed anarchy of private
p rodu ctio n an d establish a p a rtia l control o f p ro d uction. However, this
developm ent benefits only the b ig capitalists. T h e re is no way to suppress
them except by “the socialization o f the m eans o f p ro d u c tio n -so c ia list
production. T he evolution o f the capitalist system itself reveals its ultim ate
en d : th e contradictions of the system are ex acerb ated to such an ex te n t th a t
they becom e in to lerab le a n d provoke an upheaval, a social revolution, which
leads to the replacem ent o f capitalism by a new m ode of p r o d u c tio n - th e
socialist m ode.
“B ut these contradictions do not bring ab o u t such a revolution in any
m echanical way. T h e la tte r occurs only insofar as these contradictions are
experienced as intolerable constraints. A ll production relationships are
hum a n relationships; everything th a t occurs in society is due to h u m an
intervention. T h e invention a n d utilization o f new m achines, th e concen
2. Marx, as we know, already speaks in Capital about the expropriation of the capitalist (I, Ch.
22 in fine) and emphasizes that the administrative function tends more and more to become
separate from the property of capital (III, Ch. XV, 2 in fine). Hilferding, more particularly, has
studied this problem in one of the most brilliant chapters of Finanzkapital (1910).
3. We recall that Pannekoek's analysis is perfectly classic; it was shared at the time by all the
theoreticians of Marxist Social Democracy (Bernstein alone contesting the diminution of the
competition and of the number of small enterprises). His originality lies in a particular, and
highly characteristic, insistence on the hûman factor.
TACTICAL DIFFERENCES I 75
tra tio n of capital, th e creation o f bigger a n d bigger factories, the f o ^ a -

tion o f t r u s t s - a l l o f this is th e work o f hu m an ity. O f course, these actions
are n o t delib erate p arts o f a g re a t m aster p lan . Each m an sees only his
o ^ situation an d acts only in response to im m ediate necessity or n e e d ; he
pursues only his own interest, sets him self u p against others, and tries to get
the better o f th em . Social developm ent is th e outcom e of all these actions, of
all these individual wills. T h a t is why th e whole com plex o f these actions has a
result w hich, com pared w ith th a t o f each o f th e actions taken separately,
assumes th e ap p earan ce o f super hum an pow er. T his global result em erges as
an inexorable, inflexible, n a tu ra l force. Society is like a headless body, de
prived o f collective th o u g h t, in w hich, w ithout conscious reflection everything
is governed by blind laws. Yet this organism is m ad e u p o f people who, as
individuals, reflect in a conscious m an n er.
“All social events thus flow solely from th e fact that m en act. T he
contradictions o f social developm ent are contradictions fe lt by m en, and
therefore the overthrow o f a m ode o f p roduction can only be the work o f m en.
But this is by n o m eans th e w ork o f m en who regard themselves as above
society, as cap ab le of tr a n s f o ^ in g the social body through the power of
clearheaded conscious reflectio n ; for in th a t case, each individual does only
w hat his im m ediate interests d ictate. O n th e contrary, it is the actions taken
n e c e s s a rily -in a sense, in s tin c tiv e ly -in o rd er to satisfy their interests, th a t
have as a global resu lt th e overthrow of th e m o d e o f production.
“T h e interests o f m em bers of th e same cla« are com patible, whereas the
interests of different classes diverge o r clash. T h is is th e origin of the class
struggle. T h e interests of th e exploited workers ru n counter to those of the
capitalist exploiters. T h e capitalist seeks to increase exploitation as m uch as
possible so that th e surplus value supposed to increase his cap ital will be as
larg e as possible; in addition, he tries to low er wages, to increase w orking
hours, an d to intensify th e work. T h e w orker, thus condem ned to destroy his
health an d his strength, resists; he wants h ig h er wages and a shorter w orking
day so th at he m ay lead a m ore h u m a n life. W orking conditions thus becom e
the object of a struggle in th e course of w hich workers an d capitalists begin by
co ntro n tin g o n e an o th er; b u t gradually, as they com e to und erstan d the class
c h a ra c ter o f th e ir interests, they jo in others of th eir own class to f o ^
organizations.
“T h e proletarian class struggle develops gradually. It begins with a workers’
revolt in som e factory against u n en d u rab le w orking conditions. Little by
little, these workers set u p p e ^ a n e n t associations, an d perceive that their
interests do not ju st h a p p e n to ru n co u n ter to those o f th e employers, b u t th a t
this conflict is p e ^ a n e n t . T h e y th u s b ecom e aw are th a t th e y f o ^ a
76 I P / A N E K O E K T H E W ORKERS COUNCILS
p artic u la r class, and their outlook widens to include the entire clare. A t once
the b a ttle moves to th e p o litical field, w here general confrontation unfolds
betw een the clawes. 4
"As long as they re g a rd th e State as a suprem e pow er over society, the
w orkers seek, by supplication or d em and, to o b ta in laws designed to end their
m isery and, above all, to protect them from redoubled oppression. But in the
struggle, experience teaches that the capitalists use their hegem ony over the
State to defend th eir class interests against th e workers. T h e workers are
therefore forced to take p a rt in th e political conflict. T he m ore they realize
th a t th e State is u n d e r th e th u m b o f th e exploiting cla^, and th a t S tate power
is o f decisive im p o rtan ce from th e viewpoint o f economic interests, th e m ore
must they take th e conquest o f political pow er as their objective. As soon as
the w orking class adopts this goal, it needs to know how it will use political
pow er, an d therefore it needs a p rogram for th e fu tu re. T he experience of the
class struggle, which gives insight into th e n a tu re o f capitalism , shows th a t it is
not en ough to rem edy some o f the excesses o f the system . . . . T o m ake the
revolution, the w orking class m ust destroy th e existing order, adopting the
inau g u ratio n of the socialist m ode o f p ro d u ctio n th ro u g h the conquest o f
political pow er as th e ir u ltim ate objective a n d political program .
“Socialism, therefore, will not come into existence because everyone
acknowledges its superiority over capitalism a n d its aberrations. Since people
respond only to th e ir im m ediate class interests, it m u st be accepted th a t they
form an unreflecting mass as concerns the conscious control o f their social
condition. T h e bourgeoisie knows th a t th e ir im m ediate interests are
necessarily linked to a system w hich gives them the m eans to live by
exploitation, an d so they w ant nothing to do w ith socialism. T h e latter, an
inevitable consequence o f a victory of the w orking cla&, can be b o rn only o f
the class struggle . . .
“T h e im m ed ia te goal o f every action connected w ith the day-to-day class
struggle can n o t be socialism, which is the final outcom e of a long period o f
struggle an d of th a t alone. Socialism is the fin a l goal o f the cla& struggle. It is
therefore necessary to distinguish betw een final an d im m ediate objectives. As
a final goal, socialism helps th e struggling c la ^ gain aw areness o f the course of
social developm ent; as a reality destined one day to become fact, it enables
this class to judge cap italist relations by com parison and, while th e g ran d e u r
4. This scheme clearly follows the claîc passage in Poverty of Philosophy (ch. 11, par. 5), in
which Marx shows how the ma^ of the workers, with common interests, who f o ^ a class vis-a-vis
capital, constitute themselves into a claw for its own sake in the course of the political struggle. A
perfectly orthodox schema, therefore, but the sequel shows that the concept “war of class with
class” is here taken in the strictest sense.
TACTICAL. DIFFERENCES / 77
o f this ideal urges them to fight relentlessly, it gives a critical form to our
scientific know ledge of the capitalist system. In contrast, the im m ediate
objective associated w ith d ifferen t aspects of day-to-day action can only be an
im m ed iate result.
“This im m ediate result is none other th a n th e increase o f our strength . . . .
T h e m ost pow erful class is always the one w hich wields pow er; therefore, a
class seeking to gain pow er m ust aim to increase its stren g th to a degree th at
will enab le it to v anquish the enem y class. H ence the im m ediate objective o f
the class struggle is to increase the social pow er o f the proletariat."
I n th e e ra o f th eir struggles against the feu d al system, th e bourgeoisie drew
its stre n g th from financial riches. In the m o d ern states, its stre n g th comes
from the fact th a t it leads in all the p rin cip al branches o f production,
“w hence th eir m oral sway over all th e social groups th at acknowledge their
role as leaders, s a t least as long as g ro u p s have not becom e conscious of the
antagonism s w hich set them in opposition to the class in pow er . . . . ”
II. T he Power o f th e Proletariat

“First and especially, this pow er consists in size. Increasingly, the
p ro le ta ria t f o ^ s th e g re a t b u lk o f th e people; in developed countries,
w age-earners account for a considerable m ajority o f the population. But a
m ajority d ep endent on a m in o r ity - a huge lum penproletariat, for exam ple —
can n o t develop into a gro u p with in dependent pow er.” T he im portance of the
p ro le ta ria t has an econom ic origin; it is indispensable to successful
pro d u ctio n , as the m a » o f petty bourgeois and sm all im poverished peasants
are n o t. “In this respect, the pow er of th e w orking claw is all th e greater for its
not b ein g d ep en d en t o n n um bers only.
“N um bers an d econom ic im portance can n o t o f themselves confer any
power o n a c la ^ , if th a t class rem ains unaw are o f them . W hen a class cannot
discern its p a rtic u la r situation, its specific interests; w hen, in a d um b and
paralyzed fashion, it en d u res the d om ination if its oppressors and even
accepts such dom ination as p art o f th e eternal o rd er o f th in g s - th e n num bers
and im p o rtan ce m ean n othing. If these advantages are to m ean anything, the
class m ust become self-conscious. Only as a result o f class consciousness does
size take o n significance for th e class itself, a n d does it realize th a t it is
indispensable to p ro d u ctio n ; solely th ro u g h this consciousne^ can the
pro letariat prom ote its interests an d a tta in its goals. Class consciousness alone
enables this vast, m uscular, in e rt body to bestir itself in to life a n d activity.
5. A note refers in this connection to the results of the last “American elections," a mawive
vote of the workers and of the petty bourgeoisie for the "trusts party” (and not for the socialist
party).
“T h e knowledge w hich confers this pow er on the w orking class is n o t

lim ited to a m ere awareness o f belonging to a p artic u lar class w ith specific
interests. T h e struggle will be w aged m o re efficiently an d w ith g rea ter success
insofar as the pro letariat has a basic know ledge o f th e social fram ew ork w ithin
w hich it is fighting. A n d in this respect, it has a n advantage over its enem ies:
the working class possesses a science o f society th a t enables it to elucidate both
th e causes of its misery an d th e goal o f social developm ent. T h u s able to rely
on forces that shape political events a n d to foresee w hat is about to h a p p en , it
gains a quiet energy, a serenity, which helps it th ro u g h difficulties. T h e
m atu rity it shows in political struggle has the sam e foundation. Does n o t this
science enable it to foresee th e consequences o f its actions an d to avoid being
beguiled by im m ediate, passing appearances? T h e confidence o f u ltim ate
victory th a t this science gives it endows it w ith a m oral solidity; whereas the
o ther classes, w hich, lacking science, g rope about in darkness a n d are
terrified o f falling, d o n o t know w hat direction to take. T h u s the knowledge
of so c ie ty -ra n g in g from its simplest f o ^ , nascent class consciousness, to its
highest f o ^ , th e doctrin e of M arx which we call scientific socialism, socialist
theory, o r M arxism - c o n s titu te s one o f th e most significant factors of
p ro letarian power.
“Nevertheless, however know ledge is used, it is insufficient w hen th e power
to act is missing. W h a t can th e thinking h ead do w ithout a strong arm to
carry out w hat is thought? L arge num bers alone are not enough to ensure
strong action. T h e whole history o f civilized m an k in d shows th at th e p o p u lar
masses have allowed themselves to be ru le d by sm all m inorities an d have tried
in vain to free themselves, th e m inorities being strong due to th eir org an i
zation. As long as a class rem ains splintered in d istinct units, each one having
a different objective, they can n o t p reten d to exercise th e least pow er. O rg an i
zation unifies these d isp arate wills an d roots th e m in a single will, th a t o f the
m asses henceforth endow ed w ith cohesion. T h e e n o ^ o u s pow er o f a n a ^ y ,
the pow er of the State itself, derives from a closed an d com pact organization
which, like a single body, is an im ated by a single will.
“B ut w hat t r a n s f o ^ s a g reat num ber o f people into an organization?
.D iscipline- the subo rd in atio n o f th e individual, o f his personal will, to the
will th a t g o v e ^ th e whole. In th e army, subm ission to an external will is
involved, m ilitary discipline being secured by th e fear o f severe sanctions for
rebellion. In the ranks o f th e workers, th e will to which the individual subm its
is the general will of th e organization itself, expressed through m ajority vote
decisions. T herefore, this is a freely accepted discipline, a ready an d willing
submission to th e will o f th e organization. T h is does n o t m ean th a t the
individual renounces his opinions or abdicates his personality; ra th er does it
show his conviction, the fru it o f m atu re reflection, th a t the masses cannot
becom e a force unless they are anim ated by a single will, and th at the
m inority has no rig ht to require the m ajority to bow to its views. 6 It is only by
pooling his stren g th w ith others of his c la ^ th a t the individual c a n secure his
objective. H e can do n o th in g on his own, an d th a t is why rational reflection, if
not sheer instinct, im pels him to join w ith others. B ut it is also necessary th a t
the organization can count on all its m em bers, even if some of th e m disagree
with th e m ajority attitu d e. Discipline, th e cem ent of organization, thus m eans
th e spiritual b o n d w hich creates a n energetic, com pact mass out of hitherto
scattered units.
“T h e power of the w orking c la s is thus m ad e up of three essential fa c
tors: size and econom ic im portance, c la ^ consciousness and knowledge,
organization an d discipline. Its growth is related to all these factors. T h e first
factor is th e fruit of developm ent itself, . . . th e effect of econom ic laws, and
therefore increases in d ep en d en t of our will or o ur action.
“B ut the oth er two factors are dependent on our action. They are, of
course, also induced by the econom ic developm ent th at helps us b etter
u n derstan d society an d obliges us to organize ourselves. B ut econom ic causes
act th ro u g h th e agency of m en, inasm uch as they compel us to work, through
conscious reflection, for the grow th of these two factors. The purpose o f our
agitational campaigns, the objective f o r which we are fig h tin g , is to heighten
knowledge and class consciousness a m o n g the proletarians, to increase their
organization a n d discipline. Insofar as it depends on our m il, this is how
proletarian pow er will increase; and this is the goal o f the class struggle.
“This, too, is th e only ratio n al m eaning of that m ovem ent which Bernstein
set up in opposition to th e final goal. In our view, not only is the m ovem ent
not everything, it is nothing, an em pty word. 7 T o swing in every direction
6. Within German Social Democracy, the extreme Left as a whole always advocated a
rigorous discipline, absolute respect for resolutions adopted by the Party congress, these
resolutions being generally inspired by the orthodox Marxist tactic. The extreme Left sought in
this way to subordinate the behavior of the trade union chiefs, of the members of the
parliamentary sector, etc., to the will of the Party, the primary purpose being the pursuit of the
“final ob jective,” (Cf. Carl Schorske, op. cit., pp. 50-51 and 222-23). Vain hope! In fact, the
G eân Left were to fall victim to their o ^ ideas in this matter: it was they who, in the hour of
truth, when the majority of the Party were wholeheartedly participating in the war effort, found
themselves forced to violate this famous discipline. Despite the evidence, they resigned themselves
slowly and only with difficulty to this.
7. In 1898, Rosa Luxemburg exclaimed: “The working class must not take up the decadent
viewpoint of the philosopher: 'The final objective is nothing; the movement is everything!’ On
the contrary: the movement in itself and unrelated to the final purpose, the movement as an end
in itself, is nothing; the final objective is everything! (Le But final,” in Refo'rme ou revolution?
[Paris, 1947], p. IOI). By "the final objective,” she meant at that time the “destruction of the
State," the “conquest of politic al power.”
w ithout taking a step forw ard or even backw ard is also m ovem ent.
Nonetheless, every expression rests on a pro p er id e a ; this idea, in our context,
is th a t here and now, day after day, a change occurs to w hich we devote all
our energies: the increase of power. This in no way runs counter to the final
objective, b u t, on the contrary, is absolutely identified w ith it. W hen we
adop t as o u r aim the constant grow th of our power, we are already w orking to
achieve our final goal.
“O n e sometimes hears it said th a t th e im m ed ia te purpose o f all our actions
is to obtain reforms. " I n fa c t, certain refo rm s— th e right o f coalition, fre e d o m
o f the press and, still m ore, universal suffrage -stre n g th e n the working class,
while other reform s are conceded by th e bourgeoisie in order to weaken the
workers' class consciousness. “Social refo^rms, therefore, do not, as is often
m ain tain ed , constitute stages o n th e ro ad to the final objective, in the sense
th a t this objective is som eth in g other th a n th e sum to ta l of a series o f reform s.
W e are striving today to secure m easures w hich in no way constitute a p artial
realization o f w hat we intend to achieve in socialist society. For exam ple, the
legal sanction lim iting th e length of th e w orking day, insurance against
in d u stria l accidents, 8 etc., are at present r e f o ^ s o f the highest im portance;
but w hen capitalism has d isappeared these laws will becom e com pletely
superfluous, as will all legislation protectin g th e workers against the a rb itrary
decisions of th e capitalists. Social refo:rms fo rc ib ly won by conflict represent so
m any stages on the road to the final objective, in th a t they involve an increase
of pro letarian strength. I t is only as such, as a n increase in power, th at they
are o f any interest for socialism . . . . ”
A long developm ent follows o n “th e science of society” —M arxism —
“engendering for th e first tim e am ong th e p ro le ta riat som ething w hich m ay
be called the self-consciousness of society.”
III. T he Tactical D ifferences

In its first phase, the socialist m ovem ent, b o th G erm an an d in tern atio n al,
was sp lit by two energetically opposed tendencies, in a confrontation th a t stiU
continues. “I t h as often been said th a t th is conflict was a k in d of childhood
a ilm en t 9 w hich the m ovem ent h a d to p u t u p w ith in its beginnings, w hen
workers were still lacking in knowledge an d experience. In a certain sense,
this is tru e. T h e science of society, the knowledge o f the objectives a n d th e
8. Under discussion at the time and finally promulgated in 1911, this law excluded the trade
unions from acting as cashiers; it was very ill received by the Social Democrats of every tinge, who
unanimously regarded it as an instrument designed to consolidate the imperial regime.
9. I have before me a copy of the present pamphlet corrected by the author for a new edition
(probably in Switzerland during the war). This phrase is underlined anew. It should also be
pointed out that, in this copy, the term “revisionist” is everywhere replaced by ''reformist.”
m ethod of th e struggle, can n o t b e acq u ired in a quasi-academ ic way outside

the conflict of w hich, in reality, they are th e fruits. Subjected to oppression
an d exploitation, th e w orkers find themselves stirred instinctively to
resistance. However, they are still im b u ed w ith illusions an d prejudices
fostered in school an d in ch u rch , w hich th eir present way of life continues to
feed. W h en they set about defending themselves, they thereby show th a t they
have lost one o f th e ir illusions, but only o n e : th e illusion th a t th e capitalists
are fathers to them , an d th a t they can rely o n th eir h u m a n ita ria n feelings.
L ater, experience of conflict g radually dissipates th e other illusions and
prejudices th e ir tru st b o th in th e bourgeois governm ent an d in the
bourgeois opposition parties. In this way th e tactical a n d political knowledge
of th e workers increases an d , at th e sam e tim e, their organization. T he
M arxist theories are increasingly well understood, because they correspond
m ore an d m ore closely to the experience of all. T hus the battlefield represents
both school and exercise y a r d . . . . T h e workers should, therefore, seek their
way an d deepen th e ir know ledge th ro u g h th e class w ar; although the
theoretical writings of scientific inspiration u n d o u btedly help tow ard a b etter
and quicker un d erstan d in g , they are no su b stitute for struggle. T h a t is why
differences an d spirited conflicts, w ith resu ltan t false orientations and
deceptions, a re inevitably involved in th e developm ent o f th e workers’
m ovem ent . . . ”
After the decline of anarchism around th e 1890s, new differences em erged,
this tim e betw een M arxists an d revisionists. This occurred b o th in G erm any
and th ro u g h o u t th e w orld; w hile in France an d Italy revolutionary trad e
u n io n ism —know n in G e ^ a n y as anarcho-socialism 10- m a d e its a p p e a r
ance. “T h e fact th a t th e workers’ m ovem ent h as always b e e n m arked by
in te rn a l conflicts shows th a t this is not a m a tte r of anom alies, o f m ere
childhood ailm ents, b u t of n o ^ a l an d inevitable reactions to n atu ral
situations. H ence one m u st take care not to treat th em as childish squabbles
a n d m eaningless cav illin g . . . . A m ong th e m ost d irect causes o f the tactical
differences are the following: the u n eq u al rh y thm o f developm ent in the
different regibns; th e dialectical n atu re of social developm ent; th e existence
of o th er classes besides capitalists a n d w age-earners.” A passage, om itted
here, m ain tain s in effect th a t th e mass o f new p arty m em bers, b ein g raw
10. A current originally made up of trade unionists who rejected the ever increasing
centralization of the trade union organizations (and their do^na of "political neutrality”),
whence their name-"localists.” They grouped themselves, in 1897, into a "Free Association of
Trade Unions" (FVDG). Cf. Fritz Kater, The Tendency of the Free Aôciation of G^^Mn Trade
Unions, (Berlin, August 1904), p. 7; Dr. Friedeberg, le Mouvement socialiste, nos. 139-140,
Aug.-Sept. 1904; for a history of Gemian anarcho-trade unionism, ^ the articles by Gerhard
Aigte in Die Inte^rnationale (organ of the FAUD), nos. 7, 8-9, 10, (1931).
82 I P A N N E K O E K T H E WORKERS' COUNCILS
recruits, often repeated th e errors com m itted by th e m ovem ent in its early
years and took u p illusions th a t h ad long d isappeared from the socialist
m ovem ent.
“Socialism, b o th as a n objective an d as a class organization, is in every
respect a product o f the conditions specific to large industry. These conditions
bring hom e to th e w orkers th e possibility an d th e necessity o f a socialist order,
also teaching th em th a t, in th e masses, they have th e pow er to create this
order. C onfidence in th e ir o ^ strength a n d in th e ir ability to ta k e pow er are
th e fruits o f these conditions.
“A m ovem ent th a t seeks to conquer th e whole State, to t r a n s f o ^ th e whole
of society, cannot, however, be lim ited to th e larg e to-wns and cities. It m ust
also extend into sm all t o ^ s , villages, an d ru ra l areas. Besides, prom oters will
fin d such w idespread discontent a n d oppression th e re th a t they will be h e a rd
eag erly . . . . B ut these people live in conditions th a t lead th em to take quite
an o th er view of society and o f our purposes. A nd since the im m ediate reality
o f th e ir situation continues to shape th e ir views, they m ay themselves com e to
d o u b t th e validity o f o u r t h e o r y - a n d o f th e tactics based on i t - s i n c e this
th eo ry is linked w ith co nditions in larg e industry. T his is a p rim ary source of
differences th a t are as basic as tactical differences.
“Highly developed capitalism opens a bottom less g u lf between the class
o-wning th e m eans o f p ro d u ctio n an d th e w orking class, while the independent
m iddle classes disappear o r lose th e ir autonom y. On th e o ther h a n d , in the
underdeveloped regions one still finds a large, w ell-off m iddle class acting as a
buffer between th e extrem e classes. This m id d le class consists, on th e one
h an d , o f in d ep en d en t craftsm en, who rarely em ploy anyone; and, on the
other, o f petty bourgeois, w ho generally have very few employees. T h e line of
d em arcatio n betw een laborers an d craftsm en is n o t very pro n o u n ced ; they
m ix socially as a m a tte r o f course, an d th e relations between w orker and
em ployer are tru stfu l and relaxed, or, in th e larger business concerns,
p a tria rc h al. O ften th e cap italist him self has only just left the ranks o f th e
skilled workers, so th a t th e re are workers who re m em b e r him w orking by th eir
side an d speaking fam iliarly w ith them . H ence, in these innocuous forms,
w here th e w age-earning condition seems to be d ete^n in ed by personal
circum stances an d personal bonds, it would require g re a t powers o f
abstraction to discern exploitation by greedy capitalism a n d th e beginnings of
the class struggle. T h e conditions o f ru ra l life are even less in accord w ith th e
p ic tu re o f m ajo r industry presented by o u r theory. In the country the bonds
betw een peasants, families, fa rm laborers, m a id servants, rem ain prim itive.
O f course, th e general no ^n s o f capitalism c a n be seen here in effective,
w idespread operatio n : exploitation, th e th irst for profit, and th e clash of
TACTICAL DIFFERENCES / 83
interests; b u t, by com parison with th e ir clear an d indisputable f o ^ in big

industry, h e re they m ust be tra c e d u n d e r th e cover o f prim itive appearances.
"In these regions, the workers f o ^ a scattered m inority an d the petty
bourgeoisie frequently looks dow n on th e m . Socialism awakens in them the
idea th a t they have rights an d claim s th a t should be pressed. B ut th e idea of
wishing to be everything, o f wresting power from th e other classes, seems to
them an unrealizable utopia. T h e goal o f th e stru g g le-ceaselessly to increase
class p o w er—seems to th em u n attain ab le. T h e ir objective is som ething quite
different. In these regions, wages are generally very low, and consequently the
living conditions o f th e w orker are m iserable. H e sees the im provem ent o f his
im m ediate situation as an objective that has at least the m erit of being
feasible . . .since circum stances, personal relations, are m atters th at can be
discussed, transacted, a n d understood.
“A gain, a considerable p a rt o f th e petty bourgeoisie feels th reatened by
capitalism an d has every reason to hate it, th e m ore so since the
m ultiplication o f factories makes com petition m ore an d m ore ruthless a n d life
more and m ore h arsh. T he petty bourgeoisie is often forced to oppose the
intrusion o f big capital in to th e political field, an d thus to ally itself with the
w o rk e r s - f o r exam ple, in defense of dem ocracy. In such circum stances, the
theory o f opposition between th e classes can seem ill-founded an d one-sided.
“M arx ism , as a theory o f th e revolutionary p ro letariat, induces a com plete
change o f m en tal a ttitu d e . T herefo re it is welcom ed warmly by those who
have every reason to change th e ir a ttitu d e in view o f the considerable
transform ations o f w hich they a re a t once th e witnesses a n d the victims. T h e
developm ent o f m o d ern giant industry destroys ancient traditions, throws
dow n old custom s, a n d makes a tabula rasa o f m inds, which th e n becom e
capab le o f accepting absolutely new ideas. But in th e country, in rem ote
corners w here even th e w hisper o f such m ighty changes has scarcely been
heard, th e people continue to inhale deeply the poisonous air o f
trad itio n . . ., a n d there socialism does not a p p e a r as a com pletely new world-
vision, b u t as a series o f p ractical an d lim ited objectives th a t can co-exist
perfectly w ith th e trad itio n al ideas o f the bourgeoisie.
“F u rth erm o re, it is u n d erstan d ab le that th e p en etration of o u r party into
backw ard regions would provoke a reaction o f d o u b t th e re about socialist
theory a n d ab o u t certain aspects o f o u r tactics as shaped in the large
industrial centers.” But ultim ately, it is big in tern atio n al capital th a t is
decisive an d th e m iddle class o f th e sm all towns who find themselves
inevitably left behind. T h e workers of th e large centers are destined to m ake
their weight felt m ore an d m ore, w hence th eir preponderant influence as
regards th e t r a n s f o r a ti o n of society. “No d o ubt, the situation in the
84 I PANNEKOEK AND THEE WORKERS' COUNCILS
backw ard regions also exercises a n influence, but its only role can be to curb
the m ovem ent . . . . T h a t is w hy it w ould be ab su rd to attem p t to g a in new
m ilitan ts there by h u m o rin g prejudices. T h e w ork o f theoretical explanation
is, indeed, as necessary in such regions as it is d ifficu lt.”11
IV. Revisionism and A narchism

“T h e dialectical character o f social developm ent is a second reason why
heterogeneous tendencies occur in th e workers' m ovem ent. In this connection
the im p o rtan ce o f th e philosopher H egel should be stressed. H e was th e first
to point o u t th a t th e developm ent of th e w orld is effected th ro u g h
contradictions a n d th at in tern al contradictions a re the driving force o f all
evolution. Essentially, th e w orld is sim ply th e unity o f contraries. In their
content these contraries reciprocally exclude one another, a n d therefore
ap p e a r to naive th o u g h t as irreconcilable contradictions. T hey do n o t coexist
in peace, b u t, o n the contrary, th e ir disap p earan ce as a result o f developm ent
gives rise to new situations. Consequently, these contradictions f o ^ only
transitory stages o f th e developm ent; yet th e w hole o f history consists only of
stages o f this kind, w hich follow one an o th er a n d altern ate. As a result of
this dialectical m ode of thinking, M arx was able to elucidate com pletely the
n a tu re o f capitalism a n d to show th a t it involved a developm ent ceaselessly
engendering new contradictions and a ctuated by th e m . . . .
“T h e dialectical n a tu re o f capitalism in tu rn d e te ^ in e s th e highly
contradictory c h aracter of th e m o d ern workers’ m ovem ent, so in com prehen
sible even to reflective bourgeois observers. Som etimes they see in the socialist
m ovem ent a full-blow n a tte m p t to incite peaceful populations to replace an
ab su rd social o rd e r by an o th er o rd er shaped by h u m a n sagacity. Sometimes
they seek reassurance in th e th o u g h t th a t Social D em ocracy is only a reform
p a rty representing the interests o f th e w orkers w ithin the naturally stable
p a tte rn o f capitalism , a n d to seek th e suppression o f certain disadvantages
affecting the workers, b u t destined to disap p ear autom atically once these
errors have been corrected; in short, a ‘tem p o rary phenom enon.' T h e first o f
these ideas overlooks th e fact th a t the new o rd e r develops organically from the
o ld ; the second, th a t the struggle to m ake the w orkers' interest prevail a n d to
establish r e f o ^ s will le a d to a social revolution. Anyhow, both a re w rong
because they take into account only one aspect o f the workers’ m ovem ent. In
reality, this m ovem ent com prises tw o inseparable aspects th a t a re divided in
ap p earan ce only (a com pletely superficial ap p earance).
11. Lenin had this pa&age in mind, perhaps, when he wrote: "If he [Pannekoek] sems to
allude sometimes to Ru»ia, it is only because the basic tendencies . . . are also appearing in our
midst." Lenin, op. cit., p. 152.
TACTICAL. DIFFERENCES I 85
"Socialism is a natural p ro d u ct of capitalism and at the sam e tim e its

m orta l enem y. O ne cannot speak, therefore, o f a pow er external to capitalism
th a t will som eday a ttack a n d overthrow i t ; on th e contrary, socialism lives in
the h e a rt o f th e system a n d draw s all its strength from th e system. T h e
struggle it wages is not a rtific ia l; it will last as long as capitalism itself; an d its
p rax is consists in everyday action, w hich, however, is only one p a r t o f it.
Because of th e into lerab le misery that it en genders, capitalism drives the
w orking c la ^ to com bat this m isery; and, by so doing, it can n o t prevent th at
class fro m im proving its living conditions. But, a t th e sam e tim e, it constantly
tends to reduce th e m to m isery, a n d th e workers m u st often fight h a rd to keep
the advantages they have won. I f a t first sight it m ay seem th at the answer is
quite sim ply to p u t a n end to these ab erratio n s, a n d so at one stroke to
m ak e capitalism e n d u ra b le a n d to p e rp e tu a te i t - a s bourgeois r e f o ^ e r s
b e lie v e - th e whole course of th e conflict soon shows that these ‘aberrations'
are a t th e very essence o f capitalism , a n d th a t, to com bat them , struggle m ust
be w aged against' th e system as a whole.
‘‘T hese two aspects, w hich socialism h a ^ o n io u s ly unites, m ay be called the
reform ist aspect an d the revolutionary aspect. . . . O ne or other o f these
aspects prevails according to the econom ic situ atio n a n d to both personal and
social circum stances. W h en a situ atio n favors th e w orkers—even if only at a
local level as in E ngland durin g the 19th century, o r exceptionally for a
lim ited p e r i o d - a n d w hen attem p ts to p rofit by this situation are crow ned
with success, awareness of the revolutionary c h a rac ter o f the m ovem ent is
lo st; in o th er words, it comes to be accepted that a change o f society by stages
is possible, th a ^ te to grad u al im provem ent a n d to the cooperation of the class
in power, or, a t least, w ithout b itter opposition from this class a n d w ithout
violent revolution. T h e opposite situ atio n exists in tim es o f crisis, w hen great
political catastrophes aw aken large-scale discontent and agitation. It then
becom es easy to persuade people th a t capitalism can be leveled by a single
revolutionary blow, w ithout th e need for p a rtia l, p atien t, prep arato ry day-to
day action.
“O ne of th e two tendencies in which these sentim ents and ideas are
in co rp o rated is revisionism. It is in terested only in r e f o ^ i s t social practice,
an d reg ard s all talk ab o u t revolution an d the revolutionary ch a ra c ter o f o u r
m ovem ent as em pty form ulas serving only to distract p rax is. In this view, n o t
th e fin a l objective b u t th e m ovem ent itself is w hat is im p o rtan t. In d ifferem t
to th e sharp antagonism betw een socialism a n d capitalism , they focus
atten tio n only on their organic relationship. A ccording to the revisionists,
society transform s itself tow ard socialism gradually, insensibly an d w ithout
sudden sp urts; a slow evolution is g u a ra n te e d ; th e theory o f political an d
86 I PANNEKOEK AN D THE WORKERS’ CO UNCILS
social revolution is, in their opinion, simply a theory of catastrophes. They

m ain ta in that th e refo^ns secured constitute a n elem ent of socialism w ithin
the capitalist system. T h a t is why they refuse to m ake a clear distinction
betw een o u r m ovem ent a n d th e activities of bourgeois r e f u s e r s whose aim is
also to secure r e f o ^ s (but for a purpose quite different from o u rs ; th a t is, to
stren g th en capitalism against us), a n d why they see only a grad u al
differentiation betw een tim orous r e f o ^ e r s an d consequential ones. For
them , th e passage to socialism is not tied u p w ith a basic change in m ental
attitu d es, nor does it involve a break w ith th e p a s t; a ll th a t is req u ired is a
new attitu d e tow ard simple, p ractical questions; hence they see with
jau n d iced eyes any exposition which recom m ends uprooting established
middle-class traditions, since they fe a r th a t this would be a shock an d a
setback for the masses.
“T h e o th er one-sided idea of socialism is th e very opposite of all this; its
ad h eren ts reject day-to-day action and a re concerned only w ith the final
objective. T h e revolution, they say, will effect an im m ediate an d com plete
change, will establish a new o rd er; m eantim e, there is n o th in g else to do
except keep insisting on this fact. In capitalism they see only unjust tyranny
an d exploitation, but they a re completely b lin d to the organic relationship
betw een th e two systems th a t ensures th a t socialism develops naturaUy from
capitalism . They consider social r e f o ^ s not as progress b u t as danger, since
the workers a re thereby lulled into acquiescence and m ay well give a
lu k e w a ^ reception to revolution. T h e slow w ork that secures progress does
not interest th em ; their sole dream is to overthrow capitalism a t one blow,
and as soon as possible. T his idea has lately spread am ong the anarchists.
Today, the t e ^ ‘an arch ism ’ covers the m ost diverse tendencies, from the
most pacific and unw orldly Tolstoyism to the u n fo rtu n ate rejects of society,
feverishly hungry for hom icide. H e re we a re concerned w ith anarchism only
insofar as it plays a p a rt w ithin the w orkers' m ovem ent, an d to the ex ten t to
w hich it is distinguishable from Social D em ocracy by the qualities we have
listed. A fter th e 1897 London congress, at w hich this cu rren t of ideas was
outlaw ed from th e workers’ m ovem ent, th e m ajority of these qualities
reap p eared in revolutionary trad e unionism o r anarcho-socialism , which has
m eantim e undergone a certain developm ent . . . . ”
Since these anarchists reg ard p arliam en tary action as a source of
corru p tio n , they have tu rn ed to tra d e union action and have even come to
regard th e trad e unions as organs of revolution. But they eith er entrench
themselves in day-to-day action, in im m ediate dem ands and in these alone, or
else th e ir activity degenerates to th e level of discussion circles in which they
dream of ‘th e great d ay .’ Since the revisionists, for their p art, are solely
concerned with reform s, they attem p t at all costs to ally themselves with the
bourgeois parties, at least with those w hich openly favor dem ocracy and
r e f o ^ s ; a n d lest they frighten off such parties, they studiously avoid any
clear statem ent of th e ir basic principles.
“In order to support th e liberal an d progressive m iddle class against the
reactionary elem ents, the revisionists join them in a concerted policy to set up
a coalition governm ent. T hey scarcely realize that all this m ere illusion. In
effect, little or nothin g of th e hoped-for r e f o ^ s wiU m aterialize, since it is
necessary to m obilize a ll available forces to repel th e attacks of the
reactionaries. A nd even if they succeed in d oing so a n d th e day comes w hen a
governm ent is f o ^ e d in which prom ises m ust be kept and substantial
concessions m ade to the p ro letariat, th e outcom e will be rem iniscent of the
story of th e m an who sought to teach his horse to live w ithout eatin g : at the
very m om ent w hen th e beast h a d becom e used to this, it was killed
accidentally. Similarly, w hen th e coalition governm ent seeks to im plem ent
g reat reform s, it lo s e s - q u ite accidentaUy, of course —m iddle class support,
a n d th e cab in et is overthrow n.
“If, in one respect, th e gain is so slight, in an o th er th e loss is great. '^ ^ e n it
tries to lead the workers to expect wonders from th e alleged sym pathy of the
m iddle class tow ard them , revisionism ruins the class consciousness so
p a in fu lly won, a n d plays th e g am e of th e rulin g class; for, if the workers are
induced to expect m ore from m iddle class good will a n d enlightenm ent from
from th eir own efforts, they will be that m uch less inclined to form strong
organizations. T h e external, organizational strength of the p ro leta riat and its
intern al, spiritual stren g th will b o th be w eakened. Besides, the m ovem ent will
thereby lose its pow er to a ttra c t th e p ro letariat. T h e large n um ber of workers
- w h o , while lacking any deep u n d erstan d in g of all th a t socialism stands for,
have nevertheless a class consciousness as solid as it is instinctive - t u m away
from th e party, w hich they now see p a ra d in g u n d er the colors of a
m iddle-class party, an d lay on it p a rt of th e blam e for all the oppressive
m easures legislated by th e governm ent. In F rance an d in Italy, the reform ist
tactics, th e policy of coalition with th e liberals and with m inisterialism ,
strengthened an arch o -trad e unionist se n tim e n ts-h o stility tow ard all political
a c t i o n - i n a section of th e p ro letarian class, w ithout consolidating
organization or increasing class consciousness, those two pillars of w orking
class power.
“Obviously, of course, these theoretical ideas are not the only basic cause of
this developm ent; on th e contrary, indeed, the em ergence of these lim ited
conceptions of socialism can be explained by a m ediocre degree of econom ic
developm ent an d by specific political circum stances. On the o th er hand, in
regions where big business is m aking giant progress, th e workers are

com pelled to wage a fierce claK war, to build u p large organizations and, in
fa c e o f represssz'on, conduits to link u p m ore a n d m ore closely the two aspects
of th e workers' m ovem ent, w hich are em bodied in th e M arxist theory . . . . ”
C apital created th e m iddle class society, whose ju rid ical basis is th e
freedom a n d equality of all. It th u s e m an cip ated the m asses o f th e people
from th e bonds of personal dependence th a t characterized the feu d al system.
T h e worker therefore becam e a free a n d equ al p a rtn e r with the c a p ita list, to
w hom h e sells his lab o r. “His ju rid ical freedom is th e necessary condition of
his econom ic bondage. C apitalism is a highly developed m ode o f p ro d u ctio n
that has no need o f slaves obedient only to the w hip o r o f coolies deprived of
all rig h ts. Using a highly evolved technique an d subject to com m ercial.
regulations, it needs workers w ith a high sense o f responsibility and edu cated
to a sta n d a rd inco m p arab ly h ig h er th a n th a t of a slave or a serf.
"This anom aly involved in th e condition of the p ro letariat, th e fact o f being
at once free an d dep en d en t, constitutes th e most im p o rtan t co n tradiction of
the capitalist system .” O n th e one h an d , capitalism finds itself com pelled to
acknow ledge th a t workers' organizations have rights; on th e o th er, it is
constantly trying to lim it those rights by force. B u t, in th e second of these
c a s e s - to take a concrete instance, th e p rohibition in Bism arck's regim e
against the Socialist D em ocratic P arty’s p ro p ag atin g its id e a s - t h e result does
no m ore th a n arouse th e workers’ sym pathy fo r the socialist cause. In th e first,
the result is m u ch m ore positive: th e workers’ m ovem ent grows in num bers
an d in solidarity.
“T h u s th e ruling class constantly oscillates betw een two m ethods of
governm ent em bodied in two opposed political tendencies. In th e first place,
the political antagonism s w ithin th e rulin g class assuredly derive from clashes
of interest betw een the d ifferen t groups o f th a t cla&. Historically, they stem
from th e antagonism betw een th e two m ajo r m iddle class parties, found
everywhere in th e w orld: th e antagonism betw een th e m agnates o f industry
an d th e wealthy landed proprietors, to w hich are th e n joined the clerical
low er m iddle class. However, in reaction to th e developm ent o f capitalism ,
the p ro letariat grows to be a th reat to all its exploiters; f u r t h e ^ o r e , the
extension of capitalism into th e ru ral areas, w ith the particip atio n o f the
rich nobility in industrial enterprises, g radually effects a n eclipse o f the
old antagonism s. T h e re su lt o f all this is a contin ual lessening o f th e opposi
tion betw een th e m iddle claw p arties. B ut these antagonism s ap p e ar a n e w -
im bricated , however, o n w hat T r a i n e d o f th e o l d - a n d a ^ o c ia te d with
them are different ideas a b o u t the best way to r e p re ^ th e p ro le ta ria t. T h e
‘conservative' or ‘clerical' p a rty advocates strong m easures; th e liberal
TACTICCAL DIFFERENCES I 89
party, th e m axim um lib erty o f m o v em en t; nevertheless, the old p arty d em ar

cations tend to becom e increasingly b lu rred , so th a t both parties are
eventually com posed of lan d ed proprietors, m an u factu rers, farm ers an d the
lower m id d le class. H en ce th e term s ‘conservative' a n d ‘lib eral’ take on a new
m eaning. T h e progressivist section of th e m id d le claK can no longer lim it
itself to th e recognition of th e workers' political liberty and certain rights; it
m u st also seek a rem edy for th e ‘aberrations' o f capitalism , w hich a re th e
causes of th e workers' discontent. H ence, in contrast w ith th e old dogm atic
liberalism of the M anchester School type, th e new liberalism finds itself
com pelled to opt for r e f o ^ s , dem ocracy, an d th e intervention o f th e State in
the econom ic life of th e country.
“Such transform ation o f political parties occu rred in an integral way only
in the countries o f W estern Europe w hich have a truly dem ocratic
constitution. G erm any, for its p a rt, ignores th e co n stitutional regim e; it is
u n d e r a governm ent w hich behaves as an autonom ous power over w hich all
the clav es seek to exercise a determ ining influence, w ithout ever succeeding
in entirely doing so. Faced w ith the aristocrats a n d the workers, liberalism
continues, therefore, to rep resen t th e exclusive interests of the industrial
m iddle class; th e new liberalism , th e dem ocratic current and the sym pathy
for th e workers, are still at th e stage o f th e fine phrase.
“I t is in term s o f given econom ic a n d p o litical events that one or other of
these tendencies is p red o m in an t, a n d th a t th e m ass o f lower m iddle class
electors o p t for one or o th er of these m eth ods of governm ent. T h e
developm ent of th e w orkers' m ovem ent is also g overned by these factors, an d
th a t is why it is b o u n d to stray to the rig h t or to the left w hen theoretical
know ledge is lacking, w h en it is w ithout th e su re m eans o f recognizing the
recu rren ce o f th e crisis by whose aid it can m ove tow ards its objective. W hen
the ru lin g class resorts to reactionary policy, a n d represses the workers'
organizations, the idea gains g ro u n d th a t nothing can be expected by legal
m easures, a n d th at violence m ust be m et by violence. T h e feeling of
powerlessness which grips th e workers pushes them tow ards nihilism ; since
ordin ary political action is excluded a n d secret agitation alone rem ains
possible, a co n tem p t fo r day-to-day action sets in and the workers see the final
solution as some f a r o ff ‘day o f w ra th .’ Very soon, the m ere fa ct of sticking
firm ly to existing conditions o f acting at th e p arliam entary level, i.eems a
b etray al of the workers' cause.
“B u t everything changes w ith the circum stances, w hen the crisis has passed
an d th e ru lin g class are now trying a policy of sw eetne^ an d light. W hen the
vice-like grip is loosened, th e w orking class can b reath e again, can flex their
m uscles, a n d organize th eir f o r c e s - a n d th e whole prospect becom es rosy.
T h e new attitu d e of th e ruling class is regarded as an absolute law of

developm ent, signifying a perm a n en t softening o f the class war, a lasting
dem ocratization o f society, and an increasingly strong tendency towards
reform s, w hich will lead to socialism .” 12
T h e socialists, unanim ous in desiring a real policy of refo^rms, approve of
th e following f o ^ u l a draw n up by V ollm an (a declared revisionist): “T h e
m ore th e developm ent takes place in a peaceful, orderly a n d organic way, the
b e tte r is it b o th for us and for the collectivity.” “B u t the developm ent is in no
way d ep en d en t on our wishes. At th a t tim e, no doom ed class decided to go
under w ith dignity a n d honor, n o r any social o rd e r to founder, w ithout first
using u p every ounce o f stren g th in an attem p t to rem ain afloat. A nd, today,
th e capitalist d a s is not showing any readiness to pave the way for socialism
by m eans of real social reform s an d of a d em ocratic an d progressive regim e.
T h e re is no so-called ‘logic o f events' which, by shaping the course of history,
will force this class to choose the way of d em ocratic re fo rm ; o n the contrary,
concern for their econom ic interests will dissuade them from this, so long as
they see such a step as strengthening an d raising the enem y. For the positive
purpose o f the liberal policy is to mislead the workers . . . . M iddle class social
reform s are m e re p reten se a n d charlatanism . Only the vigilance o f the
workers’ representatives, who ceaselessly u rg e the dem ands o f the workers,
can secure anything of value from such a situation . . . .
“A t first sight, th e two tendencies designated by the general nam es
anarchism an d revisionism seem to be absolutely opposed. However, since
they have a com m on g ro u n d in b o th being distortions, b u t in contrary
directions, o f Social D em ocrat tactics, they are closely akin. Both, in effect,
originate in a m iddle class outlook, radically different from the pro letarian
one. . . .
“T h e p ro letariat have their o ^ dialectical idea of n eceâry social
developm ent, whose stages can be grasped only in te:rms of antagonist
n o tio n s - f o r exam ple, revolution and evolution, theory an d practice, final
objective an d m ovem ent. Especially p ro letarian is the idea th at all apparently
opposed situations are sim ply m ovem ents in a m a jo r process o f developm ent.
T h e p ro letariat does not reason along logical e ith e r/o r lines—for exam ple,
either revolution o r e v o lu tio n - b u t sees in two such elem ents sim ply two
aspects of one and th e sam e developm ent. . . . T h e m iddle class,
non-dialectical way of thinking takes account only o f the accidental, w hich
12. These clearly empirical considerations are primarily inspired by the experience of
German Socialism both in the period of the “law against the dangerous intrigues of Social
Democracy" (1878-1890), and afterwards. Mutatis mutandis, they still retain, however, some
value as regards other countries, and even other times.
for the most p art is merely a p a c in g phenom enon, and so it swings from one
extrem e to the other. It notices contradictions only in the f 'o ^ of 'on the one
hand . . . on the other hand,' but w ithout seeing in them the driving forces of
development; in its view, a development is to be seen as a slow evolution
which, while it no doubt ends by effecting some change, leaves the eêntial
quality intact.
“T his first opposition is closely connected with the second. While the
proletarian outlook is materialist, the middle class outlook is ideological;
dialectic and m aterialism go hand in hand, as do ideology and non-dialectic.
For the proletariat, it is m aterial forces that govern the world, forces outside
the scope of the individual; for the m iddle class, development depends on the
creative forces of the hum an m ind. T he m aterial reality is dialectical; that is,
it can be truly grasped only as a unit m ade up of opposed ideas. By contrast,
in th e notions and ideas which, according to the m iddle claw way of thinking,
constitute the driving force of development, the terms of the contradiction
mutually exclude one another as notions-, for example, evolution and
revolution, liberty and organization. W e are concerned i n the m iddle class
context w ith abstract ideas, w ith incom patible essences, no account being
taken o f the underlying m aterial reality: either revolution or evolution,
without the possibility of a third t e ^ . So, when revolution is regarded as the
ouly true principle, m inor r e f o ^ s are autom atically declared anathem a; or,
vice versa, the m inor r e f o ^ s are alone considered as valid.
“I n this sense, anarchism and revisionism both represent m iddle class
tendencies w ithin the workers' m ovem en t; they u nite a m iddle class view o f
the w orld w ith proletarian sentim ents. Standing shoulder to shoulder with the
proletariat, they m ean to espouse their cause, but without assisting to effect
radical changes in m ental attitudes and to substitute the knowledge which
characterizes scientific socialism. They borrow their concepts and patterns of
thought from the m iddle class world, and are distinguishable one from the
other only by the fact that they derive from different periods of history. By
and large, it can be said that the m iddle class, in the period of its ascension
to power, professed revolutionary ideas; whereas, in the period of its
decline, ir no longer wants to have anything to do with upheavals, even in
the natural sciences, and believes only in slow and gradual evolution.
Anarchism, continuing the traditions of the m iddle cla» revolutions, thinks
only about staging revolution; while revisionism adopts as its own the theory
of slow evolution, proper to m iddle cla» decadence.
“More accurately, we a re dealing with lower m iddle class rather than
m iddle class tendencies For, unlike the complacent upper m iddle claw, the
lower m iddle class has at all times constituted a class of discontents, always
inclined to oppose th e existing order. Social developm ent does n ot, in effect,
favor this class. Left in th e cold, it inevitably plunges fro m o n e excerc to
an o th er. Sometimes it is intoxicated w ith revolutionary slogans a n d trie s to
seize pow er by m eans of putsches; som etim es it craw ls sham efully at the feet
of the upper classes a n d tries, by cunning an d deceit, to wheedle r e f o ^ s from
them . A na rch ism is lower m id d le class ideology gone m ad; rewvisfonism, the
sa m e ideology w ith its te e th drawn. T his close kinship explains why e a c h can
be so easily changed in to th e other. T h e history o f th e workers’ m ovem ent
contains only too m any instances of a rd e n t ‘revolutionaries’ m etam orphosed
in to peaceable r e f o ^ is ts . In 1906, m an y revisionists suddenly becom e
convinced of th e possibility o f engineering a m in o r reovlution; b u t, w hen they
discovered th e uselessness of th e a tte m p t, they th e n relapsed into a r e f o ^ is m
of the m ost b la ta n t ^ n d ,! 3 Only th e external f o ^ h a d changed;
fundam entally, the conception h a d rem ain ed exactly as it was, opposed to
Marxism a n d refusing to see developm ent as the unity of contraries.
“Furthe:rmore, these two tendencies have in com m on the cult o f the
individual an d of personal liberty. Marx.ism regards the pow erful economic
forces w hich m ove the marc o f m an k in d as factors of the social dynam ic;
while th e m iddle class theory places in th e h eart o f its philosophy the fr e e and
unshackled personality. "T h is was th e doctrine o f old style liberalism , an d this
is th e d octrine of anarchism , always ready to d efen d the individual freedom of
th e p ro d u cer against interference by th e state, w hile ignoring the fac t th a t
the p rin cip al function o f state pow er is to oppress th e w orking clarces, an d
th a t this pow er m ust be supprerced, as m ust all f o ^ s o f authority in general,
to give way finally to real freedom . W hile revolutionary trad e unionism does
not coincide on this p o in t w ith pu re, individualistic anarchism , because it
developed in a m ilieu o f already organized workers, it proclaim s n o lerc
distinctly th a t its objective is th e perfect autonom y o f the individual. For its
p a rt, revisionism extols m oral liberty, so d e a r to K ant. Besides, both a n
archism an d revisionism re p u d ia te th e M arxist conception o f econom y,
13. Toward the end of 1905, certain seûents of the Social Democratic Party, under the
impetus of the Russian Revolution (and, its reper^cussion on the level of ideas in the famous maa
strike debate) launched an intensive press campaign with a view to securing the abolition of the
suffrage restrictions. This movement took on vast proportions, and was accompanied by political
strikes, demonstrations and dashes with the police. However, the party and, to a greater extent,
the trade union leaders used every means to break it and succeeded some months later. The active
campaigns against militarism, colonialism or the armaments race having been essentially the
work of youth organizations, the campaign, resumed in 1908 and 1910 in support of voting
rights constitutes one of the rare moments when the G cân Party took up toward the authorities
an attitude other than one of peaceful criticism. However, the choice of this example shows that
Pannekoek is here attacking general tendencies much more than political currents with clear
contours.
accord in g to which “capitalist p ro d u c tio n presents a twofold ch aracter, itself

deriving in tu m from th e twofold c h aracter o f the m erchandise: its usage
value a n d its exchange value. C onsequently, all labor is sim ultaneously
concrete, a creato r o f usage values, an d ab stract, a creator o f exchange
values. In the capitalist system, p ro d u ctio n is also pro d u ctio n of usage values
for society a n d p ro d u ctio n of surplus value. T his second function, the
fo rm atio n of surplus value, constitutes for the capitalists th e essential purpose
o f p ro d u c tio n , b u t th e first is in d iô lu b ly linked w ith it. H ence it is th a t
capitalist p ro d u ctio n is a t once p ro d u ctio n o f necessary objects, without
w hich society could not exist, an d exploitation o f th e w orkers."
T h e anarch ist persists in ignoring this twofold ch aracter. H e sees m o d em
industry, that “great organizing pow er,” as a n oppressive pow er a n d as th a t
alone. G enerally a highly qualified tradesm an or technician, he feels th a t
industry is th reaten in g to d e c la ^ h im socially. F urtherm ore, he dream s o f
leveling the m iddle class by m ean s o f the general strike, in th e anarchist sense,
n o t realizing th a t, in conjunction w ith b ig business, certain elem ents o f the
fu ture society a re taking sh ape w ithin the present society, an d th a t these
elem ents m ust be developed, n o t throw n in disarray. T his is reco^gnied by
the revisionist; b u t, since for h im th e difference betw een the capitalist a n d
the socialist modes o f p ro d u ctio n is sim ply a m a tte r o f degree, h e believes th at
the passage from one to th e o th e r can occur gradually, w ithout prelim inary
conquest o f p o litical power. “B oth involve a relapse into the old u topian
ism . . . . Since they refuse to re g a rd the com ing o f socialism as an inevita
ble result o f econom ic developm ent, they a re obliged to resort to lu c u b ra
tions a n d cla p tra p . W e know th a t th e anarchists delight in elab o rate a r
gum ents in w hich they eagerly try to reconcile this o r th at com m unist
system w ith freed o m ; they re g a rd th e Social D em ocrats as people who w ant to
establish a definite social order, collectivism, w ith a purpose com pletely
different from th e ir own com m unist final objective. Sim ilarly B ernstein is
m ost a:Flxious to know w h at m ust be understood, in o u r p rogram by saying
th a t we w ant to ‘statize.’ In b o th cases, this is to ignore th e fact th at a new
m ode of p ro d u ctio n m ust evolve of itself, a n d th a t it cannot be in troduced
ready m ad e, in conform ity w ith a p la n fixed in advance.
“Revisionism a n d anarchism represent, therefore, opposite an d one-sided
distortions o f socialism. Since n e ith e r u n d erstan d s w h at is m ean t by M arxism ,
which unifies in itself th e two aspects o f the workers' m ovem ent, each of these
tendencies regards th e oth e r as M arxist a n d attacks it as such. T h e revisionists
describe th e M arxist tactics as revolutionary rom anticism , and, though the
facts give th e m the lie, re g a rd th e M arxists as enem ies o f im m ediate claims, of
day-to-day action, a n d o f refo:rms. T his is only to b e expected, seeing th a t for
94 / PANNEKOEK AND THE W O ^ & R S ' COUNCILS
them r e f o ^ and revolution are m u tu ally incom patible, and that they cannot
understand how one can advocate the revolutionary tasks o f the p ro leta ria t
w ithout a t th e sam e tim e ab an d o n in g the id ea o f m in o r r e f o ^ s . A narchists
a n d revolutionary trad e unionists see things from a strictly opposite
view point: they re g a rd revisionist tactics as th e necessary consequence of
Social Dem ocracy, a n d they co m b at th e la tte r by accusing it of r e f o ^ i s t
theories an d actions.”
V. P a r lia m e n ta r is m
“Political institutions serve to establish b o th the laws which m en m u st obey
as m em bers of society, a n d th e laws re q u ire d by the do m in an t m ode of
p rodu ctio n for its p ro p er exercise; they m ust also see to the im plem enting o f
such laws. T hese rules restrain th e freedom o f the individual in the interests o f
all, o r o f w hat it has b een fo u n d convenient so to describe. T he pow er o f the
State m ust necewarily originate in th e division o f society into the ruling c la »
a n d the ruled, exploited c la » ; it constitutes th e instrum ent which the rulers
use to repress the ru led . T h e m ore co m plicated the social m achinery
becom es, th e m ore are the functions o f State pow er extended, an d the m ore
does this power take o n the appearance o f a n autonom ous organization,
ruling over th e whole o f social life. State pow er h as becom e th e objective o f
the class w ar, because w hichever class poêsses it h a s also at its disposal the
im m ense strength o f the State, a n d can, by m eans o f laws, im pose its will on
the whole o f society. . . . Legislation, the police, the judiciary, the
adm inistrative authorities, th e arm y, are all institutions w hich are used m ore
an d m o re as w eapons in the w ar against the w orking claw. T he p ro letaria t is
therefore com pelled to adopt as its objective th e conquest o f the state.
"P arliam entarianism is th e norm al fo r m o f political dom ination with the
m iddle class. . . . B u t, if this is so, why d o the workers wage the parliam en tary
war? W hy do they go to such lengths to secure universal suffrage? T h e
im po rtan ce o f p arliam en tarian ism is to be sought in quite a n o th e r direction.
In effect, it constitutes th e best way to increase the strength o f the working
class. If today, in every country d o m in ated by capitalism , one sees g reat
socialist parties f o x i n g to en lighten th e p ro le ta riat and, above all, to lead
the w ar against the d o m in a n t order, this pow er, grow n to such considerable
proportions, is due essentially to th e p arliam en tary struggle.
"It is easy to u n d e rsta n d why parliam en tarian ism has m ade these results
possible. T h e first effect o f the p arliam en tary conflict is to enlighten the
workers about their class situation. O f course, this c a n also be done by m eans
of pam phlets and public m eetings, but it is difficult to use these m eans a t a
tim e w hen the m ovem ent is still weak a n d w hen it comes u p against a
veritab le wall o f prejudice and indifference: . . .w hereas the voices of the

w orkers’ representatives in p arliam en t echo in even the m ost rem ote
a re a s. . . .
“T h a t seats in p arliam en t are o f such im p o rtance is undoubtedly because
they serve as a m eans o f agitation, b u t still m ore because the outcom e o f
parliam en tary conflict is the en lightenm ent o f the alerted workers. If o u r
representatives go in to p arliam en t, it is n o t prim arily in o rd e r to m ake
stirrin g speeches, b u t to co m b at the m id d le class parties there. In so far as
such a distinction is possible, seeing th a t we are discussing a n activity which
c an only be verbal, it is by their actions, not th e ir words, th a t th e workers are
ed u cated to socialism . . . . It is by follow ing th e p arliam en tary debates
attentively th a t th e workers acquire the political awareness which they need.
W hen , day after day, senators o f every party, seeking to im pose their views,
attack th e general theory an d outlook of th e workers' representatives, th e
workers g a in a rad ical know ledge of th e ir ow n attitudes as opposed to those o f
th e others. T h e p arliam en tary conflict is n o t, o f course, the claw w ar itself:
however, it does in a sense constitute the essence o f the class war. In th e
speeches o f a sm all g ro u p o f la b o r m em bers o f p arliam en t, th e interests and
ideas o f the masses are expressed in a condensed f o ^ . . . .
“W h a t is m ore, p arlia m e n ta ry conflict appeals n o t only to the
understan d in g , b u t also to spontaneous feelings. Besides giving the worker
political knowledge, it increases his m o ral sense, in the spirit o f pro letarian
m orality, o f solidarity, o f th e feeling o f belonging to a class. A nd organization
is thereby stren g th en ed . . . . T h e laborers feel them selves to be Catholics,
progressivists, o r P rotestants, a n d n o t w orkers; they do not feel that they are
m em bers o f one a n d th e sam e class. T h e entry o f a Social D em ocrat into
P arliam en t, w here he deals w ith th eir situation as the m ost im p o rtan t p a rt o f
his policy, an d w here he th erefo re speaks in the nam e o f the w orking class,
can suddenly fa n into flam e th e class consciousne^ that has been sm oldering
w ithin them . T his an d this alone gives them an awareness o f th eir co^mmon
bro th erh o o d in one specific body, even if as yet they cannot rise above the
m idd le class ideas w hich are sundering them .
“T he trad e u n io n m ovem ent also arouses a lively feeling o f belonging; it
unites th e workers, but only at th e im m ediate basis o f trade and craft. W ithin
th e trad e unio n m ovem ent, th e w orking c la » fights in s k i^ is h e s and w ith
sm all detachm ents against various capitalists o r groups o f capitalists. T h e
political conflict m usters all these battalions, an d th en the uncom m itted
workers begin to jo in in their thousands. It activates the w orking class as a
whole, w ith o u t reg ard to trad e o r condition, an d throws them into the w ar
ag ain st th e w hole m id d le class. F o r Social D em ocracy attacks n o t only
industrial capital, b u t also banking, la n d e d , colonial capitalism . The

political conflict is the class war generalized. T h a t is why p articip atio n in this
war engen d ers in th e workers, on a massive scale, th e feeling of belonging to a
class. It sets the seal on class unity; in its absence, as in 19th-century
E ngland, for exam ple, th e tra d e union organizations readily give way in a
lim ited cooperative spirit. T h e political conflict unites together with secure
bonds all th e separate sections o f th e whole w orking class; it t r a n s f o ^ s it into
a hom ogeneous body a n d thus increases its organizational strength.
P arliam en tarian ism has, in a sense, com pletely changed the p ro le taria t
created by th e e n o ^ o u s developm ent of capitalism , into a self-aw are a n d
organized class, read y for com bat. It is th e re th a t its value lies, a n d n o t in th e
illusion th a t th e electoral system can g u id e o u r ship th ro u g h calm w aters to
th e h a rb o r of th e fu tu re State.
“As against th e idea of p arliam en tarian ism ju st outlined, th ere is an
opposite view, w idespread a m o n g th e revisionists, which regards it, not as a
means o f increasing proletarian power, but as the battle itse lf f o r this
pow er. .. . I f one holds th a t th e political conflict should o ccu r exclusively
w ithin parliam en t, th e n th e p arliam en tarian s a re th e only people called upon
to w age it. I t is n o t th e w orking m a s e s w ho a re involved, b u t thier
representatives who fight on their behalf. T h e masses figure only a t th e ballot
boxes; th e only co ntrib u tio n they can m ak e to th e ir o-wn em ancipation is to
choose th e p ro p er candidates a n d c ^ p a i g n vigorously for them d u rin g the
elections . . . .
“T h e p arty deputies th u s tak e up a v an g u ard position; they becom e a
special class, th e ‘guides.' It is only n a tu ra l th a t th e most capable com rades,
having th e profoundest know ledge of socialism, should by w hat they say
exercise a pow erful influence over th e p a rty .” However, th e com rades elected
are n o t generally those whose attitu d e m ost clearly expreês class con
sciousness, b u t o thers w ho a re chosen w ith th e fu rth e r aim o f w ooing the
m iddle class vote. “T h e strength o f o u r p arliam en tarian s does n o t therefore
reside p rim arily in the socialism w hich they profess a n d in th e strength o f the
masses who su p p o rt them , b u t in th e ir personal qualities an d in th eir political
skill. T h ro u g h th e ir technical knowledge in ju rid ical a n d adm inistrative
m atters, th ro u g h th e ir fam iliarity w ith th e p etty combines, intrigues and
calculations o f day-to-day politics, they reg ard them selves as superior to the
non-p arliam en tarian s. In th eir view, they them selves are best able to ju d g e as
experts w hat are really m atters for approval by a ll, since they alone can delve
deeply into such m atters. W hen their ideas clash w ith those of th e rank and
file, they sim ply override all criticism : the com rades m ust rem em ber th at,
since as no n -p arliam en tarian s they do n o t know enough a b o u t these
problem s, they m ust tru st th e ir ‘delegates' to reach decisions in their ‘soul

an d conscience.’ In this way, th e p arliam entary section places itself above the
people a n d th e party, by virtue o f ‘th e superiority o f th eir political' know ledge.’
W hen th e masses accept such tutelage, dem ocratic sentim ents are doom ed to
d isap p ear from w ithin th e p a rty . . . .
“T h e re are those who re g a rd th e Social D em ocratic P arty as indistin
guishable from th e m iddle class parties, a n d a re b lin d to its absolutely
different c h a ra c te r. N a tu ra lly , th eir m ethods move closer a n d closer to those
of m id d le class politics. U n d er th e n am e o f ‘politics o f th e w orkers,’ they shape
a policy designed to secure for th e workers as m any specific advantages as the
other parties seek to o b tain fo r the m iddle c l a ^ - f o r heavy industry, finance,
small holders. In this way, a m ediocre ‘policy o f interests’ replaces the Social
D em ocratic policy which em bodies the p erm an en t revolutionary interest of
the p ro le ta ria t. In stead of a class w ar clearly rooted in principles, the aim is to
exercise an indirect ‘p o litical influence' th ro u g h p arlia m e n tary coalitions an d
blocs. T his is to forget th a t Social D em ocracy, by the fact th a t its attitu d e is
dictated by principles, covers directly the w hole field of m iddle c la « politics.
H ence it is th a t p articip atio n in a governm ental m ajority or the entry of
socialists in to the governm ent, becomes th e n a tu ra l consequence of this
viewpoint . . . . T h e quest for im m ediate positive results, nearly always a vain
quest, is pursued to th e d etrim en t of o u r g reat objective, w hich is to enlighten
an d unify th e w orking class.
“T his is so, in th e first place, because th e chief aim of these advocates of
indirect political influence is to win over as m any electors as p oîble. T h e
floating voters are by no m eans socialists b u t, on the contrary, are im bued
with m id d le class ideas. Som e of them u n d o u b tedly approve o u r im m ediate
dem ands; however, deeply im bued as they are w ith th eir class prejudices,
they do n o t ad o p t o u r u ltim ate aim s, o u r ideas as a whole. Really to tu m them
into solid, convinced m ilitants, requires a cam paign against their narrowness
o f m in d , a liquidation of th eir old, lower m iddle class prejudices, by a long
an d arduous p ro c e « of ed u catio n . B ut th e im m ediate outcom e of this m ay
well be to frig h ten th em off. It is m u ch easier to win th e ir votes, a n d m uch less
em barassing to respect th eir prejudices . . . . I t is even worse w hen, to win the
votes o f th e p easants an d o f th e low er m id d le class, they b in d themselves to
prom ises o f an im m ediate im provem ent o f th e ir condition, promises which
are poles rem oved b o th from o u r theory an d from real developm ent. Lower
m iddle class ideas are strengthened an d socialist enlightenm ent th w arted by a
cam paign o f this kind, which sacrifices the essential objective to im m ediate
electoral gains.
T h e tactic o f “exclusive p arliam en tarian ism ” is also h arm ful to
98 I Pj^ I E K O E K AND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
organization. W hen the workers are persuaded th a t th eir deputies will m ake
all decisions for th em , they have no fu rth e r reason for f o x i n g a m ajor
organization to conduct their o-wn affairs themselves. In effect, all they have
to do is to vote in electoral years, and all th e th in k ing they need to do is about
the choice o f the best c a n d id a te . . . . T h e result is th at m any workers of
revolutionary leanings, disgusted at the sight of socialist deputies behaving
exactly like those o f th e m iddle class, leave th e organization. . . . T h e
u n ilateral revolutionary w ing of the w orkers' m ovem ent thus takes on
an anti-political ch aracter, while th e r e f o r m w ing e x p r e s s itself cor
respondingly in m iddle class p arliam en tarian ism . In France and in Italy,
coalition politics a n d m inisterialism have increased the following of
revolutionary tra d e unionism , and are causing trad e unions to becom e
inim ical to th e p a rty ."
A narchism sees in oppressive institutions, such as the state, the source o f all
the trouble. “T h a t is why it rejects o u r objective, the conquest o f the state,
since such conquest would involve only a sim ple transfer o f powers, while the
p rin cip le itself o f auth o rity w ould co ntinue as before. It advocates the
overthrow of State power, th e abolition o f all constraint, so th a t m en becom e
absolutely free. FinaUy, they refuse to p a rtic ip a te in the politico-parliam en
tary conflicts, w hich in their view serve m erely to co rru p t the workers, since
they only contribute to replace one set o f rules by another . .. . T h e parties are
no m o re th a n politicians' groups for strengthening the deputies' positions and
for securing their prom otion to cabinet posts.
“From th e anarchist view point, th e State constitutes an autonom ous power,
which rules at its sum m it thanks to violence an d cunning, and at its base
thanks to superstition an d slavishnerc. T h e State, the parties and the
politicians are no longer in any real sense in contact w ith their origins, and
the classes subjacent to th em sink into insignificance. O ne finds the same
errors an d the same basic idea ^ o n g th e revisionists. Both they and the
anarchists are victims o f th e sam e politico-superstition: for the f o ^ e r , the
‘dem ocracy’ or the ‘rep u b lic' represents a saving divinity; for the la tte r, the
State is the m alig n an t devil . . . .
"M arxism always tried to establish the causal nexus o f all social
phenom ena; u n d er th e political form s, it never fails to trace th e economic
connections, the class connections. But this nexus cannot be expressed as a
simple form ula, straightforw ard and easy to rem em ber. T his is especially tru e
of th e State. T h e State, th e governm ent, is a n organization created by the
ru lin g class to defend th eir interests. But those who exercise S tate power do
no t use it solely in th e interests of the rulin g class, whose representatives they
are, b u t also in their o ^ im m ediate interests. S tate power in the service of
the m id d le class takes on a c e rta in autonom y, and suddenly seems

in d ep en d en t. B ureaucracy is a specific class w ith very special interests which
they seek to assert even against th e m iddle class.
“T his independence is, o f course, m erely a deceptive appearance.
B ureaucracy can attem p t to secure its own interests in m inor matters, because
in m a jo r m atters it serves those o f the m iddle class. T h e la tte r support it as a
lesser evil, because they could not im pose th eir interests to th e sam e extent
w ithout this b u reaucracy. In G erm any, th e governm ent of ju n k e rs
(aristocrats) is a d ap tin g itself to a bureaucracy w hich is enriching itself at
their expense, because it needs strong State power against the working class.
B ureaucracy is recruited am o n g th e m iddle class, who see in th e m any and
ever increasing governm ent an d adm inistrative posts, so m any soft jobs for
sons an d relatives. It too is th erefo re an exploiting class who deducts its
share o f th e overall surplus value from th e proceeds of state duties and
m onopolies and, from tim e to tim e, opposes th e o th e r classes’ rig h t to its
p a rt o f the surplus value. In countries w ith p arliam en tary governm ent, such
as France, the b u reau cratic sum m it comprises a clique o f politicians; in
countries w ith a tw o-party system, such as E n g land and the U .S.A ., two
cliques take turns in governing, an d secure for their friends th e plum State
jobs. T h e m iddle class as a whole sometimes resents having to p u t up with
such a b a n d o f parasites, b u t is nevertheless content with the system, since
bureau cracy sees to its general interests an d to its p ro fit. It is in appearance
only th a t the state power is independent of the m iddle c l a s s . . . . ”
VI. T h e Trade Union M ovem ent

“T h e tra d e unions are the n a tu ra l form o f p ro leta ria n organization, and
the direct m anifestation o f its social f u n c tio n - i.e ., to act as vendor o f the
m erchandise represented by work. T h e worker's im m ediate interest strictly
consists in selling his w ork at th e best price. T o him , his em ployer, his direct
exploiter, is the em bodim ent o f th e capitalist class, and the w ar against the
em ployer for an im provem ent of w orking conditions represents the first,
instinctive form o f th e class w ar.
“However, th e trad e unions are not the direct o rg an o f the revolutionary
class w ar, since their objective is not th e overthrow of capitalism . O n the
contrary, they form a necessary elem ent for th e stability o f a norm al capitalist
society. In regions w here workers are not yet organized and are therefore
incap ab le of serious resistance, the employers simply dictate the working
conditions. Consequently, they pay barely enough to keep the workers at the
subsistence level and to enable them to w ork; the workers are prem aturely
exhausted by th e excessive length of the w orking day. T he work is bought at a
price below its value; th e p urchaser takes advantage o f the seller’s weak
position, a n d ch eatin g takes th e place of fair exchange. B ut it is precisely this
in h u m a n exploitation which forces th e w orkers to resist a n d to organize
themselves. W hen th e tra d e u n io n succeeds in w aging w ar on these b arbarous
practices an d in im posing som ew hat fairer w orking conditions, it is essentially
doing no m ore th a n applying a fu n d am en tal principle o f all n o ^ a l
c a p ita lis m - th a t exchange of values takes place o n a basis o f equivalence.
T h u s th e tra d e u n ion destroys th e hegem ony o f th e em ployer; henceforw ard,
em ployer a n d worker con fro n t each o th er from positions of eq ual strength,
an d reach agreem ents by which work is p a id for at its value."
T h is is th e p rin cip al task o f th e tra d e unions " a n d the reason why they
should rem ain ‘n e u tra l’ in th e sense of not im posing any p articu lar political or
philosophic opinions on th eir m em bers. T h ey should m uster aU the workers
who w ant to fight th e em ployer fo r a b e t t e ^ e n t o f their working conditions,
an d also d em an d h ig h er u n io n subscriptions because, w ithout well stocked
coffers, it is imporcible to keep u p a strike or to w ithstand a lock o u t. T hey
also n eed salaried officers, because the adm inistrative duties, the co nduct o f
the w ar, a n d th e negotiations w ith employers, ca n n o t be discharged on a p a r t
tim e basis, a n d d em an d very specific aptitudes a n d knowledge w hich can be
acqu ired only by p ra c tic e .” F o ^ e r l y , the strike was a spontaneous explosion
of d esp air; b u t, w ith th e developm ent o f tra d e unions, it increasingly becomes
a carefuUy p re p a re d u n d ertak in g , a n d th e conflicts betw een the tra d e
unions a n d th e em ployers' federations com e to resem ble wars betw een two
great powers.
“In th e course o f these wars, th e tra d e unions do n o t act by any m eans as
adversaries o f capitalism , b u t take th e ir sta n d on the same territory as
capitalism . T hey do not deny the fact th a t la b o r is a type o f m erchandise,
but, on th e contrary, seek to o b tain th e best possible price for it. T h e tra d e
unions can n o t, in effect, en d th e reign o f th e capitalist at the factory, since
the cap italist is of course th e ow ner of th e m erchandise he has bo u g h t and
uses it fo r his o ^ ends; they can only cu rb any arb itrary conduct on his p a rt,
w hich is sim ply a n excrescence, an abuse. T heir tasks do not carry th e m
outside th e fra m e w o rk o f capitalism . T h a t is why one frequently finds m iddle
clarc politicians or sociologists taking a sym pathetic a ttitu d e tow ards them ;
the tra d e unions fight th e g reed of th e individual capitalist, n o t the class as a
whole or th e system as such. O n th e contrary, w hen they secure b etter
conditions for th e workers, th e misery an d revolt o f th e exploited masses are to
th a t ex te n t red u ced; a n d , in this sense, they even act as a conservative force
consolidating capitalism .
“But this characteristic is only one aspect o f th e ir natu re. T h e employers,
against whom th e unions w ar, also form th e m iddle class, th e class th at

exercises State power. T h e workers who wage this w ar are also those who m ust
carry on th e political conflict, th e w ar for socialism.
“If capitalism were a peaceful, stag n an t a n d u n alte rin g f o ^ of
p ro d u ctio n , the trad e unions w ould present th e sam e picture. A condition o f
eq u ilib riu m w ould therefore resu lt, to th e g re a t satisfaction o f the capitalists
who, w ith th e workers receiving fa ir pay for an agreed w orking week, could
th en quietly pocket aU th e rem ain in g surplus v alu e.”
U n d e r the spur of com petition, however, capitalism is forced to move
forw ard, to accum ulate m ore quickly ever increasing masses of capital. T h a t
is why it vigorously opposes pay dem ands, replaces m en by m achines an d
q u alified workers by unskilled la b o r from th e country areas or from abroad.
Periods o f prosperity a ltern ate w ith periods o f crisis, d u rin g which massive
unem ploym ent enables th e em ployers to take back th e concessions yielded
grudgingly u n d er prew ure from the unions. T h e la tte r are then obliged to
renounce these conservative traits, “w hich delight th e ir m iddle class friends,”
an d to support th e action o f th e political party. “T h e trad e unions f o ^ ,
however, a necessary elem ent o f c a p i t a l i ^ in its phases o f ra p id expansion;
they alone can th w art, by constant w arfare, the tendency of capitalist
developm ent to reduce th e w orking class to misery and thus prevent
p ro d u c tio n from sufering as a resu lt.”
“However, th e trad e unions also constitute an elem ent o f revolutionary
transform ation o f society. T his does not m e a n th a t they need to take on tasks
in ad d itio n to those they are already fulfilling, b u t simply th a t they carry o u t
their specific mission as well as powible. F ar from being ascribable to a
deliberate intention o r to a p ro g ram , it is th e reality o f the situation itse lf that
m akes th e m organs o f revolution. O nce m ore we see how intim ately the
p roletarian's revolutionary objective is linked to an d develops from daily
p ra c tic e .”
N o d oubt, th e tra d e u n io n conflicts c o n trib u te less th a n does the political
one to develop pi o letarian stren g th . B u t they do aw aken class consciousness in
the workers, m ak e th em recognize th e n eed for constant com bat, and
shatter th e ir illusions. Soon the w orker develops beyond this still lim ited stage;
he sees th a t he m ust confront not ju st an isolated em ployer b u t c a p ita l
ist society in its totality. It is th e political conflict w hich alone m akes him
cap ab le o f this w ider view. B ut th e tra d e u n ion, “ the n a tu ra l organiza
tional f o ^ o f th e w orking class,” m usters th e workers w ithin a strong
organization and, m ore im p o rta n t stiU, inclucates in th em the discipline
necessary to th e everyday struggle, the feeling o f solidarity, an d the conviction
th a t collective interest m ust tak e precedence over personal interest. “ Isolated
102 I PjANEKOEKAND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
u n til then, an d still preserving th ro u g h th e ir lower m iddle class origins the

h ab it o f acting in an individualistic way, th e workers see themselves changed
into new m en w ith new habits, into m en who feel closely u n ited w ith th eir
com rades as integral p a rts of a body an im a te d by one and th e sam e will. It is
in this new ch aracter th a t th e fighting strength o f th e pro letariat resides . . . .
O f th e two m ajor factors of this strength, knowledge an d organization, the
second is essentially th e result of trad e union action. T h e w ork o f th e trad e
unions, in which th eir im p o rtan ce to the revolution consists, is th e enorm ous
task o f m o ral ed ucation req u ired to t r a n s f e r the weak worker into a
conqueror o f capitalism .
"T his conception o f the role an d significance o f the trad e union m ovem ent
is peculiar to M arxism , w hich is alone in p ro claim ing th a t the revolutionary
t r a n s f o r a t i o n o f society is g e ^ in a l l y co ntained in the ordinary conflicts of
today. T h e m iddle class view, however, is th a t the objective of these daily
conflicts is a direct im provem ent o f living conditions, w ithout th ere being any
question o f their linkage w ith th e great p ro le ta ria n w ar of freedom ; b u t it can
also h ap p en th at, th ro u g h a realization of th e revolutionary m ean in g o f trade
unions, an effort is m ad e to give a specific direction to their present practice.
T h e English tra d e unions provide a classic exam ple o f the first o f these
conceptions; the second, the revolutionary tra d e union conception, is m uch
m ore evident in the F rench co u n terp art.
“In F rance, the r e f o ^ i s t policy o f the socialist party despises th e class
view point; th e unions have therefore experienced in their ranks, u n d er the
guise of reactio n , an explosion of very pro n o u n ced revolutionary sentim ents,
a lively opposition to p arliam en tarian ism . T h eir objective is n o t th e conquest
of political power, b u t th e seizure o f workers' control over industry. T h e true
workers' m ovem ent consists in a struggle whose course is decided by the
workers themselves, not by their representatives. T hese trad e unionists have as
their slogan direct action. 14 Only th e ma&es can win their own freedom ;
th eir leaders an d representatives cannot do it for them . T h e w orking m a ^ e s
m ust think an d feel for themselves; it is n o t enough th a t they unite, simply
with a view to obtaining h igher wages an d a shorter working day.
"T ra d e union p ractice here a n d now should be in strict c o n f o ^ ity with
these ideas. T h e unions are th e only genuinely w orking class organizations. It
is also u p to them to wage political war on th e g o v e r n m e n t- a t least when the
latte r attacks them , for any question of th e S tate leaves them otherw ise cold.
14. For a good definition, ^ Victor Griffuehles, /'Action ^rndicaliste (Paris, 1908), p. 23:
“Direct action means action by the workers themselves, that is, action directly taken by those
directly affected . . . . Through direct action, the worker himself creates his struggle: it is he who
conducts it, deteîned not to hand over to others his own task of self-liberation.”
T h e conquest of social pow er is to take place th ro u g h a general strike, d u ring

w hich th e organized workers will stop all w ork and will quite simply let the
capitalists founder. T h e mission of the tra d e unions is to develop the
revolutionary sentim ents necessary to th e im plem enting of a n action on such a
scale, an d to d o so, not only by exhortation, b u t also an d especially by the
practice itself o f th e strike. T h u s th e la tte r becom es a n end in itself, or ra th e r
a revolutionary gym nastic exercise, a n d th a t is why it m atters little w hether its
im m ed iate oucom e is victory or d efeat in re la tio n to the im provem ent of
living conditions.
"Experience has shown th a t these principles are not the basis for a strong
trad e u nion m ovem ent, 15 an d th a t th e objective it sets itself cannot be
attain e d in this way. T h is allegedly revolutionary practice is n o t a t all
successful in m ustering th e p ro letarian masses who are still w ithout class
conscio u sn ess-fo r this is som ething w hich c a n be achieved only by a
persevering conflict solely aim ed a t sm all an d g rad u al im provem ents. It
presupposed in th e worker a revolutionary a ttitu d e of m in d w hich can only be
the fin a l result of long practice. T h e tra d e unions continue to be sm all groups
of w orkers w ith revolutionary sentim ents, whose fervor does not m ake u p for
weakness o f organization. T h ro u g h lack of centralization, the progre® noted
from tim e to tim e rem ains a p a c in g p henom enon. Seeking to take on a
functio n oth er th a n its o ^ - n a m e l y , to act as a political p a r t y - t h e tra d e
union finds itself u nable to fulfill its p ro p er function, the im provem ent of
working conditions. It neglects w hat is in cu m b en t on it, the organization of
the m asses; a n d the revolutionary ed ucation w hich it does atte m p t, it does
wrongly.
“As regards trad e u nion action, revisionism has a n im portance o f quite
an o th er kind. In effect, it finds, in th e n a tu ra l existential conditions of these
unions, an area m u ch m o re favorable to its expansion th a n th a t o f the
political m ovem ent.” O f course, the tra d e unions do not, any m ore th a n does
the p arty , sep arate the fight for im m ediate dem ands from the fight for the
overthrow of capitalism ; b u t the party action is at an infinitely m ore general
level, a n d th a t is why it also dem ands m ore general ideas a n d argum ents a n d
15. In 1910, the French CGT numbered 358 thousand members (an estimate probably
greatly exaggerated), while the G eân “free trade unions,” linked with Social Democracy, could
claim a membership of more than two million. On the development of the Freien Gewerkschaften
between 1890 and the war, see especially: Heinz Varain, Freie Gewerk.schaft, Sozial-DemokTatie
und Staat ... (J 890-1920) (Diisseldorf, 1956} especially the bibliography; Gerhardt Ritter, Die
Arbeiterbewegung im Wilhelmi.schen Reich, (West Berlin, 1959}; and, above all, Heinz
Langerhaus, “Richtungsgewerkschaft und gewerkschaftliche Autonomie,” Int^nati(^&l Review
of Social History, 11, 1 and 2, 1957. See also Emile Pouget, la Confederation Generate du
Travail. (Paris, 1908), pp. 47-48.
104 / PANNEKOEK AND THE WORKERS ' COUNCILS
adopts objectives w hich are equally so. In th e dom ain of tra d e unionism ,
however, "th e argum ents are ready-m ade an d decided by the most im m ediate
interest. It is not necessary, therefore, n o r is it always desirable, to press the
distinction any fu rth e r. T h e task of trade unionism is to regroup the masses in
relatio n to a com m on a n d im m ediate objective; therefore it does not take
kindly to ideas w hich are in danger o f n o t being understood, because it
thereby clashes w ith c e rta in prejudices an d even shocks m any people, the
consequence bein g possible injury to the unity of the m ovem ent. So it is th a t
the trad e unions are led to confine themselves to the im m ediate, an d to
regard as disastrous, as revolutionary ‘ro m an ticism ,’ w hatever goes beyond
this.
“T h ere is yet an o th er reason why revisionism is so welcomed w ithin the
trade unions. T h e la tte r fight on the te rra in of the m iddle class political
order, of the liberal State. In order to develop, they need the rig h t of coalition
and a solidly g u aran teed quality o f rights, b u t n o thing m ore. T h e trade
unions as such have as their ideal, not a socialist o rd e r, b u t freedom and
equality w ithin the m iddle c la a State. W hen th ey possess these fu lly , as in
E ngland, they become upholders o f the status q uo; when these rights are not
fu lly acknowledged, as is still the case in Germany, they declare f o r political
democracy, a n d hence m a k e com m on cause w ith the revisionists a n d the
m iddle class progressives.
“L et a tra d e unio n movem ent succeed in w resting some notable
im provem ents, an d the id ea easily spreads th a t th e p ro le ta ria n condition can
be p e ^ a n e n t l y im proved w ithin the fram ew ork of the capitalist system. In
such circum stances, a conservative spirit makes its appearance, com placent
and little inclined to share in revolutionary aspirations. A workers’ elite f o ^ s
who, while seeking to raise itself by its own efforts, profoundly distrusts
the m ass of m iserable an d unorganized laborers. A t the sam e tim e, Social
D em ocracy finds itself thw arted in its efforts to raise the workers to an
effective level of class consciousness.
"T h e trad e unions do, of course, constitute the organization of the
p ro letarian masses. B ut u n a id e d and lacking as they do any ideals an d long
term view, w hich th e political m ovem ent cultivates p a r excellence, they are
incapable of inducing unity am ong the p ro le taria t. T h e trad e union
organization, in effect, resem bles certain federations of trad e or of industry,
w hich rem ain separate from one another, each rarely benefiting from the
active help o f the others . . . .
“However, as m ajo r industry develops, th e class w ar becomes m ore and
m ore lively, an d large employers' associations com e into being who m eet
p artia l strikes w ith a general lock-out, thereby fu rth e r extending th e w ar and
speeding u p the centralization of trad e unions. Decision-m aking, th e power to

d eclare industrial w ar or to end it, reverts m ore and m ore to th e tra d e u n io n
leaders a n d to th e central bodies; a n d m ore an d m ore the local groups lose
th eir right to m ake such decisions. T h e conflicts change in to g ia n t clashes in
the course of which, exactly as in in tern atio n al wars, huge arm ies are directed
by a suprem e com m and. T o safeguard the dem ocratic character of th e
organization, recourse is h ad to a system of representatives of th e
p arliam en tary type, thus provoking a new rise of b u re au c ratism . O ne is faced
with a phenom enon sim ilar to th a t connected w ith the p arliam entary
conflicts: th e influence of the leaders becomes decisive, while th a t of the
masses declines. Success or failure appears to depend on th e personal qualities
of th e leaders, on their strategic skill, on th eir ability to read a situation
correctly ; while th e enthusiasm and experience of th e masses themselves are
not reg ard ed as active factors. W ith in the workers' m ovem ent, just as w ithin
the State, a whole hierarchy f o ^ s whose p a rtic u la r ideas often prevail over
those of the masses.
“T h e revisionist tendencies in the tra d e u n io n m ovem ent have the further
disastrous effects . . . of inducing feelings o f com placency and an a n ti
revolutionary attitu d e o f m ind, of stren g th en in g the corporative spirit and
weakening both dem ocratic awareness a n d the confidence of the masses in
their own strength. Since these tendencies originate directly in the very n a tu re
of th e trad e u n io n m ovem ent, the pow erful developm ent of the la tte r” is
b o u n d to strengthen th em in an equally n a tu ra l way; on the o th e r h an d , a
cam p aig n of p ro p ag an d a centered on principles m ay confine their growth.
“For such p ro p ag an d a is som ething quite o th er th a n a fully arm ed m eans of
salvation. T h e reality o f th e situation not only engenders revisionist
tendencies b u t also causes the g ro u n d to slip away b en eath them . Capitalism
is not only an existing reality; it is one th a t constantly overthrows everything
that exists. It is in the n a tu re of the existing capitalist reality to t r a n s f e r
trad e u nion wars in to a carefully calculated skirm ish . . . , b u t it does not
necessarily follow th a t these conditions are eternal and i^mmutable.” O n the
contrary, they undergo incessant change an d , “to the extent to w hich th e
latte r urge tow ard revolution, th e l o n g - t e ^ revolutionary role of the tra d e
unions becomes an im m ediate reality .”
W h ile industry grows a t an increased ra te an d, w ith it, th e n u m b er of
workers, th e class war takes on a massive ch aracter, w ith a m ultiplication of
m ajo r strikes in every co u n try an d hun d red s of thousands of m en involved in
them . “Every m ajor strike now takes on the ap p earance of an explosion, of a
m inor revolution. 16 T h e trad e unions find themselves forced to ab an d o n
0 '
16. We again remind the reader that between 1903 and 1913, huge and violent strikes
som ething of their im m ediate dem ands in ord er to ad ap t to a political

context. T h e old corporative lim itations are s h a tte r e d - a n d , of course, their
overthrow wili be the m ore effectively an d readily secured if assisted from the
outset by a lively p ro p a g a n d a .”
T h e State pow er reacts to this by re p re ^ io n , an d the workers m ust face up
to this. “Political action an d tra d e union action m erge m ore a n d m ore into a
un ited front of the working c la ^ against th e ruling class. T his shows,
therefore, th a t only tem p o rary conditions p eculiar to a particu lar phase of the
c la ^ w ar were sep aratin g the first tim e of action from the second and were
causing e ach to develop its o ^ characteristics in a distinct way. In the
‘parliam en tary ’ phase, the p ro letariat has to a d a p t its war tactics to exterior
c o n d itio n s - in o th er words, to the m iddle class hegem ony w ithin the State, a
hegem ony th a t h a d co ntinued u n disputed throughout a whole generation
w ithout undergoing any basic m odification. H ence, these w ar ta c tic s - th e
political type and th a t of tra d e u n io n is m -w e re able to develop each in its
o ^ way, so as to assume indep en d en t existence. T h e conditions p eculiar to
this phase left so deep an im pression th a t m any considered it foolish to
suppose th a t they could ever disappear, the d o m ain of ‘practical’ politics and
tactics being doom ed in th a t case to destruction. T hese conditions were not,
such people believed, destined to change in th e foreseeable fu ture, and
m erely to envisage a shifting o f the w ar to an o th er terra in was reg ard ed as
rom antic illusion. T o gauge the effects of this period, it is enough to recall the
reluctan ce very often shown in tra d e union circles to discuss the conditions
and the possibilities of th e g eneral strik e .17
“But a third period o f the proletarian class war is being in au g u rate d . . . .
T h e m a ^ strike as an everyday tactic, d u rin g th e p a r l i ^ e n t a r y phase, was,
in its ‘revolutionary gymnastics’ f o ^ , a piece o f childishne^ w ithout practical
value; h enceforth, it is becom ing som ething re a l.” Political conflict a n d trad e
occurred in succeuion in various European countries, and this in spite of the determination of the
big workers’ organizations to limit such movements; thus this foûla corresponded to the facts.
Did it not take a world war-engendered of course by other causes as well-to put an end,
provisionally, to this social agitation?
17. Theodor B()melburg. the head of the stonem^ns' union, declared at the Trade Union
Congre^ of 1905 : “We ought to suspend all discu&ion of the general strike, and postpone [the
discuttion of] future solutions until the appropriate time,” since the present situation "requires
calm within the workers’ movement." The CongreM adopted a motion inviting the workers “not
to allow themselves to be deflected from the day-to-day activity of building up the organization,
by the accepting and propagating of such ideas.” Cited by Karl Kautsky, Der politische
Massenstreik (Berlin, 1914). pp. 115-18; see also the dottier assembled by Gunter Griek on this
theme, Zeitschnftfilr Geschtchts^wisenschaft, 5, 1963, pp. 919-940. In a general sense, the trade
union leaders, whose influence over the party was great, did all in their power to prohibit any
discuraion of these ideas in congre&es, in the prett and in public meetings.
union action are m erging, thereby entailing a u nion of political expertise and
tra d e unio n discipline; th e old m ethods have h a d th eir day. "E m bodied in the
leaders, th e two m odes of action rem ained distinct, a n d yet, a t b o th levels, the
masses were m ade u p of th e sam e workers. T h e organized masses themselves
are now enterin g in to th e fray, endow ed w ith class consciousness, discipline,
an d th e strength gained in previous c o n flic ts -th e ir organizations, the tra d e
unions, th e ir political knowledge, s o c i a l i ^ .”
V II. The O ther Classes

" If th e p ro letariat an d th e capitalists engaged in m ajor industry were th e
only classes in o u r society, th e conflict w ould represent th e very sim ple p a tte rn
of two cam ps draw n u p against each other. B ut this is n o t th e case. Between
th e m iddle class an d the p ro letariat there are num erous interm ediate
categories th a t shade gradually from one class to the o ther. O n the one hand,
th ere are th e vestiges of th e old in d ep en d en t m iddle classes: the small
capitalists, scarcely distinguishable from th e big ones through whom they
have been b ro u g h t into tight circum stances; substantial f a c e r s an d lower
m iddle claw people, who p artly serve the interests o f big capital, w hich tends
to exploit directly the sm all f a c e r s a n d th e laborers. O n the other h an d ,
however, there are classes o f recent grow th, th e officers a n d noncom m is
sioned officers of the in d u strial arm y who ran ge from forem en to te c h
nicians, th ro u g h engineers, doctors, chief clerks, to end in directors. H ere
the m em bers of the inferior ran k are th e exploited, th e others being the
exploiters.
“AU these in te n n e d ia te categories, w ith their own p articu lar interests, take
p a rt in the class war. Some identify th eir aspirations with those of th e
proletarian s; th e rest opt for th e other cam p. Suddenly, therefore, the class
w ar p ic tu re becom es m ore com plicated, a n d divergences show w ithin the
party because of attitu d e s linked w ith d ifferen t interests."
A long description follows a b o u t th e condition of the lease-hold f a ^ e r an d
of th e lower m iddle c la » person, forced to pay high re n t to the capitalist,
d ream in g of a retu rn to a society o f sm all enterprises, b u t wishing in the
interests of his business th at th e workers h a d m o re m oney to spend. W hile
h atin g th e capitalist, h e feels th a t he is th re a te n e d by the workers' dem ands,
to th e ex ten t to which he him self employs a staff. H e w ould like to see
com petition regulated a n d m ilitary expenses reduced, and, to secure this, he
Telies on the p arliam en tary system. In this sense, he is a dem ocrat. “T he
pro letariat can som etim es benefit by these clashes o f interests. I t d id so in
E ngland in 1847 to secure th e lO -hour day; an d in G erm any in 1867 to win
the fra n c h is e -e v e n if these dem ands triu m p h ed only a t th e cost of grim
108 I Pj^ E K O E K AND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
battles. But these clashes of interests rem ain ed always of a secondary kind in
com parison w ith th e one w hich separates th e p ro letariat an d the m iddle
class . . . , an d never am ounted to anything m ore th a n differences ab o u t the
division o f th e spoils. . . .
“T h e so-called new m id d le class-in te lle c tu a ls , ^ civil servants, salaried
e m p l o y e e s - f o ^ , for their p a rt, a transition category betw een the p ro letariat
an d th e m iddle class. T h is new variety is distinguished from the old by the
following essential tra it: since they have absolutely no ownership o f m eans of
production, an d live by the sale o f their labor, they have therefore no interest
in th e m aintenance o f private production, o f the private ow nership of the
m eans o f production. A t this level, they stand w ith th e p ro letariat, w ith just as
little reactionary interest or desire for reaction; they look ahead, not
backw ards. W e have h ere a m odern class th a t is em erging an d becom ing
m ore a n d m ore num erous w ith the grow th o f society itself.
“T h e situation of this class differs greatly, however, from th a t o f the
proletariat. As a rule, its m em bers offer a highly qualified type of work, the
result of years of costly study. T hey therefore com m and m uch higher salaries
th a n those of the workers. H olding m anag em en t or scientific posts, they can,
if they prove to be highly com petent, reach th e highest positions, and thus the
old saying of th e in d ep en d en t m iddle class, ‘Everyone is the architect o f his
o-wn fo rtu n e,' is given a new setting. Unlike th e situation of the proletariat,
misery an d necessity d o not force t h ^ into an implacable- w ar against
capitalism ; on th e contrary, they find this system satisfactory in m any
respects.
"T hey do not deliberately decide to fight for an im provem ent o f their
condition. Those w ith top positions feel th a t they belong with capitalism , and
have other m eans of achieving their objectives. T h e mass of these employees
breaks u p into so m any groups an d categories, w ith such a variety o f salaries
and aspirations th a t they do n o t f o ^ a solidly u n ited body in the m anner of
the w orking class. T h ey comprise, so to speak, all th e ranks from general to
adjutant, w hereas th e workers represent th e mass o f private soldiers. T he
employees do not work in g reat collectives, b u t as individuals; they therefore
lack th e vigorous awareness th a t the p ro le ta ria t has owing to its work in
com m on an d in large groups. U naccustom ed to h ard sh ip , they fear
18. Der Intelligenz: the Social Democratic theoreticians have never tried to define exactly
the limits of this category. Thus, in his controversy with Bernstein (Kautsky, op. cit., pp. 242-54),
Kautsky used "intellectuals” imprecisely to refer to office or commercial workers, the cadres of
industry, and others; he later applied the term only to the cadres in general. and finally he
limited it to the members of the intelligentsia as creators and manipulators of leftist ideas. It
would be rash to claim that the t e ^ is any more precise today.
TACTICAL, DIFFERENCES / 109
unem ploym ent m ore th a n th e workers do. All this m akes them unfit for
organized tra d e union action against th eir capitalist m asters. Only the
subaltern categories, w ho are b o th the worst p aid and the most num erous,
and whose lot is therefore very sim ilar to th a t o f the b etter paid workers, are
g radually com ing ro u n d to the idea o f organization an d o f tra d e union
action.
“T h e intellectuals are also separated from th e p ro leta riat at the ideological
level. T h e p roduction of m iddle class environm ent, they are naturally im bued
w ith a m iddle class idea o f th e world, an idea w hich their theoretical studies
have served only to stren g th en . W ith the intellectuals, the m iddle class
prejudices against socialism tak e on a scientific coloring. T h eir p artic u la r
position w ithin th e process o f production m akes t h ^ increasingly convinced
of the tru th o f th e ideological idea th a t th e m in d governs th e world. Looking
on themselves, therefore, as th e veêls o f a cu lture from w hich everything
proceeds, they are filled w ith a sense o f their superiority to the w orking
m asses; in business, in their jobs as inspectors or overseers, 19 they regard
themselves as at enm ity w ith th e workers. T h a t is why they equally hate
socialism, the ideal o f the p ro letariat, fearing th a t the power of the
uneducated masses m ay reach a level equal to th a t o f the industrial hierarchy,
and th u s destroy th e la tte r’s privileges.
“T h e re are num erous factors, therefore, w hich co n tribute powerfully to
sep aratin g th e new m iddle class from the p ro letariat, an d this despite an
identity o f econom ic fu n ctio n . Social developm ent will draw the lower
categories of this class m ore an d m o re into th e conflict, b u t they will never be
able to w age w ar w ith th e vigor, the ruthlessness and th e intransigence w hich
the w orking class situ atio n imposes. T h eir socialism will therefore be o f a
m o derate kind; they will fin d th e bitterness o f th e p ro letarian w ar distasteful,
and will em phasize th e reform ist an d civilizing c h aracter o f socialism.
“It should be noted here th a t certain categories of workers, whose degree o f
qualificatio n m akes th em indispensable, a n d w ho, being b e tte r p aid th a n the
others, co n stitu te a w orking class elite, are close to an d show the distinctive
characteristics of these lower categories o f th e intellectual class.”
I f one is to believe th e revolutionary trad e unionists, only tra d e unionists
are fit to conduct the w ar: “this is to lim it the m ovem ent to the w orking class
or even to th e p a rt of th e p ro letariat who can ad h ere to union organization.”
But th e p ro letarian w ar has w ider horizons; f u r t h e ^ o r e , "M arxism does not
re p u d ia te th e idea of m aking com m on cause w ith o th er classes . . . . W hen the
19. With the increased division of labor, this term has disappeared from the workers’
vocabulary.
governm ent an d its sustaining social groups bring in m easures o f a

particularly provocative kind, kindling th e m a ^ e s to rage, the m em bers of
these in term ed iate c a te g o r ie s - a n d also the still unaw akened proletarians
join our ranks in g reat num bers, an d together we m ake the governm ent think
again. B u t this action can n o t last long; as soon as their im m ediate interests
remove th em from us, their m iddle class ch aracter reappears, and we have to
press on alone, w ith o u r com pact p ro le ta ria n battalions. T his change of
direction on their p a rt is only to be expected. All things considered, therefore,
the p ro le ta ria t will succeed in securing pow er only if political events
com pletely discredit the governm ent an d draw on it the h atred an d distrust of
b o th th e m iddle c la » a n d the p ro letarian masses, an d only if the ru ling classes
lose th e ir confidence an d therefore find themselves un ab le to resist the
p roletarian a ^ a u lts. B u t for all th a t, it is still possible th a t a tem porary phase
of reaction will follow, if th e clash of interests betw een the p ro letariat and its
allies em erges after th e com m on victory.
“However, th e revisionists d o n o t fin d it sufficient th a t other claves, urged
by th e ir own interests, come forw ard from tim e to tim e to stand w ith the
p ro le ta ria t.” T h e w orking class, they say, is too w eak to im pose its wishes, an d
therefore needs th e support of the o th e r claves. T his com m on actio n should
assume a p e ^ a n e n t ch aracter an d consequently it is neceâry to m odify the
Social D em ocratic p ro g ram an d tactics, to cen ter them on reform s obtained
th ro u g h th e p arliam en tary system, th ro u g h electoral alliances. In th eir view,
the only m eans o f “t r a n s f o ^ i n g the m ode o f p ro d u ctio n is to win a m ajority
in parliam en t. T o do this, th e party m ust ad o p t a policy th a t favors the
greatest possible n u m b er o f social categories, a n d therefore m ust emphasize
only th e interests com m on to the pro letariat an d to the other classes, and play
dow n w hat sets them against each other. T h e lower m iddle c la s an d the
f a c e r s find th a t they are n o t regarded as employers, 20 b u t ranked am ong
those exploited by capitalism an d therefore wholly w ith us in the fight.
“T h e basic question, a t this level, c o n c e ^ th e f a c e r s . W e m ust win them
to ou r cause; indeed, it can n o t be too often rep eated th a t we shall nevei; reach
our objective as long as th e farm ers are against u s.” T o secure their support,
the revisionists urge th e p a rty to support th e protectionist dem ands of the
f a c e r s who, for exam ple, w ant to see th eir p roduce defended, by m eans o f
h ig h im p o rt tariffs, against foreign com petition. “T h e m o re efficacious this
protection proves, the stronger the situ atio n will b e c o m e - a n d the weaker
20. In 1901, at the Lubeck Congress, the question was discussed whether the small
entrepreneurs, party members, should be expelled for having refused to meet the demands of
their salaried workers; the motion was defeated. Cited by J. Delevsky, les Antinomies
socialistes. ... (Paris, 1930), p. 357.
TACTI^CAL DIFFERENCES I 111
wiU becom e th e ir com m on interests w ith the p ro le ta riat. . . . If Social

Dem ocracy succeeds w ithin a capitalist regim e in freeing the f a c e r s from
exploitation, th eir interest in m a in tain in g th e existing o rd er will be increased.
O nly when th e system has been destroyed can the f a c e r s escape from the
g rip o f exploiting capitalism . . .
“T h e M arxist line of tactics in no way d ep arts from the principle th a t all
in term ed iate social categories are always w ithin the cam p of big capital, b u t it
brings out clearly th a t the interests of such categories very often ru n counter
to those o f th e big capitalists, w ithout thereby enabling the p ro le ta ria t really
to count o n their support. Revisionism would reconcile opposed interests and
serve two cla ves at th e sam e tim e . .. . B ut this is m erely the way to
com prom ise the interests of the p ro letariat an d to enable the o th er classes to
take advantage of th e m .”
V III. Ideology a n d Class Interests

“Socialism is the ideology o f the m o d em p ro leta riat. Ideology signifies a
system o f ideas, conceptions an d plans, a spiritual expression o f the conditions
of m a te ria l life and o f class interests. B ut these spiritual expressions do not
exactly correspond to the reality o f their context. T h e ideas an d conceptions
are e x p re ^ e d in an ab stract m a n n e r in w hich th e concrete reality w hence the
ideology has b een derived does n o t always a p p e a r, o r ap pears w ith a variety of
different aspects. So the idea o f freedom , as a p olitical w atchw ord, derives
from m iddle class interest in free enterprise an d free com petition; b u t each
class th a t uses it gives the idea a m ean in g of its own. T oday the word
‘liberalism ’ has a com pletely d ifferen t m e a n in g th a n it h ad 50 years ago. As
an a b stract generality, an ideology is a p t to obscure real differences so th a t
th eir existence is n o t suspected. If later on, in new conditions, these
differences em erge clearly and w ith practical significance, an ideological
b a ttle rages to decide th e m ean in g o f this or th a t id e a: for exam ple, w hat
precisely does ‘liberal' m ean a n d w hat is real freedom ?
“Socialism, too, as a syrtem o f ideas, can cover a wide range of highly
different contents and m eanings according to w hat class is p u ttin g it forw ard.
W e have ^ e n in the previous section how a class, by n a tu re b o th proletarian
an d low er m iddle class, gives to the socialist ideas th at it adopts a m eaning
absolutely different from th a t given them by th e pro letariat o f big industry.
Every class c a n shape its ideas only o n the elem ents o f reality it knows
directly; it does not u nderstand, an d therefore ignores, w hatever is foreign to
its own experience. So it is th a t it projects upon the ideas and ideals it has
ad op ted experiences an d desires associated w ith its p a rticu la r situation.
“It is easy to see why socialism is successful in w inning support outside th e
112 I PANNEKOEK AND THE WORKERS' CO UNCCILS
class o f workers in the big in d u strial concerns of W estern Europe. Socialism

signifies anti-capitalism ; the socialist p a rty wars against capitalism on
principle, as its m o rtal enem y. B u t capitalism spreads its oppressive reig n over
th e w hole world, an d everywhere nations are suffering from its hegem ony, are
revolting against it a n d seeking to overthrow it. T hey see socialism as th e ir
solution, an d th e workers o f W estern E urope as th e ir n a tu ra l allies against
the com m on enemy. This is so, we have seen, w ith small farm ers pressurized
by capitalism , b u t it is equally so with overseas regions w here capitalism , in its
colonial f o ^ , has p e n etrated deeply an d whose ag ricultural resources it is
exploiting. T h e ‘socialism ’ o f New Z ealand is simply the policy o f local
f a c e r s an d employers who w ant to neutralize European large-scale
capitalism , and to enable a truly native capitalism to flourish. Sim ilarly, the
socialism o f th e Russian intellectuals at the tim e o f the n a ro d n ik s -w h ic h still
survives w ithin th e revolutionary socialist p a r ty —assum ed the character o f a
peasan t socialism a t grips w ith th e exploitation to w hich W estern E uropean
capitalism was subjecting th e country. 21
“Socialism stands for th e right o f nations to decide their o-wn destiny in the
face o f all oppression and exploitation, and in th e face of absolutism . T h a t is
why such a lively sym pathy for th e socialist cause is found in the oppressed
countries. D uring th e R ussian Revolution, th e oppressed n a tio n s - f o r
exam ple, th e C a u c a s ia n s -s e n t a strong contingent of socialist representatives
to the D um a. N um erous E astern revolutionaries, h u n ted by police a n d driven
from th eir countries, escaped to W estern Europe, w here only Social
D em ocracy vigorously aid ed an d su p p o rted th e m .22 Even w hen they do n o t
show th e least trace o f p ro le ta ria n ch aracter, they rem ain in constant touch
w ith Social D em ocrats a n d adopt th eir slogans a n d th e ir solutions. T h e
E astern revolutionary classes feel close to th e W estern revolutionary class,
because they have an identical enem y or at least one o f the same kind, E astern
despots being in effect th e instrum ents of E uropean capitalism . In th e East, to
21. It could not be said that the narodnik theoreticians paid great attention to the
penetration of foreign capital into Ruîa; nor did the subject figure prominently in the electoral
propaganda of the many tendencies claiming to be socialist. It took the massacre of the Lena
strikers (1912) and, above aU, World War I and its disastrous coura to raise the problem
generally. Thus, years later Pannekoek was to strew that "only vague rumors of the intestine
quarrels in Russian Socialism were reaching Western Europe" —and this indicates a more general
lack of infoâtion. More au fait with Ruraian realities, however, Karl Kautsky had foûlated
early in the century the basic question: “How is a bourgeois revolution to be effected without the
bourgeoisie?" In 1920, Pannekoek persisted in regarding resistance to foreign capital as the
deteînant factor (at least the only one on which he spoke at length) of the Ru&ian Revolution.
22. See the dosier d r a ^ up under the direction of Georges Haupt and Madeleine
Reberieux, la Deuxieme Internationale et t’Orient (Paris, 1947).
TACTICAL D I F F E ^ C E S I 113
wage a war b o th enthusiastic and im placable, the rising m id d le class has only
ju st ad o p ted the lib eral ideology p ro p e r to a class which, in the W est, has long
exercised power a n d is p rey to c o rru p tio n ; socialism, the ideology of freedom ,
can alone help them . Only w hen their ideology is hitched to practical tasks,
when the revolutionary classes begin to show individual differences and to
becom e conscious of their real interests, do th e ir spokesm en change from red
socialists into m oderate lib erals.23
“In a revolutionary era, especially where the existence of an absolutist
regim e dem ands vigorously conducted w arfare, the m ost energetic class, the
proletariat, is at the head o f the m ovem ent to w hich th eir ideology serves as a
pro g ram . In Finland, there is no large ind u strial p ro letariat, since this is a
country of small f a c e r s . But the la tte r send a big socialist group to
p arlia m e n t; 40 percent of the electors vote Social D em ocratic, simply because
socialism is synonymous with im placable w ar against tsarist op p reîo n . In
o th e r conditions, these f a c e r s w ould not elect socialists. T h e sam e can be
said of the A rm enians voted into th e T u rk ish p arliam ent.
“It em erges from all this th a t it w ould b e absurd to regard all the
m ovem ents laying claim to socialism as being of one an d the sam e natu re.
T he ad herents of Social D em ocracy, the m ilitants of the Social D em ocratic
party, do not form a hom ogeneous group with identical ideas about every
thing. Very diverse cla&es and groups, whose interests differ in certain
respects, are indiscrim inately covered by the words ‘socialism’ a n d ‘socialist
23. Three years later, writing in NeueZeit (Jan. 12, 1912) about an article by Otto Bauer on
the “East^^ revolutions” (Der Kampf, Dec. 1911), Pannekoek refined this general schema by
distinguishing two revolutionary currents in the East; that of the intelligentsia won over to ideas
from liberal Europe; that of the violently anti-European ma&es. The two tendencies, he says,
have the same objective; but one seeks to base itself on the masses, the other on the leaders. That
is why the first is attempting to fuse with the second by organically linking its political objectives
with national traditions and religion. And Pannekoek concludes as follows: “The revolutions of
Asia and Africa will give the si^gnal to the European proletariat for their struggle for freedom.”
This idea, connected with the general theme of imperialism-one of the main axes of the
theoretical discusion within the German Party at that time-appears in an article published a
few days earlier: “The political revolution in Asia, the insurrection in India, the rebellion within
the Arab world, are imposing a decisive obstacle against the expanuon of capitalism in
Europe ... . bloody clashes are becoming more and more inevitable. There is a link between the
Asian wars of independence and of cononialism and the general struggles among European
nations.” A. Pannekoek, ”la Revolution mondiale,” le Socialisme, Jan. 21, 1912 (cited by Haupt
and Rev6rieux, op. cit., pp. 36-37; German version in the Bremen BUrger-Zeitung, 204, Dec. 30,
1911). Lenin expre^ssed an analogous idea when he wrote, for example, in 1907; “The R ^ ian
working claw will win freedom and will give the impulse to Europe by its revolutionary actions.”
(Preface to Lettres deJ. Becker .. . . in Marx-Engels-Marxisme, p. 111). On the other hand, Rosa
Luxemburg proclaimed a little later: “It is only from Europe. it is only from the oldest capitalist
countries, that the signal for the social revolution which wil free all men, can come, when the
time is ripe.” La crise de la democratie socialise, (Paris, 19S4), p. 157.
p a rty .’ T hey m erge in a tem porary or lasting way where their interests
coincide, b u t, where th eir interests differ or even clash, they fight am ong
themselves. These clashes take the fo r m o f tactical differences w ithin the
party.
"All the proletarians, all the exploited, have, o f course, a basic interest in
the overthrow of capitalism . . . . But it can be said th a t m en in general,
m iddle class or oth e^rise, have an interest in the socialism which will create
fo r all th e conditions of a b e tte r life. . . . However, by ‘interests’ m ust be
understood i^mmediate interests, such as are engendered here and now in
society by a specific situation, an d are accepted as such by people whose ideas
and conditions are equally shaped by a p a rtic u lar class situation.
“In this sense, the p ro letariat, the class of the exploited and the oppressed,
which Social Dem ocracy regards as its greatest source of m ilitants and w hich
it represents at the political level, is neither a clearly defined nor an absolutely
hom ogeneous group. T h ere has been lively controversy about w hether the
lower m iddle class p ro le ta ria n categories and the lower categories of salaried
employees belong to it; in fact, the party is in filtrating these social groups,
but w ith m uch g reater difficulty th a n it m eets w ith the industrial proletariat.
T he revisionists like to p reach th a t we should unite aro u n d us all the
oppressed and the discontents. W ithin the A m erican party, there has also
been discu îo n about the p ro p er n atu re of the p ro letariat, in the course of
which it was suggested th a t skilled workers attach ed to th e g re a t tra d e union
federation led by Gom pers did not properly belong to the p ro letarian group
called u p o n by the C om m unist M anifesto to unite, because, it was said, w hen
these w orkers are ultim ately supplanted by m achinery, they will lose their
privileged position an d wiU ado p t reactionary sentim ents. 24 T his idea is on a
par with the hostility w hich the trad e union leaders are showing tow ard
socialism. B ut in a strange way, th ere is a certain basic tru th in th e assertion
th a t the p ro letarian n a tu re of these workers is arguable. A part from the
obvious fact th a t there are differences o f theoretical knowledge, the basic
tru th is th a t, w ith in the class itself of indu strial workers, there are still
considerable divergences of im m ediate interests.
24. The controversy alluded to here took place in 1908-1909. after the publication in one of
the party publications of an article which noted that the qualified worker has always been
excessively co^rvative because he is not proletarian. Thomas Sladden, “The Revolution,”
International Socialist Revi'ew, Dec. 1908, pp. 426f. Nothing was so common among the
American “industrial” trade unionists as the idea put forward by Bill Haywood, among others,
that the qualified worker exploits the non-qualified exactly as the capitalist does. See,
Bri«enden, The IWW(New York, 1919), pp. 84-88. We note, in passing, that Pannekoek was
to say a little later of the IWW that "their principles are perfectly sound.” Neue Zeit, XXX, 2,
1912, p. 203.
"T hese groups o f th e in d u strial p ro letariat, having secured a privileged

situation, a h igher salary an d a shorter w orking day through their pow erful
organizations, do n o t m atch th e lower categories o f th e w orking class in th eir
urgency to overthrow capitalism . T h ere is n o d o u b t th a t they a d a p t well to
the existing o rd er an d f o ^ an acknow ledged force for negotiating w ith
em ployers an d politicians. T h e ir only ideal is a g rad u al b u t constant raising
o f th e ir living sta n d a rd s ; th eir ideas are close to those of the lower m iddle
class, ju st as th e ir situation resem bles th a t o f th e lower categories o f th e new
m iddle class. . . . It is notorious th a t th e E nglish an d A m erican trad e
unionists f o ^ a workers' elite o f th is kind. T o th e extent to w hich they have
w on political au tonom y th ey advocate a m o d e ra te socialist workers' policy,
and they will have no tru c k w ith class w arfare an d revolution. T h eir socialism
is ‘evolutionary' - t h e theory o f th e g rad u al advancem ent o f th e workers an d
o f g ra d u a l grow th to w ard th e n ationalization o f th e p rin c ip al branches o f
produ ctio n , by a State a c tu a te d by eth ical a n d p h ilanthropic prin cip les: in
short, revisionist socialism .”
W ith in Social D em ocracy, revisionism represents th e interests o f these
lower class categories as well as those o f th e highly qualified workers' elite, as
distin ct from th e interests p ro p er to th e masses o f th e in d u stria l proletariat.
“T h e conflicts betw een tendencies not only aim at deciding the fitness of
certain theories o r ideas . . . ; they also represent battles betw een the changing
groups who tog eth er m ak e u p th e p ro letariat. T h is is th e only explanation for
th e vehem ence an d passion w ith which these battles are carried on . . .,
som etim es d egenerating into personal attacks. Now, experience shows th a t
fro m now on we a re n o t dealing w ith situations of simple, personal
d estitu tio n .”
T h e interests o f the p ro le ta ria t m ust be considered before those o f the o th er
classes, “th e la tte r’s interests ru n n in g co u n ter to real developm ent; a p a rty
which would allow its aim s to be sh aped by such interests would inevitably
find itself draw n in to th e b lin d alley o f a reactionary policy or, to change th e
m etap h o r, into adop tin g a capitalist policy in socialist clothing . . . . ”
“T h e ideas and conceptions o f th e p ro letariat have as their basis a science
of society th a t enables th e m to foresee th e consequences o f their actions and
the reactions o f th e o th er classes. U p to th e present, ideologies, lacking
awareness o f concrete reality, w ere simply a n ex trav ag an t reflexion of the
econom ic situation, w hereas socialism constitutes a clear scientific theory.
Ideology and science are both abstract, general expressions o f concrete
reality ; b u t the basic difference betw een them is th a t an ideology constitutes
an unconscious generalization, o n e in w hich aw areness o f the corresponding
116 I PANNEKOEK AND THE WORKERS’ CO UNCILS
concrete reality is lost,25 whereas science is a conscious generalization whose

conclusions m ake it possible to discern precisely th e concrete reality from
w hich they have been draw n. H ence, therefore, ideology is above all a m a tte r
o f sentim ent, while science is a m a tte r of intellection . . . .
“In the preceding sections, we have shown th a t, while the science of society
effectively enables us to find th e rig h t way, the differences o f opinion
concerning tactics are a ttrib u ta b le to som ething quite o th e r th a n a lack of
clarity. T hese differences, like socialism itself, flow in effect from m ate ria l
conditions. Consequently, they are linked w ith various stages of capitalistic
developm ent in d ifferen t regions an d branches of production, w ith the
dialectic n a tu re o f this developm ent, and w ith th e clashes of interests w ithin
the working class p ro p er. T hey are th erefore so inevitable th a t such dissension
can n o t be credited to th e good will or ill will of certain co m rad es; w hat comes
to the surface in th em are th e in tern al clashes betw een the social interests th a t
play a p a rt in the life of th e political organization.
“B u t this m ust n o t le a d to stoic acceptance, to th e id e a th a t we m ust just
resign ourselves to th e fact th a t these clashes of interests are inevitable,
w ith o u t being able to do anything a b o u t them . T his is tru e only to the extent
to which one accepts th at th e classes act solely in t e ^ s of th eir im m ediate,
spontaneously felt interests; in o th e r words, to th e extent to w hich a conscious
science o f society is lacking. B u t this is m u c h less tru e in th e case of the
socialist p ro letariat. T h e w orking class is guided in all its actions n o t only by
direct, im m ediately felt interests, b u t by th e general interest of w hich the
science o f society enables them to acquire a deep and lasting knowledge.
U nlike th e oth er cla&es, th e p ro le ta ria t has n o t m erely subm itted to blind
sentim ents, b u t also to conscious reason ; an d this will be increasingly the case
as their theoretical developm ent is perfected an d they com e to und erstan d
socialist theory b etter.
“T h e role o f theory in th e workers' m ovem ent is to deflect the will from
direct, instinctive, pow erful impulses, and to render it responsive to conscious
and ra tio n a l knowledge. T h eo retical know ledge enables the w orker to escape
from th e influence o f im m ediate an d lim ited interests, to the g rea t benefit of
the general class interest o f th e p ro le ta ria t; it enables him to b rin g his activity
into line w ith th e l o n g - t e ^ interest of socialism . All tendencies th a t deflect
25. “Ideology," says Engels, “is a process which the self-styled thinker effects very
conscientiously but with a false conscience. He remains unaware of the motive forces which
actuate him; otherwise, there would not be an ideological proce^. Thus, he invents false or
specious motive forces,” Letter to Mehring, July 14, 1893; Etudes philosophtques (Paris, 1947),
p. 134. The possibility that Pannekoek was familiar with this text is slight; but is it not one of the
keys to the materialist theory of history? And had not Marx used this key in those of his writings
already known in 1909?
the p ro le ta ria t from its objective, thereby m ak in g th e conflict m ore prolonged

an d m ore difficult, are increasingly rend ered less h arm ful as th e workers
un derstan d M arxism , th e socialist theory, m ore deeply. If th e influence o f the
labor aristocracy of th e tra d e unions is dem onstrably w eaker in G erm any th a n
in E ngland, it is d u e in g re a t m easu re to th e socialist theoretical developm ent
of th e G erm an workers.
“H ere also is th e m eans to secure a m axim um reduction o f th e danger
w hich, as a result o f th e internal conflicts w ithin th e exploited class, is th re a t
ening th e workers' m ovem ent. T heo retical enlightenm ent, a p ro p a g a n d a
cam p aig n aim ed at deflecting th e workers’ a tten tio n from th eir p a rtic u
lar interests an d fixing it on th e general context o f society, will dim inish
conflicts, calm passions, a n d b lu n t th e edge of disagreem ents. It is the
im plem en ta tio n o f theory, th e scientific basis o f socialism, th a t w ill co n
tribu te m ost effectually to both securing f o r th e m ovem ent a tranquil a n d
sure course, a nd to th e transform ation o f unconscious instinct into conscious
h u m a n a c tio n ."
CHAPTER THREE
TH E KAUTSKY -PANNEKOEK CONTROVERSY
By refusing to lim it socialist p arliam en tary activity to the representation of

the w orkers’ im m ediate interests, Pannekoek was taking up ag ain a subject
d ear to the Left. T h e difference, perhaps, is th a t he viewed success as relying
not so m uch on the press o r on appeals from party leaders 1as on the rank- and-
file. His revisionist critics w ere n o t too fa r w rong w hen they accused h im o f
callin g for p arliam en tary actio n to give way com pletely to the general strike.
This was not wholly true, of co u rse; Pannekoek, however, did not bo th er to
refute the accusation, b u t instead invoked th e resolutions of the congresses
that approved the principle of the general strike. 2
It m ight be noted that this conception of “revolutionary p a rlia m e n ta rian
ism ” —designated by the term "orthodox M arxist tactics” —characterized
G erm an Social D em ocracy in its first phase. 3 B ut, as one of its principal
leaders later pointed o u t : “In the early stages, w hen we h a d few adherents, we
used to go to th e R eichstag an d used it exclusively or alm ost exclusively for the
p rop ag atio n of our ideas. But very soon we found oursel'fes involved in
p r a c ti c a l m a tt e r s ” 4 —m e a n in g e ss e n tia lly , th e u rg in g of im m e d ia te
dem an d s.” 5 T h e parties o f the T h ird In tern atio n al were to follow a sim ilar
1. For example, in the period of the ma» strike debate, Rosa Luxemburg called upon the
party press “to stres more and more the proper power and proper actions of the working claw,
and not parliamentary battles.” And she continued: ‘We are not concerned with simply
criticizing the policy of the dominant claw from the viewpoint of the immediate interests of the
people-that is to say, from the viewpoint of the p r ^ n t society; we are concerned with going
beyond the most prêsivist bourgeois policy, and constantly setting up against it the ideal of
the socialist ^ i e t y. Hence, the people could be more frequently convinced than they are today of
the partial character of the pro^gresivist measures, and realize how necessary it is to overthrow
this order in its entirety in order to establish socialism.” Rosa Luxemburg, “Sozialdemokratie
und Parlementarismus” (1904); Gesammelte Werke, Vol. III, (Berlin, 1925), pp. 395-396.
2. Cf. supra, Chapter Two, note 6. The text of this conference was published under the
title: Die Machtmittel des Proletariats (Stuttgart, 1910). Pannekoek also s t^ ^ d on this
occasion that he intended to give his conference “the character of a scientific e x p ^ ," seeking
to establish "what is and what will be” on the basis of “new experiences of the clas struggle,” and
not “what the party ought to do," as defined by the Con^rases and their resolutions.
3. Cf. the remarkable work by Kurt Brandis, Die deutsche SD bis zum Fall der Sozialisten•
gesetz (Leipzig, 1931).
4. Wilhelm Liebknecht (1897), cited by Edgard Milhaud, la Democratie socialiste
atte-mande (Paris, 1903), pp. 200-201.
5. “Le P.C. et le parlementarisme," Theses, manifestes et resolutions de lI. C., (Paris, 1934),
120 / P^ÂNKO EK AND THE WORKERS' CO UNCILS
policy. At first, they reg ard ed parliam en t as “a secondary prop” o f the “w ar of

the masses destined to becom e civil w ar." T h a t was in 1920, an d we know w hat
followed.
Be th a t as it m ay, “the long established tactics” th a t the Left passionately
defended (although even these varied from town to town) did not triu m p h just
on p ap er in the resolutions passed by the various congresses. In 1910, they
erupted in the street, in pitched battles a n d violent braw ling designed to
achieve universal suffrage and other social r e f o ^ s . 6 These struggles
strengthened the Left in the large industrial centers; in Brem en, for exam ple,
the rad ical H enke exercised g reater a n d g re a te r influence over th e local
section. F urtherm ore, he had editorial control over the tow n’s Social
D em ocratic daily, the B rem er Bilrger-Zeitung, for which, beginning in
M arch 1910, Pannekoek wrote a weekly colum n and frequently articles. 7
In tim e, however, the B rem en radicals were to split; the line of
dem arcatio n becam e increasingly clear betw een th e m echanistic radicals of
H enke’s t^ re an d the group of intellectuals that included Radek an d
Pannekoek as well as Jo h a n n Knief, the engaging teacher. 8 T his g ro u p of
intellectuals was at once i n f o ^ a l and distinct. Its activities, w hen necessary,
were applied to the problem of workers’ conflicts. Pannekoek once again
analyzed it as follows: “T h e fact that in H am b u rg an d Bremen a m ovem ent
of leftist ‘ instructors cam e into existence, whose dynam ic nucleus was
composed of a group of Social D em ocratic teachers, proves that the
atm osphere in those towns is very different from th a t of Prussia. . . . T h e
greater freedom an d tolerance, which characterized the old com m erical
c itie s - a n d still does so today though to a lesser degree—accom pany the
econom ic an d political p reponderance of m ercantile c a p ital.” 9
B ut let us re tu rn to 1910. T h e party leaders used every m eans they could to
prevent the agitation from assum ing proportions that in their view w ould be
excessive. Suddenly, Leftist theoreticians retu rn ed to the battle, encouraged
pp. 66-68.
6. Anton Pannekoek, "P^rusia in Revolt. Being Chapter One in the History of a Political
Revolution,” Intêrnational Socialist Review, May, 1910, pp. 966-975.
7. We have only had acce« to a collection of proofs of articles intended for a Sunday edition
of the paper, proofs corrected by the author (the initials A.P. are at the beginning of each text).
8. Knief (1880-1919) is a good example of one of t h ^ theoreticians, without whom socialist
thought would never have been what it was : clear and bold ideas, deep honesty, infectious
enthusiasm, these were some of his qualities. His “works" consist almost exclusively of newspaper
articles, often anonymous, but one can also list a large study devoted to Ferdinand LaSalle
Qohann Knief, “Lassalle, ein Apostel der Kla58enhaônie,” Archiv fur de Geschichte des Soz.
u.d. Arb. bwg., X.
9. Anton Pannekoek, “Der Bremische Liberalismus," Bremer BUrger-Zettung. (abridged:
B.B.Z.), 264A, March 1, 191!1.
KAU TSKY VERSUSPANNEKOEK I 121
b o th by th e struggles and by increased su p p o rt for their own attitude. M ore

th a n ever, they stressed th e n e e d to u rg e th e m asses into action to develop
their class consciousness. 10 T o w ard th e en d of May 1910, in N eue Zeit, the
theoretical organ of G erm an an d in tern atio n al Social Democracy, Rosa
L uxem burg was allowed at last to express the left-wing’s criticisms o f K arl
Kautsky. T h o u g h this controversy was im p o rta n t an d prolonged, 11 its
historical interest is eclipsed by th e o n e th a t arose between Kautsky, th e
in c a rn a tio n o f M arxist orthodoxy, an d Pannekoek. T his controversy gains its
im po rtan ce, perhaps, fro m th e fa c t th a t P annekoek forced into the op en a
tru th th a t earlier controversies, concerned as they were w ith this or th a t
p a rtic u la r type o f action, h a d not led Kautsky to express clearly a n d directly.
T h is tim e - in d e e d for th e first tim e with such ex p licitn ess-K au tsk y
unconditionally justified th e tactics used u p u n til then by Social Dem ocracy:
the struggle by delegates w ho, in th e nam e o f th e masses, m ade decisions an d
nego tiated w ith the various authorities w ithout any desire to m ove th e masses
into action. O n th e other h a n d , Pannekoek, in line w ith the ideas of the Left,
em phasized direct, mass action; however, he put very p a rticu la r stress, as
always, on th e spiritual factor (the Geistlich) and on the em ergence of
organizational forms of a new, u n ita ry kind, in and th ro u g h the class
struggle.
Needless to say, these propositions seem ed senseless to anyone for whom the
present o rd e r was th e m easure o f all things an d on w hich the action of the
oppressed co u ld have n o effect. F or th e academ ic researchers o f today,
Pannekoek's ideas represent “an apocalypic sp irit,” 12 a "quasi-Platonic
idealization o f p ro le ta ria n solidarity,” the “im m inent expectation of the
paro u sia," 13 all o f w hich serve conveniently to distort a n d dispense w ith his
ideas th a t are otherw ise p aten tly unaccep tab le. T h e reactions of r e f o ^ is ts
naturally , w ere sim ilar. Kautsky, using a p h rase form erly ap p lied to the
u topian s, spoke o f “social alch em y ;” an d an o th e r old radical later expressed
his shock at w hat he called “a m etaphysical construction o f history expressed
in m ystical, theological conceptions.”14
Lenin followed th e controversy with deep interest, and, in The State a n d
R evolution, he u sed even c e rta in extracts fro m it th a t h e h a d m ade at th e
10. Cf. Schorske, op. cit., pp. 184-185.

11. This controversy in its entirety covers 93 pages of the Neue Zeit, as against 116 of the
Kautsky-Pannekoek controversy. Additionally, however, there are two Pannekoek articles against
Kautsky published in the B.B.Z. (115, April, 16, 1910; 126, July 2, 1919). The
Luxemburg-Kautsky controversy appeared in the Neue Zeit in 1913.
12. Schurer, op. cit., p. 332.
13. Schorske, op. cit., pp. 248-249.
14. Curt Geyer, Der Radicalisms in der deutschen Arb. bwg. Qena, 1923), pp. 9-29.
tim e. He was th e n concerned m ainly w ith K autsky (and the M ensheviks); b u t

he did have a few things to say a b o u t P annekoek’s ideas. T hey “e rre d greatly”
in th eir "lack of clarity a n d concrete c h a ra c te r,” even though their central
th o u g h t rem ained “for all th a t, nonetheless c le a r,” even th o u g h th eir au th o r
d id n o t b o th e r to give th ese ideas separate concrete identity. T h in k in g only in
t e ^ s o f a huge, backw ard country, L enin saw no need to apply general
principles (and therefore to advocate special tactics) th a t would c o n f o ^ with
the m o re advanced stage o f th e class struggle in the m ajo r industrial
countries.
T h e historians of th e Soviet state are no m o re explicit a b o u t this th a n is
their necessary source of reference, T he State and R evolution. O ne o f them 15
accuses Pannekoek o f having w ritten only ab o u t "elem ents o f force” an d not
ab o u t th e “d ictato rsh ip ” o f th e p ro letariat. T h e basis o f this accusation is
d e a r —nam ely. th at Pannekoek in no way envisaged replacing th e old state
pow er by a new one. (Sheer quibbling! Pannekoek h a d n o t w aited u n til 1917,
a s h a d L enin, to envisage th e state's destruction.) I n fact, in Pannekoek's view
(and, in this respect, in th at of th e M arx of “T h e Civil W a r in F ra n ce ”), it is
the class struggle itself th a t finally d e t e ^ i n e s th e f o ^ of social organization.
A nother criticism from th e sam e source m ain tain s th a t Pannekeok “ignores
the experience of th e Paris C om m une as M arx sum m arized it 16—b u t
Pannekoek h a d already an ticip ated this criticism by saying elsewhere th a t
w hat is justified in one phase is not necessarily justified in an o ther. T h a t is
precisely why Rosa L uxem burg, K arl L ieb k n ech t an d th e G erm an Left, as
well as m an y others, have n ev er regarded as decisive the quotations th a t th e
Kautskys a n d th e Bernsteins so skillfully d ig u p to support th e ir cause.
In O ctober 1911, K a u ts k y - n o doubt in order to discourage activist
tendencies—published a series of articles on “m ass action." 17 Kautsky's
startin g point was a critique of Gustave Le B on an d o f his m ob psychology,
according to w hich th e masses can only be destructive; a n d a critique of
K ropotkin, who, in his history o f th e F rench R evolution (1909), also regarded
the masses as incap ab le of clear-thinking a n d organization, although he did
15. G.W. Brjunin, “Die Diskussion uber den politischen Mawenstreik,” Sowjetwissenschaft,
Geschichtswissenschaft, 1955, 5, pp. 669-670.
16. Ibid.. Pannekoek regarded the Paris Commune as an attempt at municipal
self-administration whose extension to the whole country would have called in question the state
power: “but it was not a revolution of the workers in the big industries. . . . The effective
relationship of forces between the clâs worked against it. The mara of the population was
peasant, without the least mental receptivity." Anton Pannekoek, "Nach vierzigJahren,” Bremer
Burger-Zeitung, 163, March 18, 1911.
17. K. Kautsky, “Die Aktion der Masse," NeueZeit, XXX, 1, pp. 43-49, 77-84. 106-117. In
November 1911, Pannekoek began a critique of these articles in the Bremen newspaper (Nov. 11,
1911).
KAUTSKY VERSUS PANNEKOEK I 123
not th in k this all b ad . In reality, Kautsky said, mass actions cannot be foreseen
and controlled by any p arty whatsoever, at least during certain historical
phases. B ut as th e workers’ p a rty gradually organizes the masses, the masses
sim ultaneously m a tu re a n d learn to foil the provocations of the ruling power
aim ed at nipping the m ovem ent in the b u d , Kautsky m aintained. B ut do
mass actions today have any chance of success? Engels answered this
negatively, in the P reface to Class Struggles in France, w hen he wrote th a t
"the tim e for blows, for revolutions carried out by small enlightened
m inorities at the h ead of unenlightened masses, is p ast." T h e p ro letariat is
ed u cated through electoral c a m p a i^ ^ and th ro u g h trad e union action. T h e
class struggle does, of course, continue to develop, and so too does action by
the m asses; b u t 40 years of exercising political rights and of organization have
le ft an im pact. T h e n u m b e r of organized a n d enlightened elem ents am ong
the masses is now sufficient to w arrant a reliance in the future on som ething
other th a n spontaneous explosions, no m a tte r how pow erful an d effectively
they are channeled. “Some of our frien d s,” Kautsky adds, “th in k that the
conditions of b attle have changed, an d w ant to revise their tactics. But is it
n o t th e very n a tu re of a spontaneous action th a t it should escape all control?
H ence, all we can do is to be p rep ared for any eventuality, an d so strengthen
the p a rty by securing positions of power th a t will be useful if the need arises.
F u r t h e ^ o r e , “it is useless to speculate about the unpredictable, an d even
m ore so to try to decide on tactics in advance. For 40 years, our party has gone
from victory to victory. T o consolidate an d extend these conquests, it is only
necessary to continue along th e s ^ e p a th .”
Pannekoek opened the controversy in July 1912 in N eue Zeit. 18 T h e
question of ma& action, he m ain tain ed , h ad been on the ag en d a ever since
the Russian R evolution o f 1905 an d the Prussian political strikes of 1908 an d
1910 calling for th e r e f o ^ of suffrage laws. H e saw such actions as
indications of the increasing strength o f the p ro le tariat an d as m anifestations
o f im p e r ia lis m , th e new fo rm of c a p ita lis m , w ith its in e v ita b le
conseq u en ces-im p o v erish m en t due to financial pressures linked to the arms
race, an d the triu m p h of political reaction.
“Im perialism an d ma& action are new phenom ena whose n atu re an d
significance it is im p o rta n t to un d erstan d . O u r only m eans of doing so is
th ro u g h controversy . . ., w hich provokes a lively exchange of ideas and
feelings, thereb y inducing a new o rientation of m inds. . Up to now, those
aware of in s u ^ o u n ta b le conflicts w ithin the p arty have regarded them as
18. Anton Pannekoek, "Massenaktion und Revolution,” Neue Zeit, XXX, 2, pp. 541-550,
585-593. 609-619.
deplorable an d p ain fu l m isunderstandings. T h a t is why it is now necercary to

focus these divergences clearly.”
T h e conquest o f political pow er is th e preco ndition fo r the advent of
socialism . B ut, w h en d e a lin g w ith th e w orking class, the exploiting m inority
has certain sources o f strength. T h e first of these is none other th a n “its
spiritual superiority. As a claw living o ff th e surplus value an d directing
p roduction, it has a n all-em bracing system of ed u cation an d indoctrination.
Having, therefore, a position from which it can view the whole of society in
one com prehensive glance, it can always fin d new m eans o f d u p in g the
masses, even a t tim es w hen th e masses are m ost seriously th re aten in g it.” By
its m onopoly o f education, th e preM, a n d religion, the ru lin g class can
im p reg n ate th e masses w ith bourgeois ideas. “T his state o f spiritual
dependence on th e bourgeoisie constitutes th e principal cause o f pro letarian
weaknesses.
“T h e ruling class has yet another ewential source o f stre n g th : its com pact
organization. A sm all, w ell-organized n u m b e r always prevails over a large,
unorganized mass o f people. This organization o f the ruling class is state
p ow er. . . . Its in te rn a l cohesion derives from the hom ogeneous will th at
anim ates it, sta rtin g from th e sum m it” - t h e gove^rnment, w ith an arm y of
officials a t its disposal. It gives th e im pression of being a single organism , in
the face o f w hich all m en a re reduced to powerless atom s, autom atically seized
an d pulverized if they show th e least sign o f rebellion. "A nd th e masses,
conscious o f this power, respect it .”
However, w hen th e spirit o f revolt arises in th e masses, dissipating their fear
o f the state, the “atom s” un ite. T hey could, n o d o u b t, get th e b e tter o f w hat
m ay seem a m ere h an d fu l o f officials, b u t they w ould then have to face u p to
the state’s m aterial f o r c e s - th e police and th e arm y, highly organized and
heavily a ^ e d m inorities against whom the masses are defenseless even if they
try to a ^ themselves. But the power of th e bourgeoisie is w aning. Since its
econom ic functions are becom ing m ore an d m ore superfluous, it is becom ing
socially parasitic a n d th u s witnesses th e g rad u al d isappearance of its sources
o f powers. It is “losing its prestige an d m oral superiority, and, ultim ately, all
th a t it has left is its hold over state pow er a n d its m eans o f repression. If the
pro letariat is to rule, it m ust seize state pow er, th e fortreK in w hich the ruling
class has entren ch ed itself. T h e p ro letarian b a ttle is not just a battle against
the bourgeoisie for state pow er; it is also a b a ttle against state pow er. T h e
problem o f th e social revolution c a n be briefly f o ^ u l a t e d as th e need to raise
p ro le ta ria n pow er to a level w here it exceeds state p o w er; th e essence of this
revolution is th e p ro letariat's destruction a n d liquidation of the state’s sources
of power.
The proletariat’s strength lies in its num bers and economic im portance
and also, says Pannekoek, in the two great sources of pow er-know ledge and
o rg an izatio n -referring his reader to his work Die taktischen D ifferenzen
for a m ore detailed description of how parliam entary and trade union action
stimlates the growth of the second of these sources. T he bond that unites the
individuals, and which is the first requirem ent for organization, is the
discipline that comes from working together in the large m odem factories.
“Organization is the most effective weapon of the proletariat. The e n o ^ o u s
power that organization confers on a ruling minority can be overthrown only
if the majority achieves an organization of an even stronger kind.
“H itherto, the progress of the cla^ struggle has been largely due to
parliam entary and trade union action, not through direct political conflict
with the state. Basically, the battles have been no more than vanguard
skirmishes, while the main strength remains uncom m itted on both sides. In
tomorrow’s battles for power, the two classes will have to use their most
powerful weapons and draw upon their most effective sources of strength:
wt"thout such a confrontation, there can be no decm ve change in the balance
o f forces. Faced with a ruling class ready to use bloody repression, the
proletariat will resort to mass action in its simplest form, public meetings and
street m arches, and pass on from these to the most powerful action of all, the
ma& strike.” 19
T he state, then, will not hesitate to use the most extreme means; but what
can it do against the general strike? In Russia, the transport strike of October
1905 was sufficient to sever all connection between the central power and the
local authorities. O f course, it was only a phase of a struggle in which
everything depended on the degree of cohesion am ong the proletariat.
“However, battle must begin again, sooner or later. On the one hand, the
government is trying to take back from the ma&es the rights it was forced to
give to them and which are the sources of proletarian power; on the other
hand, the m aês can declare this war at an end only when they hold the keys
to state power. . . The conflict will cease only when final victory has been
won, when the state organization has been completely destroyed. The
majority organization will then have proved its superiority by the fact that it
has annihilated the organization of the ruling m inority.”
But to achieve this, mass action must first transform the proletariat. In
periods of crisis and of intensive warfare, a greater measure of awareness is
developed in a few days than was previously developed by a whole year of
------------------------ 1
19. Lenin, reading with pen in hand, registered approval, most frequently in his mar^ginaha.
Here, however, he wrote: "wrong . . .but XH-1905.” Leninski sbornik, XIV (Moscow, 1924), p.
371. Cf. Brujnin, loc. cit., p. 670.
126 I PjANEKOEK AND THE WORKERS ' CO UNCILS
political and trade union action. “T h e suprem e dem ands which these battles
involve, autom atically engender, th ro u g h p ractical action an d the experience
of victories an d defeats, the m eans to acquire this political clearsightedness. ’’
A n d th e sam e holds true for organization. “N o doubt, o n e often hears the
contrary asserted, b orn of the fear th a t the p ro letarian organization, th e most
im p o rtan t of its sources of strength, m ay well be annihilated in th e course of
such dangerous conflicts. T his is urged m ost frequently by those who are
against all recourse to the general strike, and who today exercise considerable
influence in the leadership of the large proletarian organizations. T hey fear
th a t, in the event of violent clashes between the proletariat's organizations
and those of the state, the fo rm er m ay prove to be the weaker, even if the
m ore num erous. For the state still has th e pow er to dissolve the workers’
organizations th at have the audacity to stand u p against it, the power to end
their activities, to confiscate th eir funds, to im prison their leaders. H ence it
would be m ore p ru d e n t to be guided only by legal or m oral considerations.
Such strong m easures, however, would be useless to the state, which could use
th em to dem olish only the exterior f o ^ , leaving the in tern al natu re
unaffected. T h e p ro le ta ria t’s o rg a n iz a tio n -its most im p o rtan t source of
s tr e n g th - m u s t not be confused w ith the present-day f o ^ of its organizations
an d associations, where it is shaped by conditions w ithin the fram ew ork of a
still vigorous bourgeois order. The nature o f this organization is som ething
s p ir itu a l- n o less than the whole transform ation o f the proletarian m en ta lity.
It may well be th a t the ruling class, through legal m easures and the police,
succeeds in destroying th e workers’ organizations; but, for all th a t, the
workers rem ain as they w e r e - ju s t as effectively stripped of the old
individualistic self w hich responded only to egotism and personal interest.
T h e same spirit, com pounded of discipline, cooperation, solidarity, th e h a b it
o f organized action, will live in them m ore vividly th a n ever, a n d will create
new f o ^ s of intervention. 11
Ideas o f this kind easily disconcerted narrow ly positivist people, such as
Kautsky, who m ake a fetish o f th e existing organization. Lenin himself, who
was n o t yet f o ^ a l l y opposed to these ideas, would several times describe them
as “not very a d ro it,” 20 an o th er way of saying th at he did not fully understand
them . In fact, a fund am en tal theoretical intuition, linked w ith the
developm ent of a historical f o ^ , is sketched in these pages. However, this
intuitio n contains no specific reference to the new f o ^ of organization, the
Soviets, which h ad come into existence in a m an n er both spontaneous and
ephem eral during the Russian Revolution of 1905. T his omission arises, of
20. For ex^ple, in a letter toChliapnikov of Oct. 27, 1914; Lenin, Works, XXXV, p. 164.
KAUTSKY VERSUS PANNEKOEK / 127
course, from P annekoek’s lack of i n f o ^ a t i o n about the Soviets, but such

ignorance was th e n w idespread, b o th in Russia and elsewhere. If an
absolutely new “definite an d specific” phenom enon is to be m ore or less
clearly und ersto o d in its general significance, m ust th e re not first be
“re c u rre n ce ”—a rep etitio n o f significant events? 21 A nd did not Pannekoek
love to stress th at it is only very slowly th a t a new reality can take hold of m e n ’s
minds? 22
“F rom the beginning of his article,” P annekoek writes, “Kautsky makes it
clear th a t, by ma& action, he natu rally does not m ean that the action of
organized workers will of itself becom e m ore and m ore maraive with the
grow th of the organizations. For him, the t e ^ signifies the eruption of the
great unorganized masses, a êm b led in a purely accidental way an d therefore
entirely liable to disperse a g a in : in oth er words spontaneous action at street
level. . . . Consequently, to say that political and econom ic action will be
increasingly t r a n s f o ^ e d into mass action is n o t at all the sam e as saying th a t
any type of m a ^ a c t i o n - i .e ., th e type described as action at th e street
le v e l- is also destined to play a b igger an d bigger role. A ccording to Kautsky,
there are two extrem ely different f o ^ s of action. O n the one h an d , there is
the present f o ^ of workers’ conflicts, in w hich a small group of the lab o r
aristocracy, th e organized workers th a t f o ^ abo u t a te n th of th e p ro letariat,
lead political a n d trad e union actions. O n th e o th er han d , there is th e action
of the g re a t unorganized masses a t the street level w ho seize upon any chance
to e ru p t in to history. In K autsky’s view, it is a m a tte r of deciding w hether the
first of these will in th e fu tu re be th e only f o ^ of the p ro le taria n m ovem ent,
or w hether the second is also destined to p la y an im p o rtan t role.
“W hen, in discussions over recent years within the party, stress was laid on
the necessity, the inevitability or th e utility of mass action, the reference was
not in any way” to either of the possibilities suggested by Kautsky, “b ut to a
third possibility: a new fo r m o f specific intervention by the organized
workers. T h e developm ent of m odern capitalism has im posed these new f o ^ s
of action. T h re a te n ed by worse dangers from im perialism , fighting to obtain
g reater pow er an d m ore rights w ithin the state, they find it n eceâry to assert
their will vigorously against capitalism , an d to do so with an energy they have
never shown in expressing their wishes to their p arliam en tary representatives.
They m ust intervene p ersonally; they m ust eru p t into the political struggle
and try to influence the governm ent an d the bourgeoisie by their sheer weight
of num bers. W hen we speak of mass actions an d their necessity, we m ean by
21. J. Witt-Ha^«n, Historical Matmalism, 1 (Copenhagen, 1960), pp. 68-70.

22. “le Mattrialisme historique,” loc. cit.
this an ex tra-p arliam en tary political intervention by organized workers, the

la tte r actin g directly at th e political level instead o f leaving this com pletely to
th e ir delegates. 23 T his intervention is n o t synonymous w ith “street" actio n s;
while street dem onstrations d o represent one o f its aspects, th e consequence of
its m ost powerful f e r n , the m ass strike, is to em pty th e streets. T ra d e u n ion
battles, th ro u g h w hich th e masses have always directly intervened, are a
transition to political m a s actions, since they have considerable political
repercussions. As fo r th e practical question o f m ass action, therefore, it is
simply a m a tte r o f extending th e intervention area o f p ro letarian
organization.”
T h e dem onstrations of spring 1910 proved th a t th e w orkers were not cowed
by th e violence used by th e ru lin g class. T h e la tte r will no doubt hesitate to
call in th e a-rmy, “m ad e u p as it is of sons o f th e people and, to a n ever
increasing extent, o f young proletarians who have already absorbed a certain
class consciousness in th e atm osphere o f th e ir own hom e.” No d o u b t, m ilitary
discipline, u n th in k in g obedience, will continue to be respected fo r a certain
tim e, "b u t n o th in g m ore surely destroys it th a n th e obeying o f a series of
orders to fire on th e people, on th e ir own claw brethren, m erely assem bled
peacefully or o n a peaceful m a rc h . . . . L ike a shining sword, the a-rmy
com m ands respect a n d can inflict terrib le blows,24 b u t w hen it is used
unw orthily, it soon becomes tarnished a n d its h o n or is discredited. A nd w hen
the bourgeoisie loses its m ost effective in stru m ent o f pow er, it finds itself
defenseless.
“T h e social revolution involves th e g rad u al diw olution o f all th e power
instrum ents o f the ru lin g class, particularly the state, while sim ultaneously
building u p p ro le ta ria n pow er to its fullnew . A t th e beg in n in g of this p h ^ ,
the pro letariat should already have reached a high level of c la s consciousness
an d enlightenm ent, o f m oral stren g th an d of com pact organization, in o rd er
to be able to face u p to th e severe conflicts a h e a d ; b u t all this rem ains still
im perfect. In th e eyes o f th e masses, who see th em as inim ical to th eir own
interests, the prestige o f th e state an d the ruling class is beginning to
dim inish, b u t th e ir m aterial power nevertheless rem ains in tac t. A t the end of
the revolutionary process, nothing rem ains o f th is ; th e workers have attain ed
------------- ;--------- j
23. Lenin clearly understood the meaning of this formula, whether adroit or not, since he
wrote in the margin: "Neveirno" (“Not true!") Lenin.ski sbornik, loc. cit., p. 372.
24. The German Left was not backward in pointing to the connection between bloodshed
and bourgeois represion. Thus, at the Jena Congre^ in 1905, R ^ Luxemburg said: "History
shows that all the revolutions were at the cost of the workers' blood. The difference is that, up to
the present, the people's blood has been shed for the benefit of the dominant classes, whereas now,
when anyone suggests the possibility of the people shedding their blôod for their own cause we get a
cry of protest from the prudent ones, from the so-called Social Democrats: 'No, this blood is too
dear to usl' " Protokoll.. ., p. 32 I.
KAUTSKYVERSUSPANNEKOEK I 129
a h ig h level o f organization, they have proved c ap ab le o f shaping their own

destiny, an d henceforth they are capable of tak in g in h a n d the organization
of p ro d u c tio n .”
Pannekoek devotes th e second p a rt o f a series of three articles to a critique
o f th e "p resen t praxis" o f the workers' m ovem ent. “Elections, strikes,
p arliam en tary action, in d o ctrin atio n ,” he writes, "all continue in the sam e
old way, g radually g ain in g political w eight b u t m aking no essential change
w hatsoever—u n til th e d ay w hen, tha^nks to a n extraordinary com bination of
circum stances, a pow erful rising o f the masses will occur a n d will perhaps
overthrow th e regim e. T h is will follow exactly the old p a tte rn of the bourgeois
revolutions, b u t w ith the difference th a t th e p a rty organization is fully ready
to a ^ u m e pow er an d to h o g th e fru its o f victory, by appropriating, as the new
ru lin g c la « , th e chestnuts w hich th e masses have snatched o u t o f the fire .”
K autsky u p h eld a theses o f passive expectation according to which, the
general strike will overthrow th e capitalist regim e w ith one single blow a n d
w ith th e strength of an act o f n a tu re . U ntil this happens, it is sufficient to
continue p arliam en tary an d trades union practice as before, a n d it is w rong
to criticize the leaders o f th e p arty as is o ften done. “C ontrary to o u r thesis of
the revolutionary activity o f th e pro letariat, who b u ild u p their pow er through
an ascendant p eriod o f m ass action a n d increasingly dem olish the bourgeois
state power, this theory o f ppasive radicalism looks for no decisive change
throu g h the active intervention o f the p ro le ta ria t.”
Finally, as he w ould do often, 25 Pannekoek, in the th ird o f these articles,
links u p m ass action w ith th e fig h t against w ar, “n o t against enem y invasion,
b u t ag ain st w ar itself, an d in o rd e r to forestall i t .” T h e re is no question here,
as is d one a t th e in te rn a tio n a l Congresses, o f studying the m eans to prevent
w ar by this o r th at p a rtic u la r k in d of action —a strike in the arsenals, for
ex am p le—b u t ra th e r one o f directing this pro test against the established
authorities a n d exten d in g it, th ro u g h every form o f d ^ o n s tr a tio n , to the
w hole of the exploited c la s . In short, the ru lin g pow ers m ust be opposed by a
p ro le ta ria n pow er b u ilt u p by p ro letarian action.
Kautsky's reply was soon forthcom ing, 26 a n d it was this which especially
interested L enin, who in T h e State a nd R evolution, saw Kautsky's attitude as
“an ab an d o n in g o f M arxism for o pportunism ” an d discussed it as such at
M m e length. W e re fe r th e read er to Lenin's book fo r this aspect of the m atter.
25. For example, at the Chemnitz Congreu (1912), he would strew the fact that maw action
is the only practical measure against imperialism; and “the workers can look to themselves alone”
to implement this measure (ProtolwU. .., pp. 421-28); cf. also, in the same connection, many
articles in the Bremer Biirger-Zeitung.
26. K. Kautsky, “Die neue Taktik,” Neue Zeit, XXX, 2, 1911-1912, pp. 654-664, 688-698,
.723-733.
130 I PyANEKOEKAND THE W ORKERS COUNCILS
As for th e r e s t - t h a t is, th e final form o f th e organization-process such as it

had been presented by P annekoek—Kautsky accused him of “sim plifying
M arxism ”- (and o f m an ip u latin g q u o tatio n s!) an d o f "spiritualizing o r
ganization." T ak in g u p th e p a s a g e w hich d e a lt with th e n a tu re (das
Wesen) o f the new organization, he w rote: “Pannekoek him self underlines
this p h r ^ , so ex trao rd in ary does he find th e statem ent th a t the organization
is not really an organization b u t som ething absolutely different, the m entality
o f the proletariat. A fter this m aster-stroke of social alchem y, he has no
difficulty in showing th a t th e class conflicts, while involving th e annihilation
o f th e organization, aw aken th e w orking masses an d perfect th e ir ch aracter,
so that th e destruction o f th e organization m iraculously becomes the m eans”
o f strengthening it. T h u s Kautsky rep ro ach ed P annekoek for n o t seeing th a t
“th e f o ^ of p resent day organizations an d arcociations” is capable o f a b etter
ad ap tatio n , as an effect o f the class struggle, to new conditions. It is tru e th a t
the organization t r a n s f o ^ s th e m entality o f th e proletariat, b u t Kautsky
stressed, a theoretician oug h t to take into account th a t this t r a n s f o r a tio n is
the result, a n d n o t the n a tu re itself, o f th e organization because otheiwise the
organization would n o t have the least consistency a n d would rest o n nothing.
Kautsky categorically rejected th e idea of th e destruction of the state. If, he
said, th e general strike is a m eans o f b ringing effective pressure on the
governm ent, it in no way makes possible the annihilation o f state power.
Besides, th e basic problem is n o t to discover w h at f o ^ is to be given to a
fu tu re state, b u t to establish how th e socialist opposition policy is to transform
the present state. From this perspective, p arliam entary pow er is daily
dim inishing, its m echanism s being fouled up by th e conflicts o f the bourgeois
m ajority; b u t nonetheless “th e m ajority m ay change a n d the m achine be
re-started .” B u t in th e m eantim e, since th e executive is attem p tin g to curtail
the pow ers of th e legislative, it is th e la tte r we m ust try to consolidate. “T h e
purpose o f o u r p arliam en tary action rem ains therefore w hat it has always
been: to win political pow er by securing a parliam entary m ajority and
creating a g overnm ent.” T h a t is why marc strikes an d disturbances, if they
occur sporadically, can n o t be regarded as p e ^ a n e n t a n d n o ^ a l m ethods of
c la s w arfare. M arx once described a type o f lim ited, unilateral action as
“p arliam en tary c re tin ism ; ” today, Kautsky concludes th a t w hat we have is
“mass action cretinism .”
Pannekoek discussed this answ er in th e B rem er Biirger-Zeitung 27 a n d in
th e L e ip z ig e r V o lk z e itu n g , 28 b o th la r g e s o c ia lis t d a ilie s re g u la rly
27. September 10, 11, and 12, 1912.

28. September 9, 10, and 12, 1912.
left-socialist in th eir views. H e also published, in the N eu e Zeit, 2? an answer

from which we here e x tra c t only two points, one about m ethod, the other
about organization.
First, to th e accusation of having “sim plified M arxism ,” Pannekoek points
o u t (recalling an elem entary an d m uch too freq u en tly ig n ored tr u th ) : “w hen
in science we wish to probe an aspect o f reality, we m ust first h ighlight the
essential, th e basic, in its sim plest f o ^ ; only then do we introduce the
p a rtic u la r aspects an d secondary factors in o rd e r to correct the first sketch, to
com plete it, to im prove an d elab o rate on it, a n d in this way d raw closer to
reality . . . . In a first ap p ro x im atio n aim ed a t f o x i n g a general idea, there
can be n o question o f only two cla^sses - t h e bourgeoisie an d the p ro letariat;
th at is why we have attem p ted to sketch, in its b ro ad lines, the revolutionary
process as a developm ent o f relationships of forces. Everyone knows, of
course, th a t this reality is m uch m ore com plicated and th a t a host o f problem s
rem ain to be solved before th e picture can be com pleted. T h e bourgeoisie are
no t m ore hom ogeneous th a n th e p ro letariat, an d in b o th classes traditions
continue to carry w eight; am ong th e w orking masses, one m ust count the
L w npenproletariat, the salaried employees, th e p etty bourgeoisie and others,
whose specific clarc situation requires the m ode o f a c tio n .” Nevertheless, it is
clear th a t th e general tactics can n o t be b ased on these p articu lar aspects and
therefore be focused solely o n th e clashes w ithin the b o u rg e o is ie -L e ., on
p arliam en tarian ism .
T o Kautsky's com plaint th at he sees only th e spirit o f organization and
regards its body as o f n o significance, Pannekoek replied: "In fact, th e spirit
o f org an izatio n is one o th e r th a n the soul giving vital energy to the body and
m akin g it capable o f action. B ut this im m ortal soul cannot hover bodiless in
the heavens, in the m an n er o f C hristian theology; it ceaselercly creates for
itself a body, th e organization, because th e m en into whom it enters unite
w ith a view to com m on an d organized action. F a r from being an abstract,
im aginary thing, in com parison with the ’real, concrete organization,' o f the
existing f o ^ s o f arcociation, it is just as real an d concrete . . . . No statutary
arrangem ents fixing the rig h ts an d duties of th e m ilitants, no m agic power o f
well stocked coffers, no dem ocratic constitution, can give unity to a
pro letarian o rganization; this can result only from the claK spirit, from a
com plete change o f the m entality an d th e h u m a n n ature o f the p ro letariat.
This m etam orphosis is prim arily a consequence o f th e condition o f the
worker, already ed u cated to com m on action by the collective exploitation he
29. Anton Pannekoek, “Marxistische ^Theorie und revolution:lre Taktik,” Neue Zez"t, XXXi,
1, 1912, pp. 272-281, 365-373.
132 I P/ANIEKOEKAND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
undergoes as one o f a g ro u p in the sam e factory, and then a consequence of

his claw struggle. For these reasons, th e p ractical life o f the organization - t h e
election o f officials, th e paym ent o f u n io n d u e s - i s reduced to a com pletely
secondary role . . . . 30 T h e purpose of th e organization is to engender, th ro u g h
action, m en o f a new type. T h e h ith erto scattered forces are brought
together; these m en will now be able to create for themselves an o rd er b o rn of
th eir o ^ action. It will n o longer be a question o f aôciating to gether on the
basis of th e com m on a n d im m ediate interests o f disparate sectors of th e
w orkers.”
A n explanatory parenthesis is needed h ere. T h e following year, a w ildcat
strike was to give Pannekoek a fresh o p p o rtu n ity to illustrate his theoretical
views. From July 1913, in th e b ig N o rth Sea p o n s, th e dockers o f th e naval
dockyards were laying d o ^ th e ir tools, w hile th e trad e union leadership was
refusing to recognize th e ir strike. T h e strikers therefore elected autonom ous
com m ittees. W e m ig h t n o te th a t th e g ro u p of B rem en radicals, led by Henke,
gave assistance to th e tra d e unio n leaders in th e ir conciliation efforts which,
for m ore than six weeks, got now here; th e leftists, needless to say, basically
supported th e striking dockers. 31
Shortly a fte r the com plete resum ption o f work, Pannekoek w rote in the
B rem er BU rger-Zeitung: 32 “T h e w ildcat strike with its violation o f th a t
discipline which has h ith e rto been th e ideal o f a developed tra d e union shows
how impossible it is to m aintain p erfect tra d e union discipline against the
intense oppression exerted by c a p ita l. . . . Success o f m ass m ovem ents
depends on th e ir capacity for autonom ous action, their unquenchable ardor
fo r b attle, an d th e boldness a n d initiative o f th e masses. B ut it is precisely
these qualities, th e p rim a ry condition of th e struggle for freedom , th at are
repressed an d an n ih ilated by tra d e u n io n discipline. In discu sio n s about
fu ture political m a s struggles, th e accent h a s always b e en on th e autonom ous
initiative o f th e m a ^ e s, w ithout which n o th in g can be u n d ertaken. Is it not
then, a good th in g if this initiative leads th e m asses to take different paths?
30. For analogous ideas, see Rosa Luxemburg. Leipziger Volkszeitung, June 27, 1913. Cf.
Also Kautsky, "Nachri;edenke zu den nachgedenkliche Betrachtungen," NeueZeit, XXI, 2, 1913.
31. Cf. Josef Miller, “Zur^Geschichte der link.en s.d. in B rên, 1906-1918,” Zeitschnftfilr
Geschichtswissenschaft, 1958 (Sonderheft), pp. 202-217; August Winning, "Zum Streik auf dem
Schiffswerften,” Neue Zeit, XXXII, 1, 1913, pp. 55-59.
32. Anton Pannekoek. “^GewerkschaftsdisziDlin," B.B.Z., 297, Oct. 18. 1913: from the onset
of the movement, he spoke against “the strict and slavish respect” for the least article "of the trade
union rules," and urged "unshakable cohesion and solidarity.” "Der Werftargeiterstreik," B.B. Z.
287, Aug. 9, 1913. In 1910, during a similar strike in the naval dockyards, Pannekoek noted that
"the requirements of the mas conflict led the rank-and-file to impose their will on the leaders."
"Gewerkschaftliche Demokratie," B.B.Z., Dec. 17, 1910.
Was it necessary to condem n the initiative o f th e naval dockers simply

because they did not conform to th e prescribed f o ^ s ? W e n e ed not fall out
over this p articu lar instance; b u t, generally speaking, w hen we see absolute
respect for tra d e union discipline being exalted as a suprem e end in itself, we
m ust proclaim w ith the utm ost urgency that this is a sure way to choke an
essential source o f the fu tu re p ro letarian victory.”
Let us now re tu rn to the 1912 controversy. T h e two opponents shared at
least one peice o f com m on g ro u n d o f accu satio n : each censured the other for
clinging to a past phase of history. Pannekoek, for his p art, m ain tain ed th a t,
by avoiding trials o f strength an d by glorifying discipline and the role o f the
leaders, 33 one could n o t fail to discourage th e masses an d to precipitate the
decline of the party. This attitu d e, he said, belonged to an epoch w hen,
because o f th e weakness o f the workers’ organizations, they had “to be
protected against the terrorism of the ruling power. In this sense, o u r
divergences a re th e expression o f different degrees of developm ent w ithin th e
organ izatio n .”
Kautsky reto rted 34 th a t this was to re tu rn to th e idea of “revolutionary
^ m n a s tic s ,” once dear to th e F ren ch tra d e unionists b u t "rejected now th a t
they have becom e stro n g .” As for th e id ea o f destroying the state, this is
n o th in g less than anarchy. M oreover, “history shows th a t state power is not
sim ply a m eans of m ain tain in g th e econom ic dom ination of any one c la ^ , b u t
equally a m eans o fb re a k in g the econom ic power o f an d thereby dispossessing a
certain class.” T his em erged clearly during the French Revolution, in th e
course o f w hich “th e state m achinery was changed from an instrum ent of the
old c la ^ in to an instrum ent o f the new .” A nd th e C om m unist M anifesto
recom m ends noth in g else. In the m ean tim e, how could a political
organization subsist which refused to interest itself in electoral activities? “I
Wrongly suspect,” concludes Kautsky, “th a t P annekoek is actively gath erin g
m aterial for a book whose title could b e: ‘Mass action by the individual.’ ”
33. "Marxistische Theorie und revolutionll.re T a k tik o p . c#., pp. 373f. On this point,
Pannekoek had often expresed his ideas; for instance: “As long as a small group decided on
matters of vital interest to the maês, there will always be the chance that the masses will
suddenly re ^ ^ to respond to the group's orders, despite all considerations of prestige and trust.
This would be so, especially. if, in such instances, the prudence of the leaders must expect always
to prevail, thus giving their ideas precedence over that of the progreK of the masses. . . The old
t^ ^ of party leadership and of trade union leadership, at both local and national level, given
and is still giving good service. However, for some years now, the development of political mass
coonflicts is imposing new tasks on the party . . . . The idea is increasingly gaining ground, of the
need for a close connection between the representative body and the profound changes occurring
in the forms of conflict." Anton Pannekôek, “Das Vertrecungsystem in der Arbeiterbew^^ng,”
B.B.Z., 168, April 4, 1911.
M. K. Kautsky, “Der Jungste Radikalismus,” Neue Zeit, XXXI, l, 1912, pp. 636-46.
134 I PANNEKOEK AND THE WORKERS' CO UNCILS
T his is th e c la a ic a p p ro a c h of reducing political differences to a m e re m a tte r

o f personalities whose views are no one's b u t th e ir o ^ .
Be th at as it m ay, Pannekoek, given th e last w ork in this phase o f the
controversy, 35 quietly disposed of th e C om m unist M anifesto quotations w hich
Kautsky was invoking w ith such ardor. In 1847, he recalled one could envision
“th e p ro letarian revolution only in th e f o ^ o f a m inority dictatorship using
the coercive pow er o f th e state for the benefit o f the w orking class. Today, a
revolution is possible only in th e f o ^ o f revolt an d self-governm ent o f the
m asses." T h e accusation o f revolutionary syndicalism, “a t e ^ w hich Kautsky
uses because it is re p u g n a n t to th e co m rad es,” brought this reply from
Pannekoek: “W ell, so m u ch for revolutionary syndicalism!”
Shortly after the o u tb reak o f W o rld W a r I, Pannekoek re tu rn e d to the
subject o f this controversy. H e th en n o ted th at the "whole m ethod” of
criticism used by th e socialist press ( “Vorw&rts a n d other new spapers”) was ”a t
bottom an a ttack on th e politics o f m o d ern g ra n d capitalism fro m th e petty
bourgeois sta n d p o in t o f ‘sm all business’ a n d shows th a t all u n d erstanding of
m o d e m political developm ent was lacking. C onnected to this was th e theory
expressed in th e scientific org an of th e party, the N eue Zeit, th a t the doctrine
of M arx, th a t fiery revolutionary cham pion, m e a n t a passive w aiting an d th a t
all revolutionary actiw ty was n o th in g b u t unscientific anarchism ." R ejecting
out of h a n d “aU autonom ous initiative of th e masses, every strike declared
w ith o u t th e consent o f th e leadership," the Social D em ocrats revealed th e ir
position: “W hile th e old radicals continually repeated the dictum ,
‘Governm ents do n o t d a re to begin w ar for fear o f the p ro letariat, for w ar
means social revolution,’ th e revolutionary L eft em phasized th e fact th at the
pro le ta ria t can n o t prevent w ar by stan d in g passively by, b u t only by
energetic, active in terv en tio n .” In these circum stances, it was highly
im pro b ab le “th a t th e masses, accustom ed to d o only w hat the party ordered,
w ould now com e forw ard in d ep en d en t o f th e leaders o f the p a r ty . . . . T h e
question o f how th e w ar could be resisted was never even raised, because the
question of w hether th e w ar ought to be resisted was no t even answered w ith a
decisive Yes.” W orse still, "in Vorwdrts a n d m any other party papers the war
was t e ^ e d a ‘w ar against the bloody-czar,' a w ar against R ussian b arbarism .
T hey cited K arl M arx, who in 1848 h a d u rg ed G e ^ a n y to a w ar against
Russia; they overlooked the fact th at it app lied only so long as R u » ia
dom inated an d th reaten ed E urope as its m ost pow erful m ilitary state. T hus
the w ar was m ad e p o p u lar am ong th e w orking m asses."
I n com plete contrast to this was the anti-w ar strategy advocated by the two
35. Anton Pannekoek, "Zurn SchloM,” Neue Zeit, XXXI, l, 1912, pp. 611-12.
KAUTSKY VERSUSPjANEKOEK I 135
radical newspapers of Leipzig an d B r e m e n - th e organs of those w ith “a clear

insight into the fact th a t today, R u ^ ia , as well as G e ^ a n y , is a capitalist
country pursuing a policy o f com m ercial im perialism .” T hey urged th a t “as
soon as d anger of w ar appears an d nationalistic dem onstrations in favor of
w ar begin, the workers should fill the streets in masses an d chase away the
nationalists. If the danger becom es m ore threatening, the dem onstrations
m ust becom e m ore en erg etic; u n d er a general strike the masses m ust be sent
into the streets instead o f going to the factory, a n d for these few days they can
live wholly for the g reat political struggle. If the governm ent tries to forbid
the dem onstrations and to prevent th e m by force, th en they m ust be kept up
all the m ore. Even if thousands perish, w hat is th at com pared w ith the
hund red s of thousands who fall in war? A nd in w ar they fall for capital, in the
street they fall for the p ro le ta ria n cause.” Pannekoek points out th a t “the fact
that this tactic came to an end after the b rillian t conflicts of 1910 means an
acknow ledgem ent by the p arty of its o ^ weakness. Since then, a lukew arm
spirit, averse to sharp conflict, gained the upper hand in the m ovem ent. T he
b ureaucracy at the top becam e even stronger an d was disinclined to risk itself
in revolutionary struggles.” H e adm its th at, d u rin g this period, "there was an
external grow th o f the organization, w hich is th e necessary prerequisite for a
fight," but asserts equally that “they shunned that fight m ore an d m ore in
order n o t to endanger this precious organization. Every independent initiative
of the masses w hich occasionally b roke out in the struggles of the labor unions
against the wishes of the leaders, was b ran d ed as a ‘lack of discipline1 an d as
‘an a rc h ism .’ ” T he m ain concern, then of the Social D em ocratic “bureaucracy
at the to p ” was to shield “the precious organization” at all costs.36
It w ould never have crossed the m inds of the Social D ^ o c r a t i c notables
th a t th e p arty ’s attitu d e was one of the prin cip al reasons why the working
masses accepted the w ar. O n the contrary, they m ain tain ed th a t the party
itself was sim ply responding to p o p u lar pressures. In reply, Pannekoek
deliberately rejected the old excuse about conditions always being
unfavorable for action, an excuse w hich has always been the hallm ark o f the
forces o f conservatism. He sought instead to stim ulate the developm ent of new
f o ^ s of conflict an d of organization, h ith erto em bryonic and e p h e m e ra l, by
m eans of p ro p ag an d a, the only w eapon of the leftist theoreticians. Analysis
an d practical conclusions will no d o u b t seem in ad eq u ate to some people, b u t
Pannekoek was not the m an to raise, in the n am e of alleged clarity, questions
calling for no answ er other th a n evasion, resignation and complicity.
36. Anton Pannekoek, “The Great European War and Socialism," Int^national Socialist
Review, XV, Oct. 4', 1914, pp. 201-202.
136 I P/ANEKOEK AND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
As for Kautsky, he too was to allude again to this controversy. “How I

would love Pannekoek to have been right!” he exclaim ed, in refering to the
idea th a t “th e socialist worker never said yes to th e w a r.” 37 A nd yet, who was
it then who h a d sagely d e c la re d : “ ‘T h e inevitable attem pts of the p ro le taria t
to prevent th e w ar,' of w hich Pannekoek tells us, are notably conspicuous up
to th e present by their inevitable absence?” 38 W as not th a t th e very reproach
leveled against the p a r t y ? - th e refusal o f all p ractical initiative, in th e nam e
of certainties never seriously p u t to th e te s t; th e c r a » passivity o f a powerful,
ten tacu lar organization w ith enorm ous resources b u t acting only as a
supplem entary m echanism of integration?
37. K. Kautsky, Soziallisten und Krieg, (Berlin, 1927), p. 346. Cf. International Review oj
Social History, XI, 2, 1960,' pp. 197-227; and Pannekoek, “Deckungsfrage und Imperialismus,''
Neue Zeit, XXXII, I, 1913, p. 114.
38. K. Kautsky, "Die Neue Taktik," op. cit., p. 663.
C H A P T E R FO U R
T H E W O R L D W A R A ND T H E W O R K E R S’ M OVEM ENT
A fter the controversy w ith Kautsky, Pannekoek, like m ost o th e r left-w ing
Social D em ocratic theorists, constantly re tu rn e d to th e central issues: the
wave o f im perialism an d o f nationalism , the fight against r e f o ^ is m , an d the
d a n g e r o f w ar.
In 1933, in connection w ith the a ^ a m e n t s race, a wave o f unprecedented
chauvinism swept E urope, w ith alm ost the entire w orkers’ m ovem ent cau g h t
up in it. Displays o f patriotic a n d m ilitaristic d elirium in G erm any d u rin g
celebrations m ark in g th e centenary o f th e g re a t resistance against th e French
invader encouraged Franz M ehring, a p ro m in e n t radical, to publish two
broch u res p raising "th e fight against pitiless exploitation a n d o p p re s io n .”
A ccording to M ehring, the w orking c la « h a d “every reason" to glorify “a
w ar com parable to its ow n,” a n d th at, besides, " th e ow ification o f M arxism
into ready-m ade form ulas could th ro u g h its d o ^ n a tism , only strengthen
revisionism .” 1
Pannekoek, for his p a rt, h ad already p o in ted o u t the connection betw een
grow th o f nationalist ideology a n d th e rise o f im perialism . “T h e fight against
m ilita rism ,"2 if i t is to b e effectively conducted, dem ands a concom itant
sp iritu al fig h t; fo r only th u s can we p roperly discover th e significance o f these
trad itio n al (patriotic) ideas . .. . T h e id ea o f th e p a tria has radically changed.
O riginally, it signified th e b o n d between the p easant or the petty bourgeois
and th e place w here h e lived: anyone th reaten in g his prosperity was the
enem y. I n contrast, th e patria o f the bourgeoisie covers the fu ll extent o f the
national territo ry a n d becom es em otionally identified w ith the m aterial
interests o f th a t c la w -in te re s ts th a t th e bourgeoisie succewfully present as
those o f the nation as a w h o le. . . . O n th e o th er h a n d , the workers’ patria is
their cla&, a n d this p a tria extends fa r beyond n atio n al frontiers; it includes
the proletarians o f every country in a n in t^ ^ a tio n a l netw ork a n d unites them
1. Cf. Josef Schleifstein. Franz Mehn'ng (East Berlin, 1959), p. 191.

2. Anton Pannekoek, "Patriotismus und Sozialdemokratie,” B.B.Z. April 5, 1918, which
argues against the English socialist Hyndman, who maintained that Germany was as reactionary
as Russia had been in Marx's time. Cf. also "Patriotismus vor 100 Jahren und jetzt," B.B.Z.,
April 4, 1913 (directed against the patriotic celebrations); and the pamphlet, Klla.senkam.pf und
Nation, Reichenberg, 1912 (aimed in particular against the Austro-Marxists).
in a com m on b a ttle against th e capitalist system as a whole . . . . T h e present

m ilitary projects call for m o re th a n a cam paign against heavy taxes; in
additio n , they offer an o pportunity to fight against disastrous traditional
ideas.”
T h e o u tb reak of the w ar caused Pannekoek to re p eat these a r ^ ^ e n t s . Like
the entire in tern atio n al left-wing, 3 he saw th a t im perialism was rooted in the
com petition am ong th e g reat pow ers for raw m aterials an d new m arkets.
A ^ a m e n t s production was linked to this econom ic com petition and
exacerbated th e national antagonism s in E urope. "T h e fact th a t w ar has
broken o u t proves th e ex ten t to which th e now soldier-workers (both Social
D em ocrats an d revolutionary syndicalists) an d th eir spokesmen in every
country have com e u n d e r th e influence of bourgeois patriotism an d have
joined w ith th e bourgeoisie in sentim ents about love of th e p a tn a a n d the duty
to defend it, while at th e sam e tim e they are tram p lin g u n d er foot the
in tern atio n al solidarity o f the p ro letariat . . . . T h e o u tbreak of w ar is p ro o f of
the pow er o f im perialism , proof of th e organizational and, especially, the
spiritual weakness o f th e workers’ m ovem ent. . . . Only a tireless socialist
pro p ag an d a, u rg in g h eartfelt an d enlightened com m itm ent to conflict an d
unity, can in the fu tu re create th e conditions needed to prevent an o th er
4
w ar. 4
T h e small p arty of Dutch T ribunists, in an attem pt to reorganize,
associated w ith various other radical an d leftist activities. It p articipated in
the Zim m erw ald C onference of 1915, which laid th e foundations of a sect
later k n o ^ as th e "L eft-Z im m erw aldians,” d edicated to th e creation o f a
th ird In tern atio n al, an d it authorized several publications, am ong them
Vorbote, edited by H en riette R oland-H olst an d Pannekoek.
Pannekoek, in his “In tro d u ctio n " to th e first edition of Verbote, w rote:
3. But not without marked divergences of opinion at the level of basic analysis.
4. Anton Pannekoek, De Oorlog ziijn oorsprong en ziijn bestnjding (Amsterdam, n.d.),
compiled from articles published in De Tribune at the beginning of the war. Shortly afterward,
Pannekoek wrote a pamphlet specifically on the problem of imperialism —Uit de
voorgeschiedenis van de wereldoorlog (Zuitphen, 1916). He was also again to deal with the
subject of nationalism in later writings. For example, in his Workers' Councils, composed during
World War II, he has this to say: "For the ttime being nationalism exists as a strong power
obstructing the way. For the workers it is necesary not only to destroy all nationalist tradition in
themselves, but also in order to avoid ilusions, to understand its strength in the ho.stile class.
Nationalism does not belong to the ideologies that as traditions of the past are gradually
extinguished under modem conditions. It is a living ideology, drawing its forces ever anew from a
fertile economic soil, standing in the center of fight, the flag of the foe.” Anton Pannekoek,
Workers’ Councils, op. cit., p. 185.
5. "Zur Einflih^mg,” Vorbote, Jan 1, 1918, pp. 1-4. The English version of this text was
published under the title "The Third International" in International Socialist Reuiew, Feb. 1917,
pp. 460-462.
THE WORLDIWORLDWAR / 139
“T h e collapse o f the In tern atio n al caused by th e world w ar is not simply a

surren d er of in tern atio n al sentim ent before the power of intensified
n a tio n a lis m . . . . T h e p r e s e n t c a ta s tr o p h e in d ic a te s m o re th a n th e
pro letariat's inability to prevent the outb reak o f w ar: it m eans th a t the
m ethods of the e ra of th e Second In tern atio n al failed to increase the
intellectual an d m aterial power o f th e p ro letariat to the point w here it could
break th e pow er of th e ru lin g cla&es. T herefore, th e w orld w ar m ust be a
tu rn in g poin t in the history of th e working c la s m ovem ent . . .. ” As a result of
oppression an d suffering caused by the war, "the masses are in sp ire d ; they
m ust raise themselves if they are n o t to b e com pletely subm erged.” In o th e r
words, they m ust strive for a new spiritual orientation. T h e p ro letariat, acting
u n d e r unprecen d ented conditions, can n o t rely o n old ideas an d old n o rm s;
hence the absolute need for an organizational b r e a k 6 with "those who would
m ake social-dem ocracy a tool of im perialism .” A nd to elaborate the new
solutions, th e revolutionaries have M arxism : n o t the “M arxism reg ard e d by
the socialist theoreticians as a m eth o d to explain the past a n d th e present an d
degrad ed progressively into a dry d octrine of m echanical fatalism ,” 7 b u t a
M arxism “w hich has regained its b irth rig h t as a theory o f revolution.”
I n an o th er article, 8 Pannekoek again stressed th a t "the p ro letarian masses
should them selves intervene, using m ethods of active w arfare.” A n d he
recalled how “th e bureau cracy of officers an d of leaders, naturally identifying
their specific g ro u p interests w ith those of th e p ro letariat, strenuously
opposed ‘th e an archo-trade-unionist actions.' ” T hen, speaking of marc
actions an d of th e p rim o rd ial n eed to com bat state power, he re tu rn e d to the
them e th a t “the new c h a ra c ter o f m odern capitalism dem ands a new
socialism, a new workers’ m ovem ent."9
In s h o r t - a n d Pannekoek stresses this - " t h e increasing cohesion which the
conflict gives to proletarian solidarity and organization makes it possible to
shatter, by m eans o f mass actions, th e elem ents o f fo rc e and th e state
organization. A t the sam e tim e, political pow er com es into th e hands of the
p ro letariat, since it is able to create the o rgans necessary for econom ic
reconstruction. T o m ake th e p ro letariat rip e for socialism th ro u g h h arsh
conflict, an d thus m ake it capable of abolishing bourgeois dom ination - t h a t
is the historic m eaning of im p erialism .”
6. A smal1 minority of the "Zimmerwaldians" (among them the Bolsheviks) held this idea.
1. A simitar jud^ment, supported by ample theoretical and historical justification, can be
found in the already cited works of Korsch and Brandis. Cf. also Erich Matthias, "KirnUky und
der Kautskyanismus,'' MarxismusUudien, ll (1957), pp. 151-97.
8 Anton Pannekoek, "Der Imperialisms und die Aufgaben des Proletariats," VorboU, pp.
7-19 The article was first published in Ruiuian in Kommunist (1-2, 1913).
9. “Zur Einflihrung,” op. ctt., pp. 1Sff.
140 I P/ANEKOEKA.ND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
By com paring such views w ith those o f L enin (in the article in Verbote th at
follows Pannekoek's in tro d u ctio n ) on th e “overthrow " an d “betray al” of
Social Dem ocracy, IO one can get som e idea o f w here th e ir views converge - i n
their diagnosis of th e p r o b l e m - a n d w here they d iv e rg e -o n the prognosis for
th e com m unist m ovem ent. L en in aim s fo r the restoration, p u re an d simple,
of th e old o rth o d o x M arxist tactics w hich, according to h im have been
betray ed by "th e o p p o rtu n ism ” o f th e labor aristocracy. Pannekoek, for his
p art, appeals to an essentially different tactic, in w hich trad itio n al f o ^ s o f
organization no lo n g e r fig u re prom inently, an d in w hich th e id e a o f th e
adm inistration o f th e fu tu re society is beginning to undergo a pro fo u n d
change.
T h a t is why P annekoek regards th e question of new tactics a n d o f the
f o ^ a t i o n o f a new in tern atio n al "of suprem e im p o rtan ce." However, one
th ing is certain : th e stru ctu re of the tra d itio n a l workers’ parties “o f w hich
Social D em ocracy is th e m odel. It takes th e form o f a gigantic a n d pow erful
organization, alm ost a state w ithin a state, w ith its o'wn officials, finances,
press, sp iritu al universe, an d specific ideology (M arxism). By its general
ch aracter, it is a d a p te d to th e pre-im perialist peaceful phase. T h e thousands
of officials. secretaries, agitators, p arliam en tarians, theoreticians an d
publicists 1 1 -w h o already form a distinct caste, a group w ith very distinct
interests—ru le th e organization on b o th th e m aterial an d spiritual levels; an d
express its general ch a ra c ter. As such, an d w ith Kautsky leading them , it is no
accident th a t they will not h ear o f a genuine, • b itte r struggle against
im perialism . T h e ir vital interests com pel th em to oppose new tactics th a t
would e n d an g er th e ir existence as officials. T h eir tranquil work, in
conferences an d com m ittees, in offices an d ed ito rial room s, is th re aten ed by
th e storm s o f th e im perialist era.
"K autsky's theory a n d tactics represent an attem pt to shield the whole
b u re a u c ratic a p p a ra tu s from th e risks o f social revolution. In fact, he simply
seeks to survive by keeping clear o f th e hurly-burly, u n to u ch ed by the
revolutionary co m b at a n d therefore u n affected by th e larger w orld outside. If
the p a rty an d its leadership were to aopt th e tactics o f mass action, state
pow er w ould u ndoubtedly strike b ack at th e o rg a n iz a tio n s -th e bases of th eir
whole existence, destroying them p erhaps, confiscating th e ir funds,
im prisoning th e ir leaders. O f course, th e state w ould b e quite w rong if it
assum ed th a t this w ould break th e back o f the p ro letaria t: th e workers’
10. Lenin, “Der Opportunismus und der Zusammenbruch der II Internationale," ibid., pp.
19ff. The French text of this is in Oeuvres, XXII, pp. 115-128.
11. It is difficult to establish precisely the number of individuals in this famous "apparatus.”
The estimates vary considerably.
THE WORLD WAR I 141
organizational power does n o t lie in th e exterior form o f political arcociations,

b u t in the sp irit o f com radeship, in th e discipline an d unity th a t enable them
to create new a n d b e tte r form s o f organ izatio n s.12 For the officials, however,
this w ould be th e e n d o f everything; th e organization is th e ir whole world,
an d they can n o t exist o r act outside. it. T h e in stin ct o f self-preservation, th e
interests o f a specific group, force them , therefore, to a d o p t a tactic yielding
to im perialism an d m ak in g concessions to it. Consequently, w h at h ap pened
b o th before an d at th e tim e o f th e declaration o f th e world w ar was by no
m eans a n extrao rd in ary accident. How often h a d n o t the officials proclaim ed
th a t such d angerous m a s struggles w ould ru in th e organization a n d th a t care
m ust be taken n o t to provoke them? T h a t is why th e organizations they lead
d id n o t resolve to fight im perialism to the utm ost. T h e struggle rem ain e d one
of words, o f accusations, of e x h o r ta tio n s - a fic titio u s battle avoiding
an yth in g rem otely resem bling a real one. T h e m ost cogent p roof o f this has
been given by Kautsky him self who, while hav in g long hesitated ab o u t com ing
o u t again st social-im perialism , 13 d id n o t hesitate to describe th e workers'
street dem onstrations as ‘reckieM actions.' In other words, they fight
im perialism w ith words, b u t d o n ’t d a re parc o n to action. li
12. Zinoviev cites this parage in his analysis (1917) of the material bases of Social Democratic
policy. Zinoviev, Der Krieg und die Krise des Sozialismus (Vienna, 1924), p. 525. He drew on the
impressive m as of material attembled by Roberto Michels in his now clauic work of 1911 on the
“biology of the political parties.” A little later on, Zinoviev writes: “This certainly does not
mean that the workers’ movement can in the future do without a large organizational apparatus,
a whole category of people placed at the service of the proletarian organization. It is a
question . . .of a new stage, in the course of which the spontaneous movement of the ma^sses wiU
subordinate itself to this s tr a ta of officials, destroy the fixed routine, and c a ^ the
bureaucratic fungus to disappear and new men to ^rise up." Ibid., pp. 526-527. This, in a se^nse,
coincides with Michels’ theory of the inevitable growth of a “bureaucratic oligarchybecaûse of
“the need felt by the m ^^s to be led and because of their inability to act except through an
impulse coming from outside or from above,” of "the masses' inability to look after their own
interests, an inability which nece&itates the existence of officials who act on their behalf.” R.
Michels, Les Partis politiqwes (Paris, 1914), pp. !16 and 62. Pannekoek, for his part, takes up a
^rcition which is not as clear and which, on his own admittion, even contains an element of
contradiction: on the one hand, he cites the necesity of a new political organization, at both the
national and the international levels, but not for an apparatus of a new type; on the other hand,
he reaches a final position pretty close to the general idea of the German Left that the
development of a new spirit, born through revolutionary claw struggle, will make posible the
regeneration, the “redre»ing” of the old party. Need we recall that this undoubted ambiguity is
due to the real situation in Westmi Europe, that is, to the existence of political. trade unionist
and other organizations whose spirit deeply impreûted the mattes? In Russia, conditions were
leading the Bolsheviks to ignore, at the theoretical level, the existence of this contradiction.
15. An extreme tendency of avowed revisionism, which even went so far as to support the
colonialist ambitions of the imperial gove^rnment. Cf. A. Ascher, “Imperialists within G eân
Social Democracy," Journal of Central European Affairs, XX, 1961.
14. A well-known refoîst simultaneously reached a similar diagnosis: “The leaders are
obliged to remain radicals in words, in order to conciliate the masses; in fact, they content
“Clearly, therefore, it would be useless to expect th e present p arty

bureaucracy to proclaim a revolutionary struggle against im perialism .
Instead, it will limit itself to futile discussion in P arliam en t and in the press,
to long-w inded speeches about secondary m atters, to concern with the
technicalities of tra d e union action. A lthough th e ref o d i s t s are sym pathetic
to im perialism and th e center-leftists are its enemies, 15 they stiU share a
concern w ith m ere criticism and an absence of any desire to engage in
com bat. They will soon attem p t to change the party into one of bourgeois
reform s based on th e English m odel, w hich is satisfied w ith a few
revolutionary phrases an d w hich energetically pursues the day-to-day
dem ands of th e workers, w ithout, however, being involved even slightly in any
m ajor revolutionary struggle.
“It is incum bent on th e revolutionary Social D em ocrats to show the workers
th e m eaning of m a » action an d to take every o p portunity to enlighten them ,
to help them , and to draw th em into the struggle. However, if this new tactic
is p ro p ag ated only by m inorities while the big parties have n o th in g to do w ith
it, th e n mass a c tio n - b y definition inconceivable w ithout the p articip atio n of
th e m a sse s-w ill surely com e to be reg ard ed as m ere wishful thinking. T his
incongruity proves one th in g : the kind of mass action th a t was directed by the
Social D em ocratic P arty and praised before the w ar by th e radical G erm an
L eft is now impossible. Such action is spontaneous, breaking out suddenly
w hen misery an d revolt finally com pel the masses to react. It m ay be th e
involuntary consequence of an affront em an atin g from th e party, an affront
small in itself b u t sufficient in itself to burst th e dikes; or it may take th e f o ^
of opposition to th e declared wishes of th e leaders (violating discipline).
Nonetheless, if it spreads sufficiently, it can involve the organization itself and
can force it, for a tim e, to go along w ith th e revolutionary forces. It is not
im p o îb le th a t, w hen the war has continued for a while, som ething of this
kind will occur; th e symptoms are already appearing.
“O ne can foresee, therefore, th at, in th e near future, the existing
organizations (parties an d tra d e unions) will play a restraining role in
c o n f o ^ ity w ith their n a tu re b u t counter to th e objectives and tasks of the
pro letarian masses. However, if the new tactics are increasingly used, and if
the power of the p ro le ta ria t gradually increases th ro u g h m a s conflicts, b o th
themselves with minor refo^s which can be secured without much trouble." G. Eckstein.
“Bureaucratie und P o litik Neue Zeit, XXXIV: 1 (1916), pp. 48Sff.
15. There is question here of two main currents which were then showing themselves within
G eân Social Democracy, one leftist, the other pacifist; the split was to occur early in 1917 and
was confined some months later with the founding of the independent Social Democ ra t Party
(USPD).
THE WORLDD WAR I 143
party a n d tra d e unions will fin d themselves u n a b le to play this role. From
th en on, th eir rigid leadership organs w ill increasingly form a subordinate
sector w ithin a larger clarc m ovem ent an d w ithin a larger clarc organization
th at welds th e masses into a pow erful fighting collectivity, not th ro u g h the
m em bership card, b u t th ro u g h consciousness of a com m on pu rp o se.”
T h e second issue of Vorbote carried an article in w hich Pannekoek tried to
forecast th e effects th a t th e e n d of th e war would have on the workers
(w idespread unem ploym ent) an d on th e econom y in general (renewal of
m ilitary eq u ip m en t and, therefore, a new stage in arm am ents pro d u ctio n ).16
In this connection he writes: “T h e w artim e experience gained du rin g state
control over indu stry an d com m erce has developed, in a large p a rt of the
bourgeoisie, the idea o f state 'socialism.' T h e advantages of a centralized
system o f p ro d u ctio n over private ownership are well k n o ^ today. T h e m ajo r
industries could q u ite easily be nationalized and reconverted to w ar
p ro du ctio n . T h e bourgeoisie could find this an answer to the problem s th at
would arise w ith th e re tu rn of soldiers looking for jo b s .. . . A nd this would
have o th er advantages. In th e first place, it w ould lower prices th ro u g h the
elim ination of m iddlem en. Everyone knows w hat economic benefits w ould
derive from a state organization of pro d u ctio n . It would be the m eans of
preserving all th e technical an d organizational im provem ents developed
du rin g the w ar, a n d of regu latin g unem ploym ent. Equally, of course, the
wages a n d salaries could be fixed, a n d th e tra d e unions w ould fin d themselves
powerless against a new em ployer w ith e n o ^ o u s powers. As for the workers,
th e ir dependence w ould be increased a n d their freedom o f labor-m obility
would b e less th a n it was u n d er th e regim e of private property. T h e
nationalization of these m ajo r industries w ould also signify m ilitarization . . .,
a m eans o f taking th e masses in h a n d an d of repressing their inclination
tow ard political opposition.
“T h is state socialism can only aggravate th e proletarian condition and
strengthen oppression. In spite of this, one can foresee th at a large sector of
Social D em ocracy will not oppose it, a n d will even support it. Its old ideology
wiU, in effect, link Social D em ocracy w ith the new system of state
exploitation . . . . N ationalization o f enterprises is n o t socialism; socialism is
the fo r c e o f th e p ro leta ria t.17 B ut since, in th e ideal world of present Social
16. Anton Pannekoek, “Wenn der Krieg zu Ende Geht,” Vorbote, April 2, 1916, pp. 22-27.
17. Pannekoek already had occasion to broach this problem, as when, for instance, he wrote:
"Nationalization of the big industries would mean merely the replacing of private capitalists with
a much more powerful entrepreneur, against whom the workers would be much more effectively
stripped of their rights . . . . socialism is the force created by workers consciously united by the
struggle against the capitalist claM, within powerful and self-administering organizations."
Anton Pannekoek, “Sozialismus und Verstaatlichung," B.B.Z., May 27, 1917. We might note in
144 I PANNEKOEK AND THE WORKERS’COUNCILS
D em ocracy, socialism a n d state-controlled econom y are m ore o r less regarded

as synon-ymous, this p a rty will fin d itself w ithout sp iritual a ^ s w hen bro u g h t
face to face w ith state socialist m easures in ten d ed to reduce th e p ro le ta ria t to
a condition of slavery.
“T h e task o f revolutionary socialism is to lead th e pro letariat to declare w ar
on this new servitude. T h e slogan ‘fig h t state socialism? should serve to
explain to th e p ro le ta ria t its condition u n d e r th e new im perialism . I f th e im
perialist state increasingly em erges as th e oppressor a n d exploiter of the
workers, a situation will autom atically occur, w hich, by its very n a tu re , will
cause th e p roletari at to see th e state as th e suprem e enem y against which they
m ust fight, prim arily w ith th e weapon of m ass action. T hus the Kautsky tr a
dition, which seeks above a ll else to preserve th e sta te a n d to b e n d it to
socialist purposes, will b e sh attered by th e sheer logic of events . . . .
"W hen, b o th d u rin g th e after th e w ar, th e workers resum e th e political
b attle, th e y will n eed a clear program o f action. T h e fig h t for socialism
can n o t be other th a n th e class struggle for th e im m ed iate a n d essential
interests of th e p ro letariat, a n d its c h aracter is d ecided by th e m ethods an d
m eans used. N o d o u b t, some of th e old dem ands will still have th e ir place in
the new p ro g ra m of a c tio n : for exam ple, th e struggle fo r com plete an d fu ll
dem ocracy w ithin the state, a n d th e struggle against m ilitarism . B oth of
these, however, w ill ta k e on a new strength a n d a new m eaning when, as a
result of th e accelerated progress of state socialism, econom ic exploitation
an d m ilitarist servitude are seen as clearly bracketed w ith political
oppression.”
Vorbote w ent out o f existence w ith this second n u m b er. O n one p o in t at
least, clear divergences of opinion were em erging. R adek’s theses on
im perialism a n d oppression unequivocally condem ned th e call for th e rig h t of
n a tio n a l s e lf-d e te ^ in a tio n , while L en in took th e very opposite viewpoint,
lettin g it be known privately th a t V orbote’s fa ilu re of th e enterprise was due
to the “intrigues” o f R adek, who, he said, “deprived us of our editors.” 18 It
seems clear, however, th a t in reality, n e ith e r L enin nor the editors of the
review h a d decided to subscribe unconditionaly to Radek's view.
pacing that one of the principal theoreticians of the Hamburg ^tft, Heinrich Laufenberg
(1872-1932) also said something similar. "Sozialdemokratie und Verstaatlichung,” Diee Neue .Zeit,
XXXII, 2, 1914.
lB. Lenin, Works, op. cit., pp. 407-408.
C H A PTER FIVE
RUSSIAN SOV IETS AND GERM AN R A ETE
W orld W ar I m arked a decisive state in the transition from liberal

cap italism to m o d e m W estern capitalism . In disarray following the war, the
new econom ic stru ctu re nevetheless resulted in p erm an en t changes, especially
in th e institutions serving th e workers’ im m ed iate political a n d economic
interests.
Prior to th e w ar, party a n d tra d e union leaders h ad found it necessary to
challenge econom ic and political power, as a result of the prew ure from the
large industrial centers a n d th e authorities’ im pa& ioned concern to retain
undim inished pow er. T h e w ar changed t h a t ; n o t only d id it clearly reveal the
deep patriotism of p a rty a n d trade u nion l e a d e r s - i.e ., their attach m en t to
the status quo a n d their lack of any practical will to revolution - b u t it also
m ad e it im perative for th e state to m a in ta in social peace.
W h en G e ^ a n Social Democ ratic deputies (with one ludicrous abstention)
approved th e w ar credits on A ugust 4, 1914, they sealed a choice th a t the
m ajority of them h a d m ade m uch earlier, a t least unconsciously. “T h e p a rty
h ad long before chosen its way, th e way o f r e f o ^ i s m ,” w rote from er editor in
chief of Vorwitrts, th e cen tral organ of G e ^ a n Social Democracy, in the
b itte r h o u r of defeat a n d exile. 1 In the m idst o f th e agony, a Brem en Leftist
could say of th e v o te : ‘‘T h is was no accidental d isa ster; on the contrary, it was
a logical step for a m ovem ent whose evolution, since the E rfu rt Congress,
h a d been in this d irectio n .” 2 A n observer n o ted at the tim e: "T h e m ortal
enem ies of the bourgeoisie are accom m odating well to being m em bers of the
state o rd e r."3
Certainly, th e absorp tio n of p arty a n d tra d e union leadership into
1. Friedrich Stampfer, Me vienehnjahren der ersten deutschen Republik (Karlsbad, 1936),

p. 19.
2. Johann Knief, Arbe#erpolitik, June 24, 1916. In the eyes ofleftists such as Pannekoek and
Knief, to merely denounce the “treason" (as the Spartaku.sbund was doing) avoided the issue of
the future form of organization and its purposes; they therefore liêd the treason with the old
form of organization. Knief unhesitatingly described as "social traitors” those who postponed
f^dling their solemn commitments because of the circumstances (cf. infra, final section of this
chapter).
S. Cited by Werner Richter, Gewerkschaften, Monopakapitkapital und Staat . . . 1914-1916 (East
Berlin, 1959), p. 66. '^This represents the most important work on the subject.
officialdom , as organizers and representatives of labor, was the culm ination of

a process begun long before; but it was now undergoing astounding
developm ent. W ith the continuation of the w ar, this body gave increasing
support to th e w ar effort, together w ith th e m unicipal an d industrial
authorities. W hen th e d ra ft was intro d u ced in 1916, Legien, th e leader
of K raft-Zentrale, a m a jo r tra d e u n io n council, secured from the w ar
m inister c o n c e s io n s - th e recognition o f trad e u n io n rights a n d the
setting u p of industrial com m ittees an d p arity organs of a r b itr a tio n - in
recognition of “th e workers' active co o p eratio n .” 4 Thus, w ithout recourse to
"mass a ctio n ,” th e tra d itio n a l form of organization h ad achieved its m ajor
goals. Two years earlier in Au^gus 1914, its adm inistrators w ere trem bling
with apprehension, c o n v in c e d -n o t without r e a s o n - th a t the aôciations
were in d a n g e r of being dissolved, th eir new spapers suppressed, th e ir funds
confiscated, 5 an d their m ilitants placed u n d e r th e control of the state. 6 T he
new status of p arty a n d trade union leaders banished these fears.
It was quite othe^rise for th e workers. Many had patriotically cheered the
declaratio n of w ar ; now th e price had to be p aid. In 1913, there h a d been
300,000 days lost th ro u g h strikes; in 1915 th ere were 15,000. T h e th re a t of
p ro m p t dispatch to th e front was sufficient to calm rebellious spirits, but
working conditions soon becam e intolerable. U ndernourishm ent, fear,
inflation, in contrast to th e h u g e profits of th e employers, the arrogance of
both m in o r an d m ajo r authorities, and th e luxurious living of the black
m ark et p ro fite e r s - a ll this, was the price workers had to pay for renouncing
the class struggle.
However, this tre n d was graduaUy reversed w ith the onset of w ildcat strikes.
In A pril 1917 an d Ja n u ary 1918, m ajo r strikes w ere called by com m ittees
elected by th e ran k a n d file. W orkers also took an active role in the old party,
now organizationally split in to the M ajority P arty (SPD-M) a n d th e
Independents (USPD), corresponding respectively to the old C enter-L eft
(Kautsky) and to th e radicals. T h e latter, claim ing fidelity to trad itio n al
tactics an d pro g ram , increased their protest against the w ar a n d becam e
m ore a n d m ore fru strated a t th eir lack of political power th at resulted from
the dictatorship of the General H eadquarters, in league with the large
industrialists.
T o th e left of th e two m ajo r political organizations of the w orkers' were
various splinter groups persistently swimming against the stream . T h eir
4. Robert Aêson, Total Warfare and Cômpulsory Labor (The Hague, 1964), pp. 73ff.
5. Cf. Friu Opel, Der deutsche Metallarbeittêrwrband . . . (Hanover, 1957), pp. 38-40.
6. Cf.Johannes Kampfer Q. Marchlewski), Xmgttozia/ismus in Theorie und Praxis (Berne,
1915).
SO VIETS ^RAETE / 147
“lite ra tu re ” ap p ealed to c o n f i n e d m ilitants, 7 an d th e ir contacts scarcely

reach ed beyond personal relationships in a country th at continued to subm it
to th e constraints o f w ar. O ne o f these splinter groups, the Spartakusbund,
w hile m a in ta in in g c o n ta c t w ith th e masses th ro u g h the Independents,
published in tern atio n alist pacifist p am phlets denouncing the M ajority P arty
an d its o pen alliance w ith the bourgeoisie. T h ese attacks, u n d er the direction
o f Leo Jogisches (Tyszko)—a friend o f Rosa L u x e m b u rg -w e re exprerced in
the lan g u ag e o f the old left and broke little new theoretical ground.
A second splinter gro u p , th e In t^ n a tio n a le n K om m unisten D eutschlands
(IKD ), m a d e u p of com m unists from B rem en an d various o th er local groups,
m oved in a different direction. From D ecem ber 1916, the B rem en group
severed all ties to th e two m ajo r factions of Social Democracy (which were
b o th seeking to gain control of th e local organization), vigorously denouncing
them . Its official o rgan, A rbeiterpolitik, was devoted to “scientific d isc u sio n ”
o f theoretical problem s. It som etim es o p en ed its colum ns to “outside”
contributors, notably R adek, Zinoviev a n d Pannekoek. Renew ed worker
interest encouraged th e B rem en section a n d it opened once again debate on
the stru c tu re o f w orkers’ organizations.
T h e B rem en section advocated not only a decentralized party separate
from Social D em ocracy b u t also a “u n itary o rg an izatio n ” (Einheitsorganisa-
tion) linking th e workers on both a political a n d a trad e union basis. T h u s,
they arg u ed against a “new party of leaders” on the old m odel.8 “O ne m ust
choose th e tactics o f mass action unfettered by leaders, or one m ust keep the
leadership structure, as the Spartacus L eague is doing, and thereby renounce
a p ro letarian policy.” 9 Even so, A rbeiterpolitik (or at least some of its editors)
was n o t yet rejecting “revolutionary p arliam en tarian ism .” A rbeiterpolitik
w elcom ed news o f the O cto b er R evolution, em phasizing th a t th e victory h ad
o ccu rred because "in Russia, there was a n in d ependent, left-wing party,
which fou g h t fo r social revolution.” 10
In H olland, too, th e D utch Social D em ocratic P a r t y - t h e "trib u n ist” -w a s
7. Cf. Gilbert Badia. le Spartakisme (Paris, 1967), pp. 280ff.

8. This idea made its appearance in Arbeiterpolitik in March 1917 (11, 16, March 21, 1917);
it was taken up again there, and simultaneously in the publications of the other IKD "local
groups” and of the Hamburg group; in November 1918, it also appeared in Rote Fahne, the
organ of the Berlin Spartakusbund 1, 15, November 21, 1918; reproduced in Dokumente und
Materialen zur Geschichte der deutschen Arb.bwg., 11, 2, p. 431).
9. Arbeiterpolitik, II, 12, June 9, 1917.
10. J. Knief, December 15, 1917. I t s e ^ , however, that the Bremen group had no precise
idea of the Bolshevik conceptions of the party, as can be seen through Radek's "memoirs” ("I
pointed out to him [Knief] that his ideas had nothing in common with Bolshevism;" cited by
Badia, op. cit., pp. 404-405). We shall see later that this lack of awareneM was also shared by
Pannekoek (and by all the rest of Western European Leftists, with few exceptions).
sharply divided into a p a rlia m e n ta rian faction characterized by m ilitan t

francophilia (an d which won two seats in th e 1917 legislature) and a faction
centered aro u n d G orter, w hich advocated a strict internationalism .
Pannekoek, however, appears to have refrained from aligning him self w ith
either g ro u p .11 O n th e o th e r h a n d , it was he who w rote a series in N ieuw e
T ijd tracin g th e significance of th e Russian R evolution.12 T h e a u th o r’s
solidarity w ith th e Bolsheviks is clear from th e first lines; an d the m ain
characteristics of th e February Revolution are em phasized.
"W h at has never o ccu rred in earlier revolutions in W estern E u ro p e -w h e re
fra ^ n e n ta tio n and powerlessnew always followed political action - h a s
become an e n d u rin g reality in R u ssia: th e revolutionary masses are form ing a
pow erful organization. A s in 1905, th e delegates of factories and revo
lutionary regim ents are b u ild in g in th e f o ^ of workers’ an d soldiers’
councils, a people's representation w hich speaks o u t vigorously against
brougeois governm ent an d exploiters.”
V arious political viewpoints are found in th e councils; b u t th e Bolshevik
Party, “w hich u n d e r th e Czar already h a d g re a t influence over the proletariat,
is becom ing increasingly the representative o f th e Petrograd workers, albeit
they are a small m inority in proportion to all the country's workers. T h e
soldiers’ councils, m ainly peasants, are d o m inated by Mensheviks and
revolutionary socialists.13
“Russia, w ith its huge p easan t pop u latio n and its lim ited capitalist
developm ent, is n o t yet rip e for socialism ; pow er m ust rem ain in the hands of
the bourgeoisie. T his is at least w hat some d o ^ n a tic quasi-M arxists m aintain,
unaw are th a t socialism can only result fro m a lo n g process in w hich the
m atu rity of a society is m easu red by th e p ro letariat's ability to struggle for
power. B u t even in Russia they were in tim id ated by th e e n o ^ i t y o f th e task,
which was augm ented by th e confusion resulting from the w a r and Czarist
legacy of adm inistrative deficiency. T hey im agined the bourgeoisie alone to
be capab le of b ringing th e cou n try out of chaos an d relied on its leadership to
do so. Such quasi-M arxists saw only one solution: a capitalist gove^rnment
th a t would keep all its power, with th e p ro le ta ria t continuing to allow itself to
be exploited. T hey failed to u n d erstan d th e central is s u e - th a t the
governm ent’s lack of pow er arose not from its ‘socialism ,’ which consisted of
em pty rhetoric, b u t from th e absence of a tru e socialist ch aracter.
“T h e Bolsheviks have shown w hat a truly socialist gove^rnment w ould have
11. Van Ravesteyn. op. cit., pp. 136-137; this author, however, is not always reliable.
12. Anton Pannekoek, "De ^rusische revolutie,” De Nieuwe Tijd, XXII, 1917, pp. 438-52,
548-60, XIII, 1918, pp. 31-46, 119-42.
13. These lines are dated Auût 1917.
SO VIETS AND^RAETE I 149
done. Faced w ith th e submissivenew of th e social patroits, w ho only p aid lip

service to socialism, th e Bolsheviks drew u p a p ro g ra m o f .direct r e f o ^
designed to m eet specific problem s, to free th e country and th e proletariat,
fro m into lerab le coercion a n d to o p e n th e p a th to socialism. T h u s, the
Bolsheviks becam e th e v an g u ard o f revolutionary socialism, on the rise
th ro u g h o u t th e w orld.
"A nd, first o f all, reg ard in g th e organization of production, if capitalists
close th e ir factories in a m ove again st th e workers o r in response to decreased
profits, these factories m ust be confiscated a n d pro d u ctio n resum ed, b u t
u n d e r th e direction o f workers an d technicians. If the lan d ed proprietors
refuse to cultivate th eir lands, th e ir lands should be seized a n d retu rn ed to the
peasants. U nconcerned w ith property-rights, th e peasants can be counted on
to place their products a t th e disposal o f th e general population, a n d would
be supplied w ith low-cost agricultural tools a n d m achinery. '4 Rigorous
surveillance of com m ercial transactions w ould reduce interest rates, while the
nationalization o f profitable w ar industries a n d m ajo r banks w ould create a
sizable source o f revenue. Moreover, a revolutionary governm ent o u ght to
start by cancelling w ar debts, w hich enable th e shareholders o f E urope an d of
the W est to exploit th e R ^ i a n people th ro u g h ex o rb itan t rates o f interest.
"However, one m easure overshadows all th e o th e rs: a swift en d m ust be p u t
to the war, w hich is causing m illions o f deaths, exhausting the country, an d
sacrificing p ro d u ctio n to th e needs of a ^ a m e n t s m an u factu re. T h a t is why
the Bolsheviks have focused th e ir program aro u n d the call for p e a c e -p e a c e ,
n o t just as an escape fro m bankruptcy an d fam ine b u t also as a rallying cry
against the bourgeoisie. . . . A nd for these reasons the revolutionary
p ro le ta ria n p a rty challanges th e Provisional Gove^rnment.”
Pannekoek, w hile em phasizing the need f o r a n d the difficulties o f a
reorganization o f p ro d u ctio n an d distribution, carefully exam ines the
evolution o f th e political situation in Russia. In general, h e justifies the
m easures recom m ended by th e Bolsheviks a n d defends them , a t least
im plicitly, against the criticism s o f th e pro-E ntente “T rib u n e .” However, in
his view an d in th a t of th e G erm an an d R ussian le ft wing, the fu tu re o f the
R ^ i a n R evolution is tied to th e developm ent o f the revolution in W estern
E urope. T his perspective em erges in the following postscript to an article
14. Three months later, Knief expreesd a similar opinion when he stressed that the
Bolshevik slogan, “The land to those who cultivate it!” while not having a socialist character, did
aim at closing the gaps between town and country-gaps in herited from Czarism. But, "State
suppport and the supplying of farm implements will establish solid bonds between the peasants
and the industrial workers” (Arbei'terpolittk, November 17, 1917; and Dokumente und
Materialen. ... II: 1, pp. 16-17).
150 I P/ANEKOEKAND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
d ated O ctober 1917: “W h a t we were hoping for has just been realized. O n
O ctober 24 a n d 25 th e workers and. the soldiers o f P etrograd swept away the
Kerenski gove^rnment. It is likely, b u t not yet certain, th a t this revolution will
spread to th e whole o f Russia. A new age is d a t i n g , n o t only for the Russian
R evolution, b u t also for th e p ro letarian revolution in Europe. For th e first
tim e since th e P aris C om m une, th e p ro le ta riat, allied w ith th e petty
bourgeoisie, has seized political pow er, n o t ju st in one city, b u t in a large
country. For th e first tim e, m o d ern social leaders have invited the pro letariat
to take p a rt in reconstructing a society. B ut it is a n extrem ely difficult task,
especialiy in light o f th e com plete d isintegration a n d bankruptcy o f the social
order, all w ithin th e fram ew ork o f w orld w ar. B u t no n e o f this precludes the
establishm ent o f peace. T h e re a re still m ore re m o te difficulties, connected
with Russia's predom inantly agricultural ch a ra c ter. W h eth er the Bolsheviks
succeed o r fail, a t th e very least they will have served as a m odel to the
international p ro letariat. W e salute the victory o f o u r Russian com rades as
that o f o u r brave advance troops o n the ro a d to socialism .” 15
R osa L uxem burg's views differed in certain respects from Pannekoek’s.
Publicly she delcared h e r solidarity w ith th e Bolsheviks; privately, as the
Russian experim ent progressed, she criticized its principles. 16 O n two
p o in t s - t h e questions o f la n d reform a n d n atio n al s e lf - d e te ^ in a tio n - s h e
condem ned the Bolsheviks for having succum bed to the “spontaneous
m ovem ent” o f th e peasants who were tak in g over the la n d an d to nations
seeking to establish th e ir independence; she also believed th a t the
legitim ization o f these "two petty-bourgeois slogans” violated the principles
o f socialism. Pannekoek was in favor o f th e first p o in t; he never declared
him self o n th e seco n d .17 O n the oth er h an d , he unreservedly approved the
Bolsheviks’ di& olution o f th e constituent assembly, the th ird a n d principal
area o f L u xem burg’s criticism . In this connection, she said, “T rotsky an d
L enin reject in principle national representations established by general
elections an d w an t to rely only on soviets.”^ Prim arily concerned with the
developm ent o f th e new institutions th a t h a d ju st rea p p ea red in Russia, i.e.,
the w orkers’ councils, P annekoek agreed w ith th e Russian revolutionaries, as
is evident in a 1919 p a m p h le t: 19
“D em ocracy, i t i s said, isgove^rnment by th e people, b u t the people as such
d o n o t exist; in reality, society is divided in to clas.ses...W hen we talk o f the
15. Pannekoek, "De ^rusische revolutie," De Nieuwe Tijd, XXll, p. 560.

16. Rosa Luxemburg, la Rtvolution iâe (Paris, 1946).
17. Cf. below, Chapter 9.
18. Luxemburg, op. cit., p. 34.
19. Anton Pannekoek, Bolschevismus und Demokratie (Vi^ma, 1919), p. 8.
SOVIETSAND^RAETE I 151
people, we m ean th e masses as distinct from th e p ro p ertied m inority. It is this

people, th e p oor an d lab o rin g people, the p ro letarian class, who should
govern themselves.” T h e present p arliam en tary system can ensure only the
trium p h o f th e interests o f capital.
“W e have recently criticized universal suffrage. M en are n o t equal, and
therefo re their votes cannot all b e o f eq u al value. A m an who lived solely off
his cap ital w ithout w orking, a social parasite, can n o t b e eq u ated with a
worker whose labor serves to keep ^ i e t y in existence: in a c ertain sense, this
is an ethical concept. Going a step fu rth e r, our policy is aim ed at organizing
society o n socialist foundations. So com pletely opposed to th e interests o f the
bourgeoisie is this policy th a t they will seek to p u t every obstacle in its way and
m ake it fail." AH collaboration with th e bourgeoisie m ust therefore be ruled
out.
In Russia, “a f o ^ o f d e m ^ n a c y superior to form al dem ocracy, enabling
th e masses to express th e ir vital interests” has b eg u n to develop: “th e workers’
councils in th e towns, th e peasants' councils in the ru ra l areas, th e councils
ch arg ed w ith various adm inistrations th a t form th e basis o f the governm ent.
T h e m unicipal bodies are elected by th e w orkers' councils o f th e towns, and
the workers' councils o f a given branch o f production elect th e adm inistrators
o f this b ra n c h for th e whole country. A gen eral congress of soviets is held from
tim e to tim e a n d decides on gen eral policy, b u t congrerces are also held about
m atters concerning each b ra n c h : industry, agriculture, transport, health
services, education. T h e local soviets send th e ir m ost com petent m em bers as
delegates to these congresses, experiences are com pared, and decisions are
m ade in com m on.
“I t is th e real need to reorganize social life th a t has led th e R ussian people
to establish this flexible adm inistrative m achinery, w hich also constitutes the
organ o f th e th e dictatorship o f th e p ro le ta ria t in w hich th e bourgeoisie
can n o t p articip ate. T h e bourgeoisie will n o t be excluded in any artificial way
from gove^rnment, for instance, by losing its rig h t to vote; quite simply, it will
be b a rre d from this organization, w hich is based not on the people b u t on
labor . . . .T h e ex-m anager or ow ner o f an industry w ho cooperates as a
technical officer u n d e r the guidance o f th e workers' council can claim
equality w ith oth er factory personnel. T h e in tellectual w o rk e rs-d o c to rs,
teachers, a r tis ts - f o r m th eir own councils, w hich collectively decide about
m atters concerning th em . All these councils re m a in in close, perm an en t
contact w ith th e masses, th e ir m em bership constantly renew ed and replaced.
T h e form ation o f a new b u reau cracy is thus prevented, an d a m onopoly in
adm inistrative skills is broken.
“In com parison to this tru e self-gove^rnment, o n e sees how even the most
152 / P jÂN K O E K A N D THE WO^RKERS’ COUNCILS
dem ocratic o f p arliam en ts is u n a b le to create a people's gove^rnment, and

ends u p as a governm ent o f p arliam en tarian s. Periodically, parliam en tarian s
m ust w in th e tru st o f th e p e o p le ; they g a th e r votes w ith eloquent speeches an d
prom ise-cram m ed p rogram s; th e n they a re the m asters once again. T hen,
after they escape th e direct influence o f th e marces an d face pressure only
from their peers, they do as they like thro u g h o u t th e p arliam en tary session.
B u t only in ap p earan ce are they all-pow erful; th e m inistry d ep en d s u p o n
bureau crats. In all th e dem ocratic republics o f the w orld, th e alleged
separation betw een th e legislative an d th e executive branches is th e m eans o f
ru lin g th e masses, w hile giving th e m th e im prercion th a t th e marces
themselves a re exercising power, a n d is th erefo re th e m eans for ensuring th e
dom in atio n o f cap ital. In France, A m erica, Switzerland, a n d elsewhere, in
spite o f all th e talk o f dem ocracy, th e marces a re dom inated an d exploited by
capital. A nd, despite universal suffrage, th e marces are reduced to
im potence, from w h ich they ca n n o t escape__ ’’
M eanwhile, W orld W a r I ended, a n d changes th a t leftists w ere hoping to
see in G erm any rem ain ed a t a n em bryonic stage. A network o f workers and
soldiers councils suddenly covered th e country, b u t th e old o rd e r rem ained
in ta c t u n d e r th e ap p earan ce of sh arin g pow er.
Shortly before th e e n d o f th e w ar, th e G erm an A dm iralty's decision to force
a final b attle w ith th e E nglish Navy m et w ith a collective re fu sa l: th e crews of
the th ird sq u ad ro n m u tin ied , raised anchor an d sailed for th e B a ltic ; on
N ovem ber 3, 1918, they sailed into K iel h a rb o r, flying th e re d flag,
disem barked an d , after a bloody en co u n ter w ith a detach m en t of
m idshipm en, took over th e tow n. Soon th e soldiers m ade com m on cause with
the rebels, a n d th e following day, b o th in th e ships riding a t an chor a n d in the
barracks, com m ittees o f delegates w ere elected. In a general assembly, the
latter ad o p ted a 14-point program d em an d in g th e liberation of political
prisoners, a h a lt to disciplinary prosecutions, th e restoration o f freedom o f th e
press a n d assembly, an d th e rig h t to tak e “any necessary m easure for the
protectio n of private p o sse sio n s." 20 O n N ovem ber 5, the local sections o f the
socialist parties (M ajority Socialists a n d In d ep en d ents) a n d of th e tra d e union
cartel m erged to form a w orkers council. 21
In response, th e co m m an d an t o f Kiel sought th e intervention of the
im perial governm ent, w hich requested th a t M ajority P a n y leaders send a
delegation led by Gustav Noske. D uring a n arcembly of the soldiers
20. Cf. Kurt Zeisler, in Revolutionitre Ereiignise und Prob^me.. . 1917-1918 (East Berlin,
1957), pp. 185-212.
21. Walter Tormin, Zwischen Ratediktatur und sooT.ialer Demokratie (Dnseldorf, 1954), p.
58. Note the charts showing the spread of the movement.
SOVIETS AND ^RAETE I 153
com m ittees, Noske, w ith th e su p p o rt o f th e trad e u n io n officers, h a d him self

elected p risid en t o f th e central council, whose m em bership was determ ined
by Noske o r by his cohorts (the m o re resolute sailors h a d already le ft town).
Since th e m ilitary governor o f th e big w ar p o rt h a d been rem oved, Noske took
his place. As a result o f a deal m ad e w ith th e Independents, a representative
of th a t group succeeded h im o n N ovem ber 7, as p resid en t of th e local council.
“A t K iel,” Jo h an n K nief w orte to a friend, "th ere is a workers a n d soldiers
council, w ith th e socialist tra ito r Noske a t its head! T h e sailors are full o f
enthusiasm . B u t a re th e y social revolutionaries?” 22
Enthusiasm ? C ertainly. T h e sailors took to th e trains by squads, occupied
stations, an d , a fte r som e clashes, sw arm ed o u t to encourage the form ation o f
w orkers an d soldiers councils. B ut this enthusiasm was due less to precise
political convictions th a n to th e sailors' fe a r o f ruthless repression if they
rem ain ed in Kiel. T hey were w arm ly greeted in H am b u rg and in B rem en,
where a n assembly h eld a t th e tra d e u n io n h ead q u arters resulted in th e
establishm ent of a 180-m em ber workers' council. Leftist delegates were ra re ;
the m ajority o f th e leftists w ere still fighting o r were in prison, fa r away.
In a constantly volatile atm osphere, h uge dem onstrations occurred in the
large cities. T h e p ro clam atio n of th e republic, a m ajo r aim o f th e
dem onstrators, was realized o n N ovem ber 9, w hen Social D em ocratic
"people’s com m issars” o f b o th wings o f th e p a rty took power. As a rule, the
M ajority P arty a n d th e tra d e u nions ratified hastily form ed slates of
candidates in local assemblies. O ften slates w ere produced after h u rrie d
telep h o n e calls to p a rty leaders in B erlin o r nearby towns. In som e instances,
w here In dependents w ere strong o r h a d political leverage, a slate was
laboriously d raw n u p a n d la te r "elected” a t a p ublic m eeting. Sometimes the
slate co n tain ed leftists, m ore frequently leaders o f th e liberal bourgeoisie.
T h e new political adm inistrative organs corresponded to those o f Kiel in their
genesis an d p ro g ra m : “to g u aran tee o rd e r; ” to end b la ta n t injustices; to
restore dem ocratic life.
T o a considerable extent, th e civil authorities kept control o f public affairs
(notably, o f finances). M ilitary authorities themselves ordered th e establish
m en t o f councils 23 whose pressing task, especially in th e rationing zone,
was to calm th e co nquered arm y. L ater, in large, rear-g u ard towns, co u n
cils w ere generally m an ip u la te d by th e ir noncom m issioned officers into
respecting th e status quo. 24 T h e ra n k a n d file w ere simply concerned ab o u t
22. J. Knief, Briefe aus dem Gefitn^w (Berlin, 1922), pp. 94-95.
23. Cf. the appeal of Hindenburg in Dokumente und Matenalen. .., 11:1, p. 356.
24. Especially when the leftists were exerting a palpable influence within the local grand
council, for example at Hamburg. Cf. Heinrich Laufenberg, Die hamburger Revolution
getting b ack to their hom es.

T h e trad itio n al organization saw its new pow er a f f i x e d b o th on the
political level, d u e to th e active cooperation betw een the "people’s
com m issars” an d the G e ^ a n H ig h com m and, a n d on the econom ic level
a fte r the agreem en t o f N ovem ber 15 betw een large industrialists a n d trade
unions, w hich provided for collective conventions, procedures fo r parity
arb itratio n , industrial com m ittees, a n d o th e r units, opening u p a n im m ense
field o f b u re a u c ratic activiteis to trad e unions linked w ith Social Dem ocracy.
W ith in this fram ew ork, the “pow er” o f the councils represented a kind o f
counter-fire, p ru d en tly co n tin u ed by th e authorities, including m ajo r socialist
an d tra d e u n io n figures. A s K n ief observed to w ard the end o f 1918, the
workers a n d soldiers councils, fa r fro m “devoting themselves to revolutionary
activities, were entirely tak en u p w ith political controversies. ”25
Nevertheless, obvious powerlessness d id n o t prevent the new f o ^ from
continuing to exist. Leftists called for a change in its function, initially a t the
local level, to include effective social adm inistration. In factories and
workshops, em ployers' au thority rem ained in ta c t. O fte n a t th e street level
things were d ifferen t: mass dem onstrations w ere freq u en t; strikes broke out,
greatly scandalizing the new m asters (“socialism m eans h ard w ork,” said
E bert, president o f th e Council o f People's Commissars); officers were
molested w hen they went o u t in u n i f o ^ . Faced w ith this agitation, often
organized by the young com m unists, who were gaining support, the
counter-revolution g ath ered its forces: the socialists p ain ted a black picture
o f the Russian Bolsheviks an d th e ir G e ^ a n com rades a n d created a national
g u ard recru ited am ong th e mass o f ex-officers an d reactionary students.
Casulties b eg an to occur, an d a ^ s ap p eared am ong th e crowd of
dem onstrators.
T h e revolutionary tendency arose from th e idea o f the self-education o f the
ma&es through action. Its lez'tmotiv—th e F au stian cry o f "A nfang war die
T a t” (“in th e beginning was the deed”) - c o n ta in e d the whole o f its political
philosophy, the basic p rin cip le o f th e p ro le ta ria t as a revolutionary class. T h e
old divisions am ong splinter groups, while continuing, becam e m uch less
distinct. T h e S partakus League, t r a n s f o ^ e d by a massive influx o f young
m ilitants who w anted to act personally an d directly, not to issue orders,
gradually m oved away fro m traditio n al viewpoints. T h e o rg a n of the B rem en
socialists declared its s^ n p ath y w ith th e L eague, provided it would break with
the Independents, a n d ad d e d : “U nity of revolutionary actio n is the
(Hamburg, 1919).
25. Peter Unruh Q. Kniet), Von Zusammenbruch der Imperialisms... (Berlin, undated,
probably Jan. 1919), pp. 24-25.
SOVIETS ÂNDIRAETE I 155
fu n d am en tal condition for the developm ent o f the reovlution. T his unity
can n o t be achieved in th e present situ atio n by a central body. O n th e
contrary, it m ust b e sought in the m o ra l unity o f groups enjoying com plete
organizational autonom y. T h e m ethods o f th e S partakus g ro u p (as they are
beg in n in g to sense), . . . t h e lau n ch in g o f actions subm itted to th e sole
leadership o f a B erlin K raft-Zentrale, 26 have h a d th e ir d ay .” 27
S treet actions enabled the splinter groups to develop visibility, publicize
their ideas, a n d g ain th e active s^ n p a th y o f some of the young workers an d
declasse (unem ployed, deserters a n d others). But this grow ing influence
stopped a t th e factory gates, fo r inside th e factories, em ployers an d th eir
agents w ere allied w ith tra d e u n io n delegates in seeking to cu rb every
“rin g lead er” as quickly as possible. C om m unist m arches would file past
factories, b u t n o w orker w ould em erge from the gates to join in. O nly rarely
d id w orkers’ councils go o n th e offensive, e .g ., tem porarily suspending
bourgeois papers.
H ence, the policy suggested by this situ atio n was self-evident: “T h e
revolution,” said R o te Fahne, the Spartakus new spaper, “should try to
m obilize the masses, an d by ed u catin g th em th ro u g h conscious activity, shape
th em in to a decisive political force.” 28 In J a n u a ry 1919, an d not w ithout some
reluctance an d soul-searching, th e splinter groups united. At th e f o ^ a t i v e
congreM o f the G e ^ a n C om m unist Party (K PD ), a m ajority o f the delegates
(62 o f 85) rejected the id ea o f p articip atin g in the elections to th e N ational
Assembly, an idea su p p o rted by th e Spartakus leaders, R osa L uxem burg,
K arl L iebknecht an d th e ir friends. 29 However, the la tte r w ere elected to lead
the p a rty ; L iebknecht even persisted, against the m ajority's wishes, in
carrying on secret a n d useless negotiations w ith leaders o f the Independents
and w ith le ft w ing tra d e u nion officials.
R o te Fahne called for a rededication to th e revolution: “T h e ra p id
tr a n s f o r a t i o n o f the revolution o f N evem ber 9, in w hich soldiers
predom inated, in to a revolution o f w orking class character, requires . . . from
the revolutionary class a d eg ree o f political m atu rity , education a n d
passionate dedication m uch h ig h er th an was sufficient d u rin g the first phase.
R evolutionary feelings m ust stiffen into inflexible conviction; the systematic
m ust replace th e m erely spontaneous; th e workers an d soldiers councils,
26. Tyszko was nicknamed “Doktor Kraft" by the Bremen group, for he was a great advocate
of the "strong (kraft) approach."
27. Kommunist (Bremen), Dec. 6, 1918; cited by S.I. Spiwak, Die Presse der Sowjet Union,
144, 1956.
28. Rote Fahne, l, SA Dec. 19, 1918.
29. Cf. Andre and Dori Pradho^mmeaux, la Commune de Berlinn (Paris, 1949). This work
contains a report of the Congreu and an excellent chronology of events.
156 / PANNEKOEKAND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
improvisations of th e m om ent, m ust becom e a breastp late of steel." 30

H aving decided to strike th e enem y in a critical phase at th e source of his
p o w e r - th e m achinery of p ro p a g a n d a an d a g ita tio n 31 - a n d deprived,
th ro u g h lack o f funds, o f th e m eans to spread th eir ideas widely an d
systematically, th e spartacist dem onstrators (anarchists, left-M arxists,
Ind ep en d en t socialist m ilitants, a n d o th er rebels) attem p ted to occupy the
offices o f reactionary new spapers an d of th e M ajority Party. T h e la tte r gave
the generals th e go-ahead for reprercion, an d there followed the "bloody
week” in B erlin, th e a&assinations o f R osa L u x em b u rg a n d K arl L iebknecht,
th e e b b in g of th e Spartakus m ovem ent, an d th e holding of elections. F ight
ing continued, m ostly u n d e rg ro u n d , b u t w ith large a n d prolonged strikes,
notably am ong th e m iners o f th e R u h r a n d o f U pper Silesia, with tem porary
seizures o f pow er (B avaria, B rem en), w ith scattered street fighting, an effort
to stan d against a bestial repression. 32 A nd these fighters, arm ed w ith little
b u t th e ir revolutionary p a » io n , stan d in g alone a n d unaided 33 a n d unw illing
to die like dogs, faced u p to w ell-arm ed m ercenaries, train ed to kill, b ehind
whom skulked th e treacherous leaders o f G e ^ a n Social D em ocracy and the
tra d e unions, p roducts of a p eriod o f peaceful conflict and, fo r the m om e n t,
the last ra m p a rts o f capital. T hese desperate fighters were crushed
mercilessly.
In the course o f this revolutionary phase, th e ideas th a t were p ro p ag ated ,
especially after N ovem ber 1918, developed naturally. In p artic u lar, the
R ateidee, th e idea of councils, was clarified th ro u g h practical experience and
throu g h a g reat n u m b e r of public m eetings an d discussions whose
proceedings th e n becam e subject m a tte r for new spaper articles 34 and
30. Rote Fahne, 11, 3, Jan. S. 1919.

31. See, forexample, the following statements by a trade unionist leader of the Ruhr: "The
Spartakists are exercising unlimited domination in the whole district [of Duisberg]. They are
supported by the big b01 es of industry . . . whose plan is to destroy the trade unions with the help
of the communists, to divide the miners and so reestablish their own power .. ." Niederrheinische
Volkstimme, 66, March 1919; cited by Hans Spet^nann, ZwiJlfJahre Ruhrbergbau, l (Berlin,
1928), p. 253. See also, L'Humanitt, May-June 1968, to find a tone and an inspiration which is
analogous. Over a period of fifty years, there has existed, it would seem, a “spontaneous”
continuity in the words an the behavior of the workers' bureaucracy.
32. According to Eberhard Kolb (Die Arbeiterrltte in der deutschen Innerrpolitik [DU&seldorf,
1962], p. 302), the councils were incapable of taking on the functions of real and full
administration, because of “putschist elements who were opposed to the stabilization of order;”
this author then states unblushingly that, even if “order” had not been disturbed, the local
leftist-activist strongholds-for example, Bremen-"would not, in any case, have been able to
subsist." This amounts to saying that their only expedient was action.
33. "In practice, there were no definite between the Ruuian Communists and the
German Communists from November 1918 to spring 1919,” writes Kolb (ibid., p. 157); cf.
es^xiaUy A. Prudhommeaux, op. cit., p. 12.
M. For example, the series of articles, "^Gewerkschaften und Rll.tesyst^” which appeared in
SOVIETS AND RAETE I 157
pam phlets. 35 L inked to th e n eed s ofm ass conflict a n d th e c o n t^ p o r a r y im age

of th e R ussian soviets, a sim ilar p ro c e ^ was going o n in E ngland 36 an d in Italy
where anarchists 37 a n d M arxists38 elab o rated o n the idea o f revolutionary
facto ry councils. T h e quintessence o f all th is is contained in th e p am p h let,
Sozialdem ohratie u n d K om m u n ism u s, to which we now tu rn . 39
Rote Fahne (from no. 27, Feb. 13, 1919), whose editorial control was in the hands of the leftists
and not of the Zentrale set up at the C o n ^ ^ , and in which the critique of the trade unions was
the basis for the idea of constructing new organs both for the revolutionary struggle and for the
administration of the society of the future.
35. For instance, that of Karl SchrMer (1885-1950), who was to become one of the first
leaders and one of the principal theoreticians of the ÂPD. Betriebsorganisation oder
Gewerkschaftl (Hamburg, 1919).
36. Cf. J.T. Murphy, The Workers' Committee (Sheffield, 1918).
37. Cf. "l'Autogestion de I'Etat,” Noir et Rouge, 242 (Supp.), May 1968, pp. 5-8. The
Gemian anarchists with one or two exceptions were to remain faithful to the traditional trade
ûonist ideas.
38. The Ordine N t^w group. and particularly Antonio Gramsci. Pannekoek's work was
published in Amadeo Bordiga's paper, Il Soviet.
39. Notably: K. Horner (Anton Pannekoek), "Kommunismus und Sozialdemodratie,"
Arbeiterpolitik, IV, 7, Feb. 15, 1919; “Dieneue Welt,” Die kommunistische Inteirna.timale, 1-2,
May-June 1919; "Die Sozialisierung,” Die Inte-m&ionale, 1, 13-14, Sept. 1919, pp. 254-259. (See
footnote 4 of next chapter). There was also a pamphlet dealing with the division of the
surplus-value within the dominant clau, a pamphlet in which the role of the state bureaucracy is
especially highlighted. Die TTeilung der Beute (Moscow, 1918).
C H A PTER SIX
SO CIA L DEM OCRACY A ND COM M UNISM
" T h e w ar," writes Pannekoek, 1 “h as tran sfo rm ed social relationships.”

Socialism, “w hich is n o t a d octrine laid d o ^ once an d for a ll,” should
therefore also continually renew itself. H aving m a d e its ap p earance for th e first
tim e in th e class struggles th at accom panied the 1848 Revolution, “th e
pro letarian m ovem ent, th e com m unist m ovem ent” was pushed into th e
backg ro u n d d u rin g th e lo n g period o f prosperity w hich followed. T h e
expansion o f th e workers' m ovem ent was th en as vigorous as it was large. b u t
its activities were lim ited. In effect, th e c la « struggle was no lo n g er being
fo u g h t to achieve “th e final goal, socialism ,” b u t to raise th e sta n d a rd o f
living. A fter 1870, th e h eadlong developm ent o f the G erm an econom y gave
rise to energetic clashes. It was a t th a t tim e th a t Social D em ocracy becam e
im preg n ated w ith th e old com m unist ideas a n d cam e to ad o p t M arxism .
However, this new M arxism depended o n a g rad u al evolution, an d postponed
indefinitely any pursuit o f p ro p er com m unist objectives. Pannekoek points
out th a t Social D em ocracy a n d th e tra d e unions th a t grew up w ith it were
expressions o f th e will o f th e w orking m asses to escape pauperization. T a k in g
o n th e task o f rep resen tin g th e w orkers in P arliam ent, Social Dem ocracy
becam e a n enorm ous, h ighly organized body w ithin th e bourgeois order an d
was d o m in ated by an a ^ y o f bureaucrats, all concerned w ith prom oting
their own specific interests above all else. T h e ir highest ideal, as Kautsky
clearly im p lied ,2 was to secure for themselves at some fu tu re point the posts
held by th e bourgeois parliam en tary m inisters.
I t was th e w ar th at b ro u g h t Social D em ocracy to power. A t a tim e when the
whole w orld was lapsing into bankruptcy a n d misery, this p a n y saw salvation
only in the preservation o f the old capitalist ord er. “B u t th e w ar h a d also
enorm ously increased th e dem ands o f cap ital for profits. T h e n atio n al deb t
cam e to b e cou n ted in as m an y tho u san d o f m illions as it h a d previously
n u m b e re d in m illions alone. T his m e a n t th a t th e holders o f w ar credits
expected to re a p a rich harvest on th e produce o f th e people’s work and, as
1. K. Homer (i.e., Pannekoek), Soa:tialdemohratie und Kommuni.smw (Hamburg, undated

[probably au^tumn 1919]).
2. Ibid., p. 8. This is a clear allusion to the 1912 controversy.
160 I PANNEKOEKAND THE W ORKERS COUNCILS
revenue pocketed w ithout work, o n th e interest o n th eir thousands o f m illions,

w hich th e state was collecting in th e f o ^ of taxes.”
Increased w orker exploitation was inevitable. T h a t was why “even d u rin g
the w ar, th e com m unists were pointing o u t th a t it would b e im possible to pay
the e n o ^ o u s w ar debts, so th a t th e ir declared policy was th e cancellation of
w ar debts an d w ar in dem nities.” 3 B u t it was n o t en ough to oppose the
capitalists' thirst for p ro fit in th e area o f a ^ a m e n t s production, while giving
them com plete freedom in all other m atters. Now th at the reconstruction of
the econom y h a d becom e a m a tte r of g reat urgency, “th e profits from capital,
w hatever th e source, represent for p ro d u ctio n a charge th at increases the
difficulties o f its reorg an izatio n . . . . T h a t is why th e basic principle of
c o m m u n is m - th a t all attem pts of cap ital to monopolize profits m ust be
r e s is te d - is th e only effectively realizable principle. T h e econom y can be
recon stru cted in re a l t e ^ s only th ro u g h th e elim ination o f capital.
"T his used to be th e basic viewpoint o f Social Democracy. W hat, today, is
th e position of th e Independents, th e left-w ing o f Social D em ocracy, claim ing
to b e authentically M arxist a n d faith fu l to principles? T hey a re cam paigning
for th e socialization o f industrial enterprises a n d indem nifying th e o-wners
w ith state treasury bonds. In other words, these capitalists are to receive from
the state p a rt o f th e p ro d u ct o f labor, w ithout a t th e sam e tim e having to
work. T h e exploitation of th e workers by cap ital will thereby be p erpetuated.
“T h is runs co u n ter to th e w hole concept of socialism, w hich involves two
basic elem ents: abolishing exploitation, an d setting u p p ro d u c tio n in a
socialist order. T h e first indicates th e e ^ e n tia l objective o f th e p ro leta ria t;
the second points to technical organization, the n a tio n al m ethod for
increasing th e revenues o f society. I f one accepts the present Social
D em ocratic plans, exploitation continues an d th e expropriation o f industrial
enterprises leads q u ite simply to a k in d o f state capitalism . T his
s o c ia liz a tio n -in th e f o ^ in w hich it is u rged today by th e Social
D e m o c ra ts -is ta n ta m o u n t to d u p in g th e p ro le ta ria t, since it involves just the
fai;ade o f socialism, b eh in d w hich ex p loitation continues to operate. T h e
reason for this attitu d e is, no d o u b t, fear o f a severe clash w ith the bourgeoisie
at a tim e w hen th e p ro letariat, still aw akening, has n o t yet g ath ered all its
forces. B u t in practice these plans can serve only to reorganize capitalism on
new fo u n d atio n s.” 4
3. This was one of the points in the program of the left Zimmerwaldians. Pannekoek
developed it in the second article he published in Vorbote, in parages not included here.
4. Ibid., p. 13. In the article on socialization cited in note 41 of Chapter Five, Pannekoek
emphasized that the only poîble "expropriation of the expropriators" lies in abolishing profits
for the capitalist; and that the only posible means of doing so is the c l ^ struggle. And he added
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND COMMUNISM I 161
In th e final analysis, “b o th m ajority socialists and in dependents are aim ing

only a t m ain tain in g cap italist exploitation. T h e first is doing so openly; the
o ther, by a furtive trick. T h e first allows th e capitalists to do as they w ish; the
second looks to th e state to im plem ent a n d organize exploitation. T his is why
both have only one solution to offer the p ro le ta ria t: “Work! Work! W ork!
h a rd e r an d longer till you are completely exhausted!' F or th e reconstruction of
th e capitalist econom y is possible only if th e p ro leta riat resigns itself to
exploitation at its worst.
“T h e absolute antag o n ism betw een com m unism and Social D em ocracy was
already evident before th e w ar, th o u g h u n d e r o th er names. T h e question at
issue th e n concerned th e tactics to be followed in th e class conflict. U n d er the
n am e o f ‘left-wing rad icals,' an opposition grew u p w ithin the ra^nks of Social
D em ocracy (it was from this opposition th a t to d ay ’s veteran com m unists
co m e); in opposition to th e radicals an d th e revisionists this left-w ing faction
argu ed th e need to resort to m ass action. T hese confrontations ended by
highlighting th e counter-revolutionary ch aracter o f the ideas an d tactics
advo cated by th e rad ical spokesm en, w ith K autsky at th e ir head.
“P arliam en tary an d trad e u n io n action h ad enabled th e w orkers to gain
som e slight im provem ent in th eir condition at a tim e w hen capitalism was
underg o in g a vigorous expansion, w hile at th e sam e tim e this action was
p ro tectin g them against th e p e ^ a n e n t tendencies o f capitalism tow ard
im poverishm ent. B ut, over th e course o f te n years, and despite an
organization showing b o th lively a n d steady grow th, th e effectiveness o f this
protectio n h a d b een g radually red u ced : im perialism h a d stren gthened the
industrialists a n d th e a ^ y , w eakened th e P arliam ent, threw th e tra d e unions
back on th e defensive, an d paved th e way to W orld W ar. It was clear,
therefore, th a t th e o ld m ethods o f class struggle n o longer am ounted to very
m uch . T his was som ething that th e masses realized instinctively; in m any
countries, they suddenly reso rted to direct action, frequently against the
wishes of th e ir leaders, this action ta k in g th e f o ^ of h u g e tra d e union
clashes, tran sp o rt strikes paralyzing th e economy, an d political dem o n stra
tions. Sometimes, these explosions o f p ro le ta ria n rage shook th e com placency
o f th e bourgeoisie to th e point o f forcing th em to m ake concessions;
som etim es, too, they w ere crushed in blood. For th e party, Social D em ocratic
leaders sought to utilize these m ovem ents for th e ir o-wn e n d s; they
that this socialization, conceived as “juridical expropriation of the capitalists, with payment of
indemnities but without economic expropriation,” shows that the proletariat are masters only in
appearance and are co^wnting to be exploited anew. Just as the “socialist” government is the
continuation of the old bourgeois domination, so too does socialization amount to pursuing the
old bourgeois exploitation under the flag of socialism.
162 I PANNEKOEK AND THE WO^RKERS' COUNCILS
acknow ledged th e usefulnew o f political strikes for securing specific

objectives, s b u t only on condition th a t such strikes did not exceed the
p r e d e te ^ in e d lim its, th a t they began and ended on the leaders' orders, and,
above all, th at they c o n f o ^ e d to the official tactics laid down by these
leaders. Strikes of this orthodox kind did som etim es take place, but w ithout
m uch effect. Forced to pursue a policy of com prom ise, th e im petuous
violence n atu ral to spontaneous explosions o f th e masses was m itigated. T h e
elem en t o f class action th a t im m ediately creates panic in th e ruling
bourgeoisie - t h e fear th a t th e w orkers’ m ovem ent m ight take on a
revolutionary c h a ra c te r-d is a p p e a re d from these ‘disciplined’ maK actions,
since every p recau tio n h ad been tak en to en su re th e ir h a ^ le s s n e s s .
“T h e M arxist revolutionaries, who are com m unists now, h ad em phasized at
that tim e the extrem e n a ^ ^ e s s o f the d o m in an t conception o f Social
D em ocracy. T h e y p o in ted o u t th a t, th ro u g h o u t history, the classes themselves
have constituted th e motive force o f th e g re a t social upheavals. Never, in fact,
has a revolution o ccurred as a result of a wise decision reached by an
acknowledged leader. W hen their situation becom es intolerable, the masses
go into action for any reason wha^tsoever, an d sweep away th e ruling p o w er;
then th e new cla« o r social category, called to rule th e state, adapts th a t state
to its ow n needs. O nly d u rin g 50 years o f peaceful capitalist developm ent d id
th e illusion arise an d flourish th a t in d u strial leaders, t h a ^ ^ to th eir superior
clearsightedne«, are able to shape hsitory. As m em bers of the central bodies
o f th e p a rty an d o f tra d e unions, th e d ep u ties ta k e it for g ran te d th a t their
acts, their speeches, their decisions fix the course of events; the masses are to
intervene only o n their invitation an d o n ly to len d m o re weight to th eir words,
and th en disappear as quickly as possible from th e political scene. T h e masses
are to play only th e passive ro le o f electing lead ers w ho are to constitute the
sole active an d real agents of developm ent.”
A nd Pannekoek em phasizes th a t, if this conception w as already too narrow
to explain th e bourgeois revolutions of th e past, it was even less ad eq u ate in
regard to th e p ro letarian revolution, since th e la tte r required the m a le s ’
fullest initiative. H e continues w ith a critiq u e of parliam entary an d trade
u n io n action, whose m ain ideas, as rep eated in his p am p h let on com m unist
tactics, we shall deal w ith later. In w hat follows, we will consider the fifth and
final section o f th e p am p h let now being discussed, a section entitled
‘P roletarian D em ocracy, o r th e System o f C ouncils.’ ” 6
5. Thus Beûtein, during the great 1905 debate, personaUy advocated the general strike as a
means of forcing the imperial power to abrogate restricted suffrage. Cf. Eduard Be^tein, Der
politische Masenstreik (Breslau, 1905), p. 3.
6. Op. cit., pp. 2S-29.
SOCCIAL DEMOCRACY AND COMMUNISM I 163
“Social D em ocracy viewed th e p roletarian conquest o f political pow er in

t e ^ s o f the w orkers' taking over the state m achinery. T h e state m achinery
was, therefore, to rem ain intact an d be p u t a t th e service o f th e w orking claK.
This was also th e opinion o f th e Social D em ocratic M arxists—Kautsky, for
e x a m p le -d e s p ite th e fact th a t M arx h ad always taken a com pletely different
attitu d e . A ccording to M arx an d Engels, th e state constituted a w eapon of
oppression created by th e rn lin g c la » an d which was th en developed and
p erfected by them as th e p ro le ta ria t began to revolt in th e 19th century.
M arx’s view was th a t th e p ro le ta ria t should destroy this state m achinery and
create com pletely new o rg an s of adm inistration. H e was well aw are th a t the
state fulfills m an y fun ctio n s th a t a t first sight seem to serve th e entire
c o m m u n ity -p ro te c tin g th e citizens, providing m eans o f tran sportation,
education, adm inistration —b u t he also knew th a t all these activities h a d only
one p urpose: to look a fte r th e interests o f capital, to guaran tee its
dom ination. T h a t is why M arx could n o t nurse the illusion th a t, to
em ancipate th e p o p u latio n , one need only assign o th er objectives to the sta te .
T h e p ro le ta ria t m ust themselves forge th e instrum ent o f their o ^ liberation.
" It was impossible to foresee w hat f o ^ this instrum ent would take, since
this w ould show itself only in practice. In fact, it did show itself in the Paris
C om m une, w hen th e p ro le ta ria t w on state pow er for th e first tim e. Bourgeois
a n d w orking class P arisians then elected a p a rlia m e n t on th e o ld m o d e l; b u t
this p arliam en t im m ediately becam e som ething very different fro m o u r types.
It d id in any way beguile an d subdue th e people by m eans o f splendid
speeches th a t w ould allow th e clique o f capitalists an d leaders to continue in
peace w ith th eir o ^ personal affairs. F ar from b eing a purely p arliam en tary
institution, th is assembly was t r a n s f o ^ e d in to an institution w here everyone
really worked. Newly form ed commissions saw to it th a t the new laws were
carried out properly. T h e bureaucracy disappeared as a special, independent
cla& rulin g th e people, a n d th e separation between the legislative and
executive branches was abolished. Those senior civil servants who m ight have
been tem p ted to fru strate the will o f th e people now got th eir m a n d ate from
these sam e people a n d could be dismissed at any tim e.
“T h e short life o f th e Paris C om m une d id not allow this new creation to
m a tu re . I t was b o rn , as it were, instinctively an d only as a kind o f by-product,
w ithin th e context o f feverish struggle for existence. It took the genius o f M arx
to see it as th e em bryonic fo:rm th a t p ro letarian state power should a» u m e in
the fu tu re .7 A step ju st as novel as it was im p o rta n t was taken in R ^ i a , in
7. Clearly, while the Pannekoek-Kautsky controversy indirectly enabled Lenin to clarify his
views in The State and Revolution, Pannekoek in tum was affected by the way in which Lenin
constructed the Marxian interpretation of the Paris Commune. We might recall that, in a
1905, w ith th e creatio n o f the councils, th e soviets, as organs o f p ro letarian

revolutionary intervention. T h ese organs, however, did n o t give political
pow er to th e p ro letariat, even w h en th e conflict was d irec ted th e cen tral
W orkers’ C ouncil o f P etersb u rg , w hich, fo r som e tim e, exercised considerable
pow er. B u t w hen th e new revolution broke o u t in 1917, the soviets th en m ade
th eir appearance as organs o f p roletarian pow er. T h e second historical
exam ple of p ro le ta ria n state pow er o cc u rre d in th e G e ^ a n N ovem ber
Revolution, w hen th e p ro le ta ria t took over the political direction o f the
country. However, th e R u » ia n exam ple revealed m uch m ore clearly the
f o r ^ a n d th e principles th a t th e p ro le ta ria t w ould have to adopt to achieve
socialism. T hese a re th e principles th a t com m unism sets u p against those o f
Social Dem ocracy.
" T h e first p rin cip le is th e dictatorship o f th e proletariat. A ccording to
M arx, w ho re tu rn s to th e subject several tim es, the p ro le taria t should
establish its dictato rsh ip as soon as it h as assum ed pow er. D ictatorship m eans
the exercise o f pow er by one claw to th e exclusion o f the others. T his, of
course, seldom fails to arouse protests: we m ust d e m a n d dem ocracy an d equal
rig h ts for all, they say, an d therefore a dictatorship o f this kind, w hich
deprives certain social groups o f th e ir rights, is contrary to justice. B ut such
objections have little to do w ith th e foundations o f equality. Every c la « feels it
has a rig h t to w hatever seems to be good o r necessary for it; the exploiter
inveighs against injustice w henever it affects his o ^ n claw. N o t long since, the
p ro u d aristocracy a n d th e rich, a rro g an t bourgeoisie w ere denying equality
a n d p o litical rights to th e low, poorly ed u cated w orker g ro u n d u n d e r foot a n d
red uced to slavery; a n d , a t th a t tim e, it was already a very clear sym ptom o f
th e p ro le ta ria n aspirations tow ards h u m a n d ignity th a t th e ir cry b e ca m e : ‘we
have th e sam e rig hts as you!”
“T h e dem ocratic principle was th e first display o f class consciousnew w ithin
th e p ro letariat, w hich did no t yet d are to sa y : ‘I am no th in g , b u t I w ant to be
everything!' W hen th e general body o f workers seeks to control public life a n d
to m ake suprem e decisions, are th e crim inals, th e thieves, th e w ar profiteers,
th e traders, th e la n d e d gentry, th e usurer, th e s to c k h o ld e rs -in short, all who
do no useful w ork an d live as parasites o n th e w orking p o p u la tio n - a r e they
justified in invoking some law o r o th e r claim ed to b e n a tu ra l or sent down
from th e heavens? I f th e o rd in ary m a n has th e same rights as anyone else to
different period and therefore from a different vie^wpoint, Pannekoek had broached the question
of the Commune in 1911 (cf. above, Chapter T^hre, Note 16). However, the method followed
above diffef!l from that of Lenin, to the extent to which it is concerned, not with “restoring" a
given body of doctrine valid for all ^raes, but with synthesizing the most advanced forms of action
developing out of the claw struggle.
decide political questions, th e n he has surely an even m ore n a tu ra l right to

live w ithout m isery a n d hunger. A nd when, to secure the second o f these
rights, he m ust violate th e first, the dem ocratic spirit is soon reconciled to
this.
“T h e validity o f com m unism does n o t d ep en d on any abstract right but
simply on the needs o f the social groups. T h e p ro le ta ria t’s task is to build up
socialist p ro d u ctio n a n d to organize work according to a different p a tte rn .
But, in doing so, it m eets w ith p a ^ io n a te resistance from the ru lin g cla&,
w hich does its utm ost to h in d e r a n d d istu rb th e realization of these aims. T h a t
is why th e ru lin g class should forfeit all rig h ts to have any say in politics.
W hen one class ^ k s to push ahead an d th e o th er to d ra g its feet, they can
only paralyze each o th er a n d b rin g society to a standstill by any a ttem p t at
cooperation. In th e first p h ase o f capitalism , in th e p e rio d of fu ll developm ent
a n d consolidation, th e bourgeoisie established its dictatorship by establishing
pro p erty qualifications for th e right to vote. Subsequently, it becam e
necessary an d p ru d e n t to c h an g e to a dem ocratic regim e, w hich conceded a
pseudo-equality o f rights to th e workers in order to keep them quiet. This
dem ocratic f o ^ in n o way affected the d ictato rsh ip of the bourgeoisie, b u t
m erely cam ouflaged it; it did, however, enab le th e rising proletariat to unite
an d to fight for their class interests. A fter th e first victory o f the p ro letariat,
the bourgeoisie still retain ed a n u m b er o f weapons, b o th of m oral a n d
m aterial, which, if given com plete freedom o f political action, they could use
to d isru p t severely, even paralyze, the w ork o f setting u p the new p ro le ta ria n
order. It w ould be necessary to dom inate th e bourgeoisie a n d to repress w ith
the utm o st vigor any a tte m p t to h in d e r or to u n d e ^ i n e th e reorganization of
the econom y, th e w orst w ort of crim e against the people.
“It will perhaps be objected th at th e exclusion o f a p a rtic u lar class always
takes on th e c h a ra c ter o f a com pletely a rb itrary an d unjust act. This
undoub ted ly applies to a p arliam en tary system. B ut as far as the specific
organization of th e p ro le ta ria n state - t h e system of councils—is concerned, it
can be said th a t all th e exploiters an d parasites autom atically e^m in ate
themselves from p a rtic ip a tio n in the ad m in istration of society.
“T h e system o f councils, in effect, f o ^ s th e second principle of th e
co^mmunist order. W ith in this fram ew ork, th e political organization has for
its fo u n d atio n the process o f the econom y o f labor. T h e parliam en tary system
rests o n the individual in his capacity as citizen. T h e historical reason for this
is th a t, originally bourgeois society was com posed o f individual producers
isolated from one another. They each p ro d u ced th eir m erchandise on their
o ^ , an the ensem ble o f these sm all industrial concerns m ade u p the whole
process of p roduction. B ut in m o d em society, w ith its g ian t industrial
166 I PjANEKOEKAND THE W ORKERS COUNCILS
complexes a n d claw antagonism s, these foundations are becom ing in

creasingly obsolete. In this connection, th e s h a rp criticisms of the p a rlia
m entary system from the theoreticians o f F rench revolutionary syndical
ism (L agardelle, for exam ple) are com pletely justified. A ccording to
th e p arliam en tary id ea, every m a n is prim arily a citizen, a n individual
theoretically eq u al to everyone else. B ut in practice m a n is a w orker; the
practical content o f his existence resides in his activities; an d the activities of
all these individuals com plem ent one a n o th e r to form the social process of
labor.
“It is n e ith e r the state n o r politics, b u t society an d labor th a t form th e great
h u m a n com m unity. T h e politico-parliam entary practice is to divide u p the
electorate into electoral districts; but, w ithin the sam e district, workers,
stockholders, shopkeepers, factory hands, in fact all classes and all trades, are
haphazardly lu m p ed tog eth er simply o n th e basis o f living tli.ere. T h e n a tu ra l
h u m a n groups f o x i n g p a rt o f one a n th e sam e whole are production groups,
workers in a p a rtic u la r factory or b ran ch o f industry, the peasants of a village,
and, o n a m o re gen eral level, th e various claves. O f course, certain political
parties succeed in recru itin g th e ir supporters principally from a given class,
and represent th e m ; b u t their succe^ is very lim ited, since jo ining a party is
decided by one's political convictions, n o t by one’s class. Do not g reat sectors
of th e w orking c la « unfailingly choose to vote for candidates th a t are not
Social Democrats?
“T h e new society m akes la b o r an d its o rganization a conscious objective
and th e basis o f all political life, w here ‘political' signifies outw ard
arran g em en t of econom ic life. In the capitalist system, such arrangem ent is
do n e covertly; in th e society o f th e future, it will be done w ith com plete
openness. People themselves act directly w ithin th eir work groups. T he
workers o f a p a rtic u la r factory select one am ong themselves to express their
w ill; this representative rem ains in p erm an en t co n tact with th e ran k an d file,
and is replaceable a t any tim e. Those delegates decide o n all m atters w ithin
their com petence, an d hold m eetings whose com position varies according to
w hether the agenda is ab o u t m atters relatin g to a particular profession, or a
p a rtic u la r district, a n d so forth. T h e central directive bodies for each area
stem from these; at need, they can supply one another with experts.
“These flexible organizations d o n o t offer the least place for bourgeois
representation. T h e re is no need to take form al steps to exclude such
representation, since the m ere fact th at som eone does not directly participate
in a p ro d u c tio n g ro u p precludes his p articip atio n in decision m aking. O n the
other h an d , th e fo rm er bourgeois who cooperates with the new society
according to his capacities - as a factory m an ag er, for instance - can have his
say, like any o th er w orker, a t th e personnel m eetings an d c a n decide in

com m on w ith th e others. T h e profe&ionals at a high level o f general culture,
such as teach ers an d doctors, f o ^ th e ir ow n councils, which, w ithin the areas
o f th e ir com petence, e d u c a tio n an d h ealth services, m ake decisions jointly
with representatives from o th er areas of lab o r. In every d o m ain o f society,
self-adm inistration a n d to tal organization represent th e m eans to d irect all
the forces o f th e people tow ards th e g rat objective; a t th e sum m it, all their
various energies are synthesized into a central body th a t insures th a t each an d
all are adequately b ro u g h t into p lay .8
‘‘T h e system o f councils is a state organization, b u t w ithout the
bureaucracy th a t tu rn s the state into a pow er external to th e people it
governs. Engels once rem ark ed th a t in th e p ro letarian state the gove^rnment of
m en will be replaced by the adm in istratio n o f th in g s; this form ula is applied
here. T h e subordinate officials, always necessary to th e efficient discharge o f
day-to-day m atters, are secretaries holding little desired posts accessible to
anyone who has been adequately trained. A d m inistration proper is in the
hands of delegates, w ho can be rem oved a t any tim e and who receive th e sam e
salary as th e workers. D uring some tran sitio n periods, it m ay be difficult to
keep strictly to this principle, since every delegate does n o t necessarily have,
from one day to th e next, the required aptitudes. However, with a bourgeois
press continually praising to the point of absurdity the ability o f th e present
bureaucracy, it is w orthw hile recaUing that, in N ovem ber 1918, th e G e ^ a n
w orkers' an d soldiers' councils successfully carried o u t such f o ^ i d a b l e tasks
8. By comparing this paraage with an earlier one (cf. Chapter Four) the reader will ^ how
Pannekoek, following his usual practice, carries similar ideas and formulas from one text to
another, in a particular period. It is, of course, imposible here to compare his views with those of
other theoreticians of a similar tendency, each of whom, naturally, emphasizes slightly different
aspects within the framework of an overall similar group of problems. However, we shall glance
at a few lines here and there in the articles which the Italian, Antonio Gramsci, contributed in
1919 to the Ordine /'{uovo: "The system of councils tends to awemble all the producers into a
unitary organism which, on the basis of the place of work, brings together the laborer and the
skilled worker, the office worker and the engineer or technical director . . . . These organisms
form the cells of a new state, the workers' state, founded on a new system of representation, the
system of councils. And this state is destined to disappear as a state through its organic
incorporation into a world system, the Communist International . .. . By their struggles, the trade
unions have secured labor legislation which has undoubtedly improved the material living
conditions of the working clas, but they have done so on the basis of a compromise which ensures
that the relationships of forces are always unfavorable co the proletariat. The trade union
appears, therefore, as an institution of the existing order, destined to hold back the clas struggle.
Unlike this bureaucratic form, the councils tend to inculcate an active spirit and to create a new
world of production and of work, not to carve up the old one." Antonio G r^sci, Opere, IX.
(Turin, 1954), p. 46, 126, 134. Too fragmentary to have really significant value, these extracts do
suggest the idea of a "spontaneous” theoretical convergence, from one region to another, under
certain historical conditions.
168 I P / A N E K O E K T H E WORKERS' COUNCILS
th a t th e state an d m ilitary b u reaucracy recoiled from them . In th e councils,

th ere is no place a t all fo r b u reau crats a n d career politicians, those
com plem entary inst^ruments o f bourgeois d om ination, because the pow er to
legislate a n d the pow er to execute are m erged, so the delegates m ust
themselves im plem ent w hat they have decided. T h e com m unist party is
therefore very fa r from having th e usual objectives o f a political p arty, o r, in
oth er words, o f an organization o f career p o litic ia n s-n a m e ly , to take direct
control o f the state m ach in e. Its purpose is n o t to seize power for its o'wn sake,
b u t to p ro p ag ate com m unist principles in o rd e r to show the p ro le tariat why
and how the system o f councils should be established. T here is absolute
opposition, therefore, betw een th e im m ediate, practical objectives o f Social
D em ocracy a n d those o f co m m u n ism : the first relies on the organization of
the old bourgeois s ta te ; the second is laying th e foundations o f a new political
system .”
C H A PTER SEVEN
T H E S P L IT IN E U R O P E A N COM M UNISM
W orld W a r I m ark ed a decisive stage in capitalist developm ent in W estern

E urope, w here its im m ed iate a f t e ^ a t h (especially in G e ^ a n y ) was an
equally rem arkable p h en o m en o n : th e em ergence o f p ro le taria n organs of
self-em ancipation a n d th e th eoretical elab o ratio n o f alm ost com pletely new
strategic perspectives. 1
A t this level, th e W estern E uropean w orkers m ovem ent converged in some
areas w ith th e R u& ian R evolution; b u t in b o th cases, a n d for very different
reasons, the new m ovem ent o f ideas a n d of action underw ent a ra p id
re g re ^ io n . It h a d arisen d u rin g a feverish crisis of th e state a n d o f society in
general. In G e ^ a n y , however, th is crisis in no way affected capitalist
relations a n d th e fe a r th a t was constantly en gendered in th e m a ^ e s th ro u g h
the very conditions of social life in general a n d o f work in p a rtic u la r. T his
is b e h in d Rosa Luxem burg's rem ark th a t: “N o p ro leta riat in th e w o rld —
including th e G erm an p r o le ta r ia t- c a n overnight com pletely eradicate the
traces of a n age-old serfdom ."2
B ecause all classes have a historical task, they forge for themselves,
th ro u g h im passioned conflicts, a m ore o r less clear-sighted awareness of th e ir
objectives. Furthe:rm ore, in m o d ern tim es, th e p ro p ertied class, because o f its
social situation, holds a p erm an en t position o f stren g th it can fall b ack upon
w hen th e inevitable reverses come, a n d w hich supplies it w ith a basis fo r a new
historical offensive. O n th e o th e r h an d , th e p ro le ta ria t has no strength, even
if a t first sight it w ould seem th a t th e law accords them some. Properly
considered, however, these legal guaran tees serve m erely to pro tect th e
conditions th a t ensure th e rep ro d u ctio n of lab or. T h e classical fo:rms of
organization such as fo u n d in p arties a n d tra d e unions could only secure the
satisfaction o f im m ed iate dem ands a n d th e legal legitim ation o f social
progress a t the cost o f lim ited battles le d by specialists. In contrast, orthodox
M arxist tactics caUed f o r —in ad d itio n to p arlia m e n tary a n d tra d e union
l. Dirk J. Struik, a Dutch Communist, wrote in 1919: “Three years ago, the most
clearsighted minds of the International were still showing themselves to be almost incapable of
appreciating the importance of the councils.” The allusion to Pannekoek's Vorbote articles is
clear. Cf. Struiks article in De Nieuwe TiJd (1919). p. 466.
2 Rosa Luxemburg, Rote Fahne, Dec. 5, 1918.
170 / P ^ A N E K O E K THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
a c tio n - t h e use of m o re rad ical m ethods, such as mass actions (according to

Rosa L uxem burg) o r a ^ e d in surrection (according to L enin). In o th e r
words, such tactics envisaged a com pletely different historico-social context,
an d therefore were based o n a different conception of th e role o f th e
specialized leaders. In the first case, we a re dealing w ith classical social
dem ocracy; in th e second, w ith rad ical social dem ocracy.
At this point, a new set of tactics m ad e its ap p earan ce in G e ^ a n y a n d
o th e r industrialized countries, w hich, feeble as it was, rejected b o th radical
an d classical tactics o f social dem ocracy. W e have seen, very briefly, the
essential reason for its eventual fa ilu re : th e conflict h a d involved only a small
fractio n of the w orking class, m ost of w hich was im bued w ith a trad itio n of
peaceful m ethods in cap ab le of shaking off its daily, age-old h a b it of
servitude. A nd, alth o u g h rad ical social dem ocrats ag reed w ith th e em phasis
placed o n councils by th e new tactic, in practice, they gave absolute a n d
unquestioned priority 3 to p a rlia m e n ta ria n is m -b u t w ithout ad m ittin g it too
openly, seeing th a t such an ap p ro ach was utterly rep u d iated by th e
rank-and-file m ilitants.
By a substantial m ajority, th e young com m unists decided to resign en
masse from the trade unions (they were being systematically expelled in any
case) a n d to develop workers unions (A rb eit erunionen). T hese associations
h a d spru n g into life w ith p a rtic u la r force am ong sailors a n d m iners,
particu larly those of th e R u h r, after the m ajor w ildcat strikes o f 1919.4
Ânimated by a figh tin g spirit an d violently opposed to the trade u n io n leaders
an d to th e police (who re tu rn e d th e h a te in good m easure), th e workers
unions d em an d ed socialization o n the basis of th e councils system, d i s a ^ i n g
the Freikorps a n d f o ^ a t i o n o f a w orkers m ilitia, an d the resum ption of
relations betw een G e ^ a n y a n d Soviet Russia. Based on th e direct
representation of the w orkers th ro u g h a netw ork o f delegates, they were also
dem an d in g lab o r r e f o ^ s , such as th e seven-hour d a y .5
T h e social dem ocrats o f the two parties h a d a t th a t tim e one sole c o n c e rn :
3. At the Heidelberg conference, Paul the perfect "gentleman-dandy’' who coopted to

the Central Committee of the KPD, defended the radical cheeses on parliamentary and trade
unionist action: "They contain nothing new; they even contain what should be self-evident to
those who are united in a political party.” Brncht Uber den 2. Parteitag der KPD (October 1919),
p. 25.
4. Cf. P. von Oertten, "Die Grôs Streiks der Ruhrarbeiterschaft in FrUjahr 1919,"
Vierteljahrshefte far Zeitgeschichte, 1958.
5. Cf, especially H. Bfitcher, Zur r^lution/Jrrn Gewerschaftsbewegung in Amenka,
Deutschland und England Qena, 1922), which gives a complete account of the movement and its
ideas. Cf. also Peter von Oertzen, Betriebsrlite in der Novemberrevolution (Diisseldorf, 1963),
which devotes a chapter-unfortunately very short (pp. 207-218)-to the "role of the unions in
the council movement."
THE SPLIT IN EUROPEAN COMMUNISM I 171
“re tu rn to n o ^ a l , ” to the old type o f adm inistrative structure, suitably

dem ocratized to m eet th eir new needs. W ith in this fram ew ork, th e workers
councils served a d u al p urpose; b u t, in a period m ark ed by turbulence, they
were still able to avoid strong leaders.6 T h a t is why the leaders asked
P arliam en t to “a n ch o r” the councils in the republican C onstitution.
Parliam en t was happy to oblige, adop tin g on F ebruary 4, 1920, a definitive
legal statute relegating the status of ind u strial com m ittees (Betri'ebsrate) to
th a t of a m ere extension o f the tra d e unions, a sort of tra in in g g ro u n d for
their futu re officials. T his is why the left-com m unists, seeking to ad ap t to the
situation, w holeheartedly supported the workers unions (A rb eiteru n io n en ),
those associations b o rn n atu rally from th e struggle against the trad itio n a l
organizational fo^rms.
T h e m ajority of th e left-com m unists were in no way challenging the need
for a political party. 7 But in th eir view, this p a rty should be that of an elite,
f i ^ l y linked to principles, ad ap tin g them to the situation an d pro p ag atin g
them —som ething im possible for a mass party , inevitably subjected to a
b u reau cratic ap p aratu s, d edicated to the representation of th e im m ediate
interests of the workers, a n d therefore com m itted to sacrificing the ultim ate
objective in favor of conciliatory m ethodds. T h e opposite was tru e of the
workers' unions: an im ated by the C om m unist Party an d possessing a
rigorously in d ep en d en t class consciousness, they tr a n s f o ^ e d themselves
th ro u g h the class struggle into revolutionary workers councils, into organs of
the proletarian d ictatorship. T h e old m ethods h a d h ad their day; the
capitalist system was m oving tow ard its fatal crisis; it was necessary to prepare
the way for new f o ^ s , to build the “u n itary organization.”
T h e tension betw een the radicals an d th e leftists becam e m ore acute.
Indeed, the rad ical curren t scarcely existed outside the circle of party leaders,
the Berlin Zentrale and a few provincial c o m m itte e s - a clique, but one
supported by the executive of the T h ird In tern atio n al, a n d having as its sole
objective a m erger with th e socialist independents. T h e la tte r were at a
crossroads: on the one h an d , n o th in g fu n d a m e n ta l separated them from th e
classical tactics of the M ajority Socialists; on the o th er hand, m ost of them
6. A jurist, Brigl-Matthias, in Das Betnebsratprobleme (Berlin, 1926), p. 2, stresses that the

law was intended to curb the attempts at “wildcat” occupations on the basis “of political workers
councils and of revolutionary industrial organizations
7. ln this connection, Wolfbeim declared at the Heidelberg Congress: “Let me say
emphatically, we have never regarded the existence of the KPD as superfluous . . . . Today. the
proletariat forms, not a unified party, but a unified claw. That is why its dictatorship cannot be a
dictatorship of the party . ... To those who say: ‘You are trying to transfo^ the party into a
propaganda center,’ we answer, ‘Certainly! In our view, the party’s mi&ion is to enlighten, . . .to
propagate the idea of the unions as an organizational basis of a system of councils.’ " Op. cit., pp.
31-32.
were convinced th a t cooperation w ith th e bourgeois parties would alm ost

obliterate th e prospects for effective r e f o ^ s . M oreover, th e independents did
not favor d irect action, any m o re th a n d id th e C entral C om m ittee o f the
G e ^ a n C om m unist P arty o r th e ieadership o f th e In tern atio n al. T h e y called
such action p utschist tactics, w hich w ould frig h te n th e voters a n d therefore
injure their p a rliam en tary tactics.
T h e Zentrale took steps to exclude its opponents wherever possible, b u t this
was n o t enough. D eterm in ed to deliver a decisive blow, they held a P arty
Congress a t H eid elb erg in O ctober 1919 despite laws forbidding it. M aking
use o f such secrecy, P aul Levi assem bled som e of th e m ost reliable m em bers
a n d g o t m ost o f th em to vote to exclude th e opposition elem ents. B ut it was a
paper m ajority, purely b u reau cratic. T hus, at Berlin, w here th e p a rty
claim ed 12,000 m em bers, an eye w itness no ted , 8 “th e re w ere 36 people in th e
room ” w hen W illiam Piek re tu rn e d to re p o rt o n th e Congress.
In th e m onths th a t followed, th e excluded m em bers vainly called o n the
party to convene a tru ly representative congrew . In th e m eantim e, in M arch
1920, a reactionary attem p t was m a d e at a coup d '£ tat, known as the K app
Putsch. A general strike, o rd ered by th e tra d e unions, quickly p u t an en d to
this. A t th a t tim e th e sentim ent am o n g th e w orkers favored f o ^ a t i o n of a
"workers governm ent” involving a coalition o f groups extending fro m the
C hristian trade unionists to th e independents. A fter some hesitation, th e
Zentrale chose to s u p p o rt th e official strik e u n d e r p rescribed conditions,
urgin g th e workers no t to tak e to th e streets, a n d solem nly prom ising its “loyal
opposition” to th e eventual “w orkers gove^rnment.” 9
T h e "excluded" m em bers resorted to a cam p aign o f posters a n d handbills.
But they were excluded n o t only from th e p arty . D oom ed for the m ost p a rt to
unem ploym ent because o f th e ir political activities, th ey were also excluded
from p r o d u c tio n - a n additional reason for th e ir being, once again, the
spearh ead of th e m ovem ent “a t th e stre e t level," especially in th e insurgent
R u h r. Shortly afterw ard, a f o ^ a t i v e congress was held in Berlin, and, on
A pril 3, th e Co^mmunist W orkers Party o f G e ^ a n y (KAPD) came into
existence, w ith a b o u t 30,000 m em b ers.10 T h e new p a rty drew fro m a p a rty of
w orkers unions w h i c h - a t th e H anover Congress, w here it claim ed to have
80,000 a d h e r e n ts - h a d ju st jo in ed to g eth er to f o ^ th e C entral W orkers
U nion of G erm any (AAUD). 11
8. Ruth Fischer, Stalin and German Communism (C^bridge, Mas., 1948), p. 119.
9. O. Flechtheim, Die K.P.D. in der Weimarer Republi'k (Offenbach, 1948), pp. 62-66.
10. Cf. Bernard Reichenbach, “Zur Geschichte der K.A.P.D.,” Archi'vfur die Geschichte des
Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung, XIII (1928), pp. 117-40.
11. For a complete account, see the anonymous study, "Le Mouvement pour les Conseils in
Allemagne," Informations Correspondance Ouvrie&res, 42 (Aug.-Sept. 1965)-a translation of an
THE SPLITINEUROPEAN COMMUNISM I 173
Needless to say, Pannekoek followed these events very closely, since sim ilar
confrontations were o ccurring in different sections of the In tern atio n al. In
H olland itself, a split was about to take place th a t created the K AP-N a n d the
Â B -B (com prising especially th e textile workers of Friesland) b u t w ith th e
new organizational form being a m inority group in relation to the
p arlia m e n ta rian C om m unist Party. T h e whole ran g e of problem s raised by
these in tern al conflicts was the center of th e d eb ate at the Second Congress of
the In tern atio n al Quly 1920). It was in this chaotic context th a t Pannekoek
w rote th e p am phlet presented in our next c h a p te r.12
article first published in Radencommunismu.s, S (1958). -

12. Cf. the two articles he wrote in 1919 for Nieuwe Tijd: “Strijd over de Kommunistische
Taktiek in Duitsland," pp. 695-99; ”Het Duitse Kommunisme," pp. 777-85.
C H A P T E R E IG H T
W O R L D R E V O L U T IO N A ND C O M M U N IST TA C T IC S 1
“Theory, too, changes into a m aterial

fo rc e only w hen it penetrates the
masses. Theory is capable o f p e n e tra t
ing th e m asses. . .only when it be
com es ra d ical."
M arx
I.
“T h e t r a n s f o r a t i o n o f capitalism in to com m unism depends on two forces,
one p roceeding from the o th e r: a m aterial force a n d a spiritual force. T h e
m aterial developm ent o f th e economy clarifies th e real course of things, an d
this, in its tu rn , engenders a revolutionary will. It was from general tendencies
w ithin th e capitalist system th a t th e M arxist system was born. O riginally a
theory o f the Socialist P arty a n d later of th e C om m unist Party, M arxism
confers u p o n th e revolutionary m ovem ent a pow erful spiritual hom ogeneity.
W hile M arxism slowly p en etrates a p a rt o f th e p ro letariat, th e masses a re led,
through direct experiences, to see that capitalism is in an unten ab le position.
T h e W orld W ar and th e accelerated econom ic collapse reveal th e objective
need for revolution, even while th e masses have n o t yet understood the idea of
com m unism . This basic contradiction underlies ' th e various clashes,
in terru p tio n s a n d w averings th a t m ake th e revolution a slow and painful
process. U ndoubtedly, theory is taking on a new urgency a n d is p en e tra tin g
the masses w ith increasing effect; b u t despite all this, w hen co n fro n ted w ith
p ractical tasks th a t have suddenly becom e gigantic, these two phenom ena
themselves also slow d o ^ .
“In W estern E urope, th e developm ent o f th e revolution is principally
1. Anton Pannekoek, Weltrevolution und kommunistische Taktik (Vienna, 1920), p. 50.

edition includes a “postscript" absent from the other versions. The text first appeared in
Nieuwe Tijd beginning March 15, 1920 (no. 6, pp. 161-69; then 193-207 and 257-71). It bears
the pen name K. Horner, as does the German version published in Petrograd, entitled .Die
Entwicklung der Weltr^wlution und die Taktik des Kommunismw. This venion was also
published in Kommunismu.s, the theoretical organ of the Communist International for
southeastern Europe (Kommunismu.s, Aug. l, 1920, pp. 976-1018).
176 / PANEKOEK AND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
d e t e ^ i n e d by the stagnation of the capitalist econom y an d by the exam ple of

Soviet Russia. W e need not dwell on w hat enabled the R ussian p ro leta ria t to
succeed in a relatively quick an d easy m a n n e r: the weaknesses of the
bourgeoisie, the alliance w ith th e peasants, a w artim e crisis. T h e exam ple of a
state where th e workers exercise power, w here they have triu m p h ed over
capitalism an d are thus in a position to b u ild u p com m unism , was to m ake a
deep im pression on the p ro letariat of the whole world. O f course, this
exam ple by itself w ould have been insufficient to incite the workers of other
countries to revolution. T h e spirit of m an is responsive, above all else, to the
influence of m aterial conditions of the existing m ilie u ; consequently, if the
forces o f th e different types of in te rn a tio n a l capitalism h a d rem ain e d intact,
th e interest in w h a t happens in Russia w ould have been m u c h less intense.
^ fa e n R utgers 2 re tu rn e d from Ru&ia, he described the masses as having a
‘respectful b u t tim orous admiration* for the Russian Revolution, but as
lacking ‘th e will to act to save Russia an d the w o rld.’ At the en d of the w ar, a
prom pt expansion of th e econom y was generally expected in the W est, while
the lying press continually described Russia as in the grips of chaos and
b arb arism . But since th e n the opposite has occurred: chaos is increasing in
the old, civilized countries, while the new order is consolidating itself in
Russia. A nd now, in these countries, too, the masses are on the m arch.
Econom ic stag n atio n is th e prin cip al m otive force of revolution.”
T h e crisis rag ed th ro u g h o u t W estern E urope, culm inating in w idespread
strikes th a t g rad u ally assum ed the ap p earan ce of conscious revolutionary
battles; “w ithout being com m unists, th e masses nevertheless pursue
com m unist objectives.”3 A n advance g u ard form ed, which ad h ered to the
T h ird In tern atio n al a n d severed its organizational links to social democracy,
both in W estern E urope where protection of th e bourgeois state req u ired th e
f o ^ a t i o n of socialist gove^rnments, an d in Italy w here "the will of the masses
to revolutionary com bat, which shows itself in a p e ^ a n e n t m inor w ar against
the governm ent an d th e bourgeoisie, m akes it possible to accept w ithout
question a m ix tu re of left-w ing socialist, revolutionary trade-unionist, an d
com m unist ideas." A nd th e unexpectedly stro n g resistance of Soviet Russia to
2. S. J. Rutgers, a Tribunist, went to Rusia with his wife toward the end of 1918, via the
United States and Japan. A delegate for Holland and the United States, with consultative vote, at
the First Congress of the Communist International, he left Petrograd for Amsterdam in October
1919, his minion being to organize there the auxiliary Bureau of the Third International, whose
creation had been envisaged at the Congrera. For a time, he made common cause with the
ultra-leftists. An agronomist en^neer, he was later to return to Ru&ia during the Stalinist era.
3. A few days after these lines were written, the Ruhr insurrection occurred, accompanied by
the formation of a “red anny" in which the Communist Workers' Party militants were the most
active. Cf. Gerhard Cohn, Beitrag zur Geschichte und Soziolcgie des Ruhraufttandes vom
Marz-April 1920 (^ ^ n , 1921), especially pp. 69-83.
WORLD REVOLUTION I 177
the assaults of world reactio n increased still m o re Russia’s influence over the
socialist left. “M any com m unists, however, tend to see only the steady
increase of positive forces, w ithout taking th e weaknesses into account. T h e
pro letarian revolution clearly seems to have tak en shape as a result of the
ap p earan ce of com m unism an d of th e Russian exam ple. B ut powerful factors
have also appeared th a t will m ake this revolution an extrem ely difficult and
com plicated process.”
II.
“Slogans, program s an d tactics do not flow from abstract principles but are
determ ined solely by experience, by real praxis. W hat the com m unists th ink
ab o u t th e ir objectives a n d ab o u t th e ro ad to be followed o u ght to c o n f o ^ to
actual revolutionary praxis. T h e R ussian R evolution and the unfolding of the
G e ^ a n Revolution offer us a body of revealing facts about the m otive forces,
conditions an d f o ^ s of p ro letarian revolution.
“In th e Russian Revolution th e p ro letariat seized political power with an
im petuosity, w hich, a t the tim e, took W estern E u ro p ean observers com pletely
by surprise. A nd today, considering th e obstacles we face in W estern E urope,
it still seems extrao rd in ary , even th o u g h the causes are clearly discernible. In
th e enthusiasm of th e e a rly days, it was n a tu ra l th a t the difficulties of th e
revolution w ould be underestim ated. T h e R ussian Revolution h ad , in effect,
set before th e eyes of the world p ro letariat th e principles of the new world in
all th e ir purity an d splendor: th e dictatorship o f the proletariat, 4 th e system
of soviets as th e f o ^ of th e new dem ocracy, the reorganization of industry, of
agriculture an d of ed u catio n . In m any respects it presented such a clea r and
almost idyllic picture o f th e n atu re an d content of the pro letarian revolution
th a t it could seem alm ost sim plicity itself to follow this e x ^ p l e . B ut the
G e ^ a n R evolution has s h o ^ th a t it was not as simple as all th a t, an d th a t
th e forces at work on th a t occasion a re a t work th ro u g h o u t Europe.
“W hen G e ^ a n im perialism collapsed in N ovem ber 1918, the working
class was com pletely u n p rep ared to assume power. Exhausted both spiritually
a n d m orally from fo u r years of w ar, an d m en tally im prisoned w ithin the
traditio n s of social dem ocracy, they w ere un ab le, in the few weeks following
the disappearance of bourgeois governm ental power, to und erstan d th e ir
4. ln his major pamphlet, Workers’ Councils, Pannekoek returns to this idea, pointing out,
however, that if it has taken on “the ominous sound" with the dictatorship of a totalitarian party,
“as in Russia,” it remains nonetheless true that: "When production is regulated by the producers
themselves, the formerly exploiting clas automatically is excluded from taking part in the
decisions, without any artificial stipulation. Marx's conception of the dictatorship of the
proletariat now appears to be identical with the labor democracy of council organization" (p.
51).
178 I PA^NNEKOEKAND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
tasks clearly. A lthough com m unist p ro p a g a n d a h a d been intensive, it h ad not

been in operation long enough to rem edy the lack of w orking class
p rep aratio n . T h e G erm an bourgeoisie learn ed th e le&ons of th e Ru& ian
Revolution m uch b etter th a n did th e p ro le ta ria t; while draping themselves in
red to lull the suspicions o f the workers, they im m ediately set about
reconstituting th eir m eans of d o m in atio n . O f th eir own accord, th e workers
relinquished th eir powers to the leaders of social dem ocracy and
parliam entary dem ocracy.5 Far from disarm ing the bourgeoisie, the
worker-soldiers allow ed themselves to be d isarm ed; the m ost activist of the
w orkers groups w ere overcome by th e new units of volunteers a n d by the
bourgeoisie in th e ranks of th e n atio n al g u a rd .”
W hile this experience rem ains u n iq u e in W estern Europe, it “nevertheless
has characteristics of a general kind an d repercussions of considerable
im portance. It highlights the nature o f the fo rces th a t will neceârily m ake
the revolution in W estern E urope a long, d raw n-out process.
“ . . . In the phases o f accelerated revolutionary developm ent, tactical
differences are quickly reconciled in th e course of action, or even fail to
em erge distinctly; a w ork of systematic ag ita tio n enlightens the m inds, while
the m asses spontaneously e ru p t a n d action com pletely overthrows the old
ideas. However, w hen a phase o f accelerated stagnation sets in, w hen the
masses allow anything at all to be inflicted u p o n them , an d w hen the
revolutionary m ovem ent seems to have lost its a ttrac tio n ; w hen obstacles
accum ulate an d when th e enem y seems to em erge stronger th an ever from
each en counter; w hen the C om m unist P arty is weak a n d suffers defeat after
d e f e a t - t h e n divisions appear an d there is a search for new ways a n d new
strategies. Two tendencies have em erged an d are eêntially the same in every
country, despite m inor local differences. T h e first is a tendency that seeks to
radicalize the m inds o f m en, to enlighten by w ord and action, an d therefore
attem pts with the utm ost vigor to challenge old ideas w ith new principles.
T he second tendency, in ord er to woo th e relu ctan t masses to practical
activity, assiduously seeks to avoid shocking them , an d therefore emphasizes
w hat unites ra th e r th a n w hat separates. T h e first seeks to provoke a clear an d
distinct cleavage, w hile the second is concerned only w ith g ath erin g the
masses to gether; radical would be an ap p ro p riate nam e for the first, an d
opportunist for th e second. In W estern E u ro p e at th e present tim e, the
revolution is m eetin g w ith considerable resistance, while th e pow er o f Soviet
5. Held in Berlin Dec. 16-21, 1918, the "General Congreu of Soldiers’ and Workers’Councils
of Germany” was dominated and manipulated by Social Democratic delegates of the type most
aligned with the state. It refused to set itself up as an executive body, declared in favor of a
National Aêmbiy, and elected a "central council" composed of former “Kaiser Soci^bts." Cf.
Kolb, op. cit., pp. 197-216.
REVOLUTION I 179
Russia, still intact after num erous attem pts of the Entente governm ents to
b ring it d o ^ , is m ak in g a deep im pression on the masses. T herefore certain
workers groups, h ith e rto h esitan t, are tu rn in g m ore an d m ore tow ard th e
T h ird In te rn a tio n a l;6 it is beyond d oubt, therefore, th a t opportunism will
take on a singular im p o rtan ce w ithin the C om m unist Intern atio n al.
"O pportunism does not necessarily resort to easygoing, reassuring and
engaging words giving radicals the m onopoly on m ore aggreîve la n g u a g e ;
on the contrary, it all too often indulges in frenetic declam ations to hide its
lack of clear, prin cip led tactics; f u r t h e ^ o r e , its n a tu re causes it to rely in
revolutionary situations on a single action. It tends to look only to th e
im m ediate w ithout b o th e rin g ab o u t the fu tu re, so th a t it rem ains at th e
surface of th in g s instead of p ro b in g into th e ir depths. W h en available forces
prevent it from achieving its objective, it does n o t try to stren g th en these
forces, b u t seeks to reach th e objective by ro u n d ab o u t ways. Seeking
im m ediate success, it sacrifices to th at success the conditions of a future,
lasting achievem ent. T here m ust, in its view, be a union with o th er
‘progressive’ groups, an d concessions m ad e to th eir outm oded ideas, if
nothing else in order to divide the enem y—the coalition of capitalist
c la s s e s -a n d thus create m ore favorable conditions of struggle. However, it
em erges clearly th at such pow er can only be the shadow of power, the
personal power of a few leaders, not that of the p ro letarian class, and th at this
contrad ictio n begets only confusion, c o ^ u p tio n and dissention. W ere the
w orking class to come into gove^rnmental power w ithout having really
acqu ired the m atu rity needed for its exercise, they would inevitably either lose
power very soon or be forced to m ake so m any conceîons to backw ard
tendencies th at this pow er w ould crum ble from w ithin. Dividing the
e n e m y - th e recipe of reform ism p a r excellence- i s not a tactical move th a t
destroys th e in tern al unity of th e bourgeoisie, b u t one th a t deceives, m isleads,
and weakens the p ro letariat. O f course, it c an happen that the p ro letarian
com m unist avant-garde m ust n ec e â rily a ^ u m e political pow er before the
n o ^ a l conditions exist for it to do so; b u t in th a t case, the clarity,
knowledge, unity and autonom y th a t the masses have acquired will serve as a
basis for a later developm ent tow ard com m unism .
“T h e history of the Second In tern atio n al abounds in exam ples of this policy
of opportunism , and the la tte r is already beginning to show itself w ithin the
T h ird In tern atio n al. For the Second, it consisted of striving to achieve the
6. The reference is to talks between the Communist International branches of the socialist
left in different countries-negotiations which, in Gennany, led to merger of two-thirds of the
Independents with the meager troops of the Central Committee of the G eân Communist Party
in December 1920.
socialist objective through a coalition of non-socialist workers groups and

other classes, and employing every means to win them over. These practices
were bound to lead to the decomposition o f the movement and its ultim ate
collapse. At the present time, the T hird International is in a very different
situation, because the phase of the h a ^ o n io u s expansion of capitalism is
over - t h e phase in which social democracy could do nothing but enlighten
the masses through a policy based on principles, in preparation for the
revolutionary phase to come. Capitalism has collapsed; the world cannot wait
for the day when our propaganda will have led the majority of m en to
understand exactly what communism is; the masses must intervene as soon as
possible to save the world and to save themselves. Of what use is a small p an y
and its loyalty to principles when what is needed is the intervention of the
masses? Has not opportunism , which seeks a rapid grouping of large masses,
some reason to claim that it is bowing to necessity?
“However, a huge mass party or a coalition of different parties is no more
capable of leading a successful rebellion than is a small radical party.
Revolution is the work of the masses; it begins spontaneously. C ertain actions
decided upon by a party can sometimes (rarely, however) be the point of
departure, but the d e te ^ in in g forces lie elsewhere, in the psychic factors
deeply embedded in the subconscious of the masses and in the great events of
world politics. T h e task of a revolutionary party is the advance propagation of
clear knowledge, so that, within the masses, some may com e to know what
should be done in a crisis an d will be able to judge the situation for
themselves. And, during the revolution, the party should establish the
program , the slogans and the directives that the ma&es spontaneously
recogriize to be correct and appropriate - as the precise f o ^ u la tio n of their
own revolutionary objectives. It is in this sense that the party directs the
combat. As long as the masses are inactive, the party's efforts m ay seem
useless; however, the principles propagated reach many people who for the
m om ent are outside the party, and, in the course o f the revolution, these
principles take on an active force which helps guide such people along the
desired path. On the other hand, to soften these principles as a prelim inary
step to f o x i n g a more broadly based party through coalitions and
concessions enables people with confused ideas to acquire, in time of
revolution, an ascendency that the masses cannot challenge because of their
own deficient education. To compromise with outm oded conceptions is to
move toward power without first securing its fundam ental condition - t h e
complete tr a n s f o r a tio n of ideas. And this ultimately hinders the course of
the revolution. Moreover, the effectiveness of such a policy is extremely
illusory, since the most radical ideas can penetrate the masses only during a
period of revolution; at other times, the masses tend to be m oderate, A

revolution is always accom panied by a profo u n d upheaval of ideas am ong the
m asses; it thus creates the precondition for the revolution. T h at is why it is
incu m b en t on the C om m unist Party to direct the revolution on th e basis of
clear principles aim ed at tr a n s f o ^ i n g th e world.
“W h a t divides the Com m unists from the Social D em ocrats is the
intransigence w ith w hich the Com m unists give priority to the new principles
(the system of soviets and the dictatorship of th e p ro le ta ria t). O pportunism in
th e T h ird In tern atio n al uses as m u ch as possible th e forms and m ethods of
w arfare b eq u eath ed to it by the Second In tern atio n al. A fter the Russian
Revolution h a d replaced parliam entarianism by a system of soviets and built
up th e trad e union m ovem ent on a factory basis, certain a tte m p ts- the first
of th e ir k i n d - t o copy this m odel were m ade in E u rope.7 T h e G erm an
C om m unist Party boycotted th e R eichstag elections and prop ag ated th e idea
o f an organized w ithdraw al from the tra d e u n io n s.8 B ut in 1919, w hen the
revolution began to ebb and stagnate, the p arty leaders decided on a new
tactic, reverting to p arliam en tarian ism and sup p orting the old trad e union
organizations against th e new organizations of w orkers unions (Arbeiter-
union en ). As a decisive argu m en t, they u rged th e p a rty not to cut itself off
from the masses. T he masses, they argued, continued to think in
p arliam en tary term s, a n d therefore the best m eans of reaching them was
th ro u g h electoral cam paigns and p arliam en tary speeches, as well as mass
entry into the tra d e unions, w ith about seven m illion m em bers . . . . ”
A ccording to R adek, 9 “in W estern Europe, the p ro letarian revolution will be
a long draw n-out process during which com m unism should use every m eans
of p ro p ag an d a. P arliam en tarian ism an d the trad e union m ovem ent are the
prin cip al weapons o f th e p ro letariat, to w hich should be added, as a new
battle aim , the g rad u al securing of workers' control.
7. Pannckock, when alluding to the workers’ councils of Germany, Italy and Scotland, was
clearly unaware that from January 1918 on the Ruîan trade unions had taken back from the
factory committees-at least on the juridical level and with the latter’s more or less qualified
consent-the powers which they were exercising within the industrial enterprises. Cf. P. Avrich,
“The Bolshevik Revolution and Workers’Control in Russian Industry,” Slavic Review, XXII: 1,
1963. At the time. however, such ignorance was general ^ o n g the few Communists in Western
Europe who were at all interested in the effective power structure of the U.S.S.R.
8. Cf. A. and D. Prudhommeaux, op. cit., pp. 45-56.
9. Pannekoek refers here to a p amphlet “composed in prison by our friend Radek” and
dealing with “the development of the world revolution andthe tasks of the Co^mmunist Party." In
fact, Radek wrote two such pamphlets at the time: one before the Heidelberg Congress (Die
Entwicklung der deutschen Revolution und die Aufgaben der K.P.), the other after (Die
Entwicklung der Weltrevolution und die Taktik der K.P. in Kampfe um die Diktatur des
Proletariats). No doubt Pannekoek's reference is to the second and more complete of these; he
also borrowed the title for his own pamphlet.
“A n exam in atio n of th e principles, conditions a n d th e difficulties of the

p ro letarian revolution in W estem E urope will show w hether o r n o t this line of
argum en t has any justification.
III.
“I t is often m ain ta in e d th a t, in W estern Europe, th e revolution will
continue for a lo n g tim e because th e bourgeoisie is m uch m ore pow erful th e re
th an it was in R u ^ ia . L et us analyze this strength. Is it num erical? T h e
pro letarian masses are fa r m ore num erous th a n th e bourgeoisie. Does it lie in
the fa c t th at th e bourgeoisie dom inates all o f economic life? This is indeed a
prim ary elem ent o f strength, b u t such a d o m in ation has perceptibly lessened
and, in Central Europe, th e economy is com pletely b a n k ru p t. Is it ultim ately
the result o f th e bourgeoisie's grip o n the state and on the m eans of
repression? C ertainly this has enabled the bourgeoisie to prevail continually
over th e p ro letariat, w hich is why th e conquest o f state pow er is th e first
objective o f th e p ro letariat. However, in N ovem ber 1918, state power in
G e ^ a n y an d A u stria d id fall in to th e h an d s o f th e w orking class. T h e state’s
repressive m achinery was absolutely in abeyance, an d the masses were
reigning as m asters. Despite all this, the bourgeoisie succeeded in
reconstructing this state pow er and in rep lacin g th e yoke on the workers. This
shows th e existence o f an o th er facto r o f th e power o f this class, a hidden
factor, one which rem ained in tact a n d which enabled them to re-establish
th e ir dom ination, however sh attered it m ay have seem ed. T his hid d en factor
is the sp iritu al pow er o f th e bourgeoisie over th e p ro letariat. It explains why
th e masses still rem ain totally subject to bourgeois ideas, to the extent th at,
w hen bourgeois d o m in atio n collapses, th e masses rebuild it w ith th e ir own
hands.
“T h e G e ^ a n experience clearly raises th e g reat problem o f revolution in
W estern E urope. In these countries, th e bourgeois m ode o f pro d u ctio n and
the advanced cu ltu re linked to it for centuries have deeply im p regnated the
way th e masses feel a n d think. T h a t is why th e spiritual characteristics o f
these masses are com pletely absent in the countries o f the East, which have
never kno-wn this d om ination by bourgeois culture. A n d herein lies the
prim ary reason for the different directions tak en by th e revolution in the East
an d in the W est. In England, France, HoUand, Scandinavia, Italy, G e ^ a n y ,
a stro n g bourgeoisie has flourished since th e m iddle ages, on th e basis of petty
bourgeoisie a n d prim itive capitalist p ro d u ctio n . A fter th e overthrow o f the
feudal system, a stro n g class in d ep en d en t o f th e peasants and m asters o f their
o-wn goods, developed in th e ru ra l areas. This basis enabled the spiritual life
o f the bourgeoisie to blossom in to a vigorous n a tio n a l culture, especially in
the m aritim e countries, such as F rance an d E ngland, the first to undergo

capitalist developm ent. In the 19th century, capitalism , encom passing the
whole o f the econom y, and brin g in g even the most rem ote f a ^ s w ithin
the fram ew ork of the w orld economy, perfected still fu rth er this national
culture, and, w ith th e help o f its p ro p a g a n d a m e c h a n ism s-p ress, school,
ch u rch —dru^mmed it into the m inds of the masses, both the newly
proletarianized an d urb an ized elem ents and those rem aining in th e ru ra l
districts. T his was the situation, n o t only in th e countries where capitalism
h ad originated, b u t also, in slightly different forms, in A m erica an d
A ustralia, w here the E uropeans h ad fo u n d ed new states, and in the countries
of C entral E u r o p e - G e ^ a n y , A ustria, I ta ly - w h e r e the new capitalist
developm ent was g rafted onto a small, stag n an t landholder econom y and
petty-bourgeois culture. W hen it p en etrated into Eastern Europe, capitalism
encountered a com pletely d ifferent situation and completely different
traditions. In R u ^ ia , P oland, H ungary, an d in E astern G e ^ a n y , there was
no pow erful bourgeoisie w ith a long established spiritual dom ination; the
p a tte rn th e re was defin ed by relationships w ithin a system of prim itive
agricu ltu ral p r o d u c tio n - th e big landed proprietors, p a triarch al feudalism ,
and the viUage com m unity. Com munism th ere found itself dealing with a
people m ore prim itive, m ore simple, m ore open, and therefore m ore
receptive. T h e socialists o f W estern Europe w ould often express their am used
surprise at seeing the ‘ig n o ra n t' Russians in th e front line of the workers’
cause. In this connection, as an English delegate to the A m sterdam
C onference10 rightly p o in ted out, it m ay be th a t the Russians are ignorant,
but th e English workers are so stuffed with prejudices that com m unist
p ro p a g a n d a am o n g them is m uch m ore difficult. T hese ‘prejudices,' however,
constitute only a p rim ary aspect o f th e m ode o f bourgeois thinking th a t
saturates th e English masses a n d th e A m erican masses of W estern E uropean
origin.
“T his m ode o f thinking, in its opposition to the proletarian-com m unist
conception of the world, involves conceptions so varied and so confused th at
one can scarcely sum it u p in a few words. Its prim ary quality is an in
dividualism th a t goes back to the first petty bourgeois an d peasant f o ^ s of
labor, an d w hich yields only reluctantly to th e new concept of p ro letarian
com m unity. In th e A nglo-Saxon countries, this individualism deeply
im pregnates b oth the bourgeoisie and th e p ro letariat. T h e outlook does not
reach beyond th e w orkplace; it certainly does n o t em brace the w hole social
group. Steeped in th e principle of th e division of labor, these individualists do
10. Cf. note 24 below.

not reg ard ‘politics,’ the direction o f the whole society, as a m a tte r th at
concerns everyone, b u t as a m onopoly of the ruling class, as a b ra n c h of
activity reserved for highly specialized career politicians. A century of
assiduous in teraction of a m aterial an d also of a spiritual kind th ro u g h a rt
and literatu re has inculcated in the masses a sense of belonging on the
natio n al level, a sentim ent th a t can sometimes take the f o ^ o f class solidarity
at th a t level, b u t which in no way facilitates in tern ational action. T his feeling
remains firmly im p lan ted in the su b co ^^ io u s, as is seen in the indifference
shown about w hat is h ap p en in g elsewhere, or, at best, by a fac;ade of
intern atio n alism .
“Bourgeois cu ltu re in the p ro letariat is first m anifested in the guise o f a
spiritual trad itio n . T h e masses, prisoners o f this trad itio n , think in t e ^ s of
ideology and not o f re a lity ; bourgeois thin k in g always a&umes an ideological
character. B ut this ideology and this trad itio n in no way constitute a
homogeneous whole. As the result o f innum erable and age-old class
confrontations, spiritual reflexes develop in political and religious systems.
T he p roletarians th at adhere to them are therefore subdivided into distinct
groups according to their ideological conceptions, churches, sects, parties. In
addition, the bourgeois past of the p ro letariat is m anifested in an o r
ganizational tra d itio n th a t runs counter to th e c la ^ unity reqired for the
com ing o f a new w orld; the workers are reduced, within these traditional
organizations, to the role o f followers of a bourgeois vanguard. D uring these
ideological conflicts, it is th e intellectulas who become the direct leaders. T h e
intellectuals —churchm en, teachers, writers, journalists, artists, politicians —
form a large class which serves to uphold, develop an d pro p ag ate bourgeois
culture. They tran sm it this culture to th e masses an d serve as interm ediaries
betw een the pow er of cap ital and the interests o f the masses. T h e ir spiritual
authority over the masses strengthens the hegem ony o f capital. Conseqently,
the oppressed masses cannot rise in revolt u n d er the leadership of the
intellectuals. A nd when these leaders openly pass into the capitalist cam p, the
cohesion an d discipline they acqired through conflict then makes them the
strongest mainstays of the system .”
This was the case w ith C hristian ideology, w hich showed itself to be
reactionary a fte r having su p p o rted th e conflict of the petty bourgeoisie with
th e s t a t e - t h a t o f the Catholics at th e tim e o f th e K u ltu rka m p f. for
ex a m p le .11 T h e sam e is tru e of Social D em ocracy, w hich has helped to
11. In fact the trade u io n a^ssociations-most notably in the Ruhr—first c ^ e into

existence, in the late 1860s, through the initiative of Catholic priests. Ridiculed by the Protestant
authorities and fro ^ e d on at that time by the bosses, they were incapable of assuring an
autonomous representation of the workers and soon yielded to formations inspired by Social
ex tirp ate the old ideologies b u t which, “on th e o th er h an d , is grounded in the

spiritu al dependence of the masses o n political an d other leaders, whom the
m a ^ e s reg ard as specialists an d to whom therefore they han d over the
conduct of m ajor c la ^ m atters of a g eneral kind, instead of seeing to them
themselves. T h e cohesion an d discipline forged by 50 years of iinpassioned
conflict could n o t destroy capitalism , because they were linked to the pow er
th a t organizations an d leaders exercised over the p roletarian masses. This was
the power th a t, in A ugust 1914 an d in N ovem ber 1918, m ade the masses a
passive instrum ent o f th e bourgeoisie, im perialism an d reaction. T h e spiritual
hegem ony th a t the bourgeois p ast exercises over the workers has led to a
splitting of the p ro le ta ria t into ideologically antagonistic groups in different
countries of W estern E urope, thus p recluding any cla^ unity. O riginally,
Social D em ocracy tried to establish unity, b u t because of its opportunist
tactics, these efforts were useless.
“T h e dom ination o f bourgeois ideology over the ma&es does not rule out
the fact th a t, in tim es o f crisis, when th e masses are driven to despair an d to
action, th e pow er of trad itio n is tem porarily e c lip s e d -a s in G e ^ a n y of
N ovem ber 1918. However, the ideology soon reasserts itself a n d becomes one
of th e factors co n trib u tin g to the re-em ergence of the bourgeoisie. T h e
G e ^ a n exam ple shows th e concrete forces a t work, forces that we wiU refer
to as the hegem ony of the bourgeois: the veneration of abstract forum ulas,
such as ‘dem ocracy’; th e force of h a b it in thinking, such as in th e idea th at
socialism can be established by p arliam en tary leaders an d th ro u g h a socialist
g o v e ^ m e n t; th e p ro le ta ria t’s lack of self-confidence, as show n by th e
influence exercised over it by th e m onstrous d i^ e m in atio n of false reports
abou t Russia; the p ro le ta ria t’s lack of faith in its o ^ resources; b u t above
all else, the belief in the party, the organization, the leaders who, over
several decades, personified the revolutionary conflict a n d its objectives. T h e
enorm ous m aterial an d spiritual pow er of these organizations, these gigantic
m achines created by the masses them selves th ro u g h long years of h a rd
w o rk -m a c h in e s th a t em bodied th e trad itio n o f f o ^ s of conflict app ro p riate
for th e entire period th a t the workers* m ovem ent h a d been a p a rt o f the
vigorous developm ent of c a p ita lis m -n o w crushed all th e revolutionary
tendencies th a t w ere aw akening am o n g th e m a se s.
“T h is case was not to rem ain an isolated one. T h e contradictions betw een
the p ro le ta ria t’s spiritual im m aturity, as evidenced by the strength of
bourgeois traditions w ithin it, an d th e ra p id collapse of the capitalist
econom y can be resolved only th ro u g h the p ro ce ^ of revolutionary
Democracy. Cf. Walter Ne^nann, Die Gewerkschaften inRuhrgebiet (Cologne, 1951), pp. 10ff.
They degenerated into paternalism and parochiîsm.
186 I P/ANEKOEKAND THE W ORKERS COUNCILS
development, by revolts and seizures of power, and with many reverses; for
this contradiction is not an accidental one, since the spiritual m aturity
required to win power and freedom is inconceivable within the framework of
a flourishing capitalism. T hat is why the idea of a revolutionary course of
action - during which the proletariat would long and vainly besiege the
fortress of capital with both old and new methods of warfare, and then one
day conquer it co m pletely-is am ong the least likely of hypotheses. Suddenly,
the tactic of the well-organized and prolonged siege led by clever strategists is
without foundation. The tactical problem is not one of establishing the
feasibility of a quick conquest of power, since in this case there would be an
illusion of power. But, rather, this problem is one . of developing the
preconditions within the proletariat for a p e ^ a n e n t claw power. No
minority agitators can solve this problem, since its solution can come only
through the action of the revolutionary claw as a whole. Even if the prospect
of such a seizure of power seems to kindle little enthusiasm in the populace,
this does not m ean that they are categorically opposed; on the contrary, it
indicates that, to th e extent to which the population has not been won over to
communism, they are ready at all times to close their ranks, with the utmost
vigor, in support of the reaction against the revolution. A party dictatorship
of such fragility can only mask itself behind an alliance that strongly suggests
the proverbial ‘h an ^ n a n 's noose.' ” 12
“W hen the proletariat has succeeded, through a powerful insurrection, in
breaking the bankrupt domination of the bourgeoisie and when its more
clear-sighted vanguard, the Communist Party, has assumed political
leadership, then its imperative mission is to use whatever means necessary to
com bat the weaknesses of the working class and to strengthen its power, so
that it can meet the challenge of the revolutionary conflicts to come. The
m ain objective should be to raise the masses to the highest level of activity, to
stimulate their spirit of initiative, to increase their self-confidence, enabling
them to decide for themselves the task they must fulfill and the means to do
this. To achieve this, the predominance of the traditional organizations and
old leaders must come to an e n d - a n d this precludes any type of coalition
government, since it can only weaken the proletariat. New f o ^ s of
organization must be perfected; the m aterial strength of the masses m ust be
12. These lines refer primarily to the Hungarian Commune. This partly explains why this
text appeared in Kommunismus, which was predominantly the voice of those who saw in the
coUaboration of the Hungarian Communists and Socialists one of the main causes of the collapse
of August 1919. Cf. Ladislaus Rudas, “Die Proletarierdiktatur in Ungam,’’ Kommunismus, l,
1921; and the documents published by Helmut Gruber in the coUecuon, Inte^rnational
Communism in the Era of Lenin (New York, 1967), pp. 135-69.
increased. Only in th is way will it be possible to reorganize production as th e

m ost effective defense against th e attacks of foreign c a p ita l; for, if this is not
done, th e counter-revolution will re a p p e a r in strengthened f o ^ .
“T h e power held by th e bourgeoisie in this phase is simply the spiritual
dependence of the p ro letariat. T h e developm ent of the revolution lies in the
process of the proletariat's em ancipating itself from this dependence, from
this trad itio n of past ages, an em ancipation po&ible only th ro u g h the direct
experience of class struggles. W hen capitalism has held sway for a long tim e,
and when, in consequence, the workers' struggle extends over several
generations, th e p ro le ta ria t is com pelled, in each period, to forge for itself the
m ethods, f o ^ s , an d m eans of co m b at suitable for the stage of developm ent
reached by capitalism . But soon these form s cease to be viewed for w hat they
really are: instrum ents w ith a tim e lim it to their usefulness. In fact, they are
overvalued, viewed as p erm an en t f o ^ s , absolutely valid and ideologically
san ctified —only to becom e la te r on chains from w hich the pro letariat m ust
struggle to free itself. W hile th e working class is undergoing an accelerated
t r a n s f o r a t i o n a n d developm ent, its leaders rem ain fixed in the m ental
attitu d es of an earlier com pleted stage, an d becom e spokesmen for a bygone
phase. T herefo re these leaders' influence is liable to hinder the m ovem ent;
the old f o ^ s of action, h ard en ed in d o n n a s an d organizations, are elevated
tu objectives in themselves, an d this m akes a new orientation a n d ad a p tatio n
to new conditions of conflict m ore difficult. T h is is equally tru e of the present
period. In each phase of its evolution, the class struggle should shake off th e
traditions of th e earlier phases, in o rd er to focus clearly on its o'wn tasks and to
carry th em to com pletion. T h e revolution, therefore, developes through a
process of internal conflict. In effect, then, it is within the p ro letariat's own
ranks th a t th e m a in obstacles are g e n e ra te d over w hich the pro letariat m ust
triu m p h . O nce these obstacles have b een overcom e an d the p ro leta riat has
risen above its own lim itations, th e p a th is o pen to com m unism ."
IV.
“D uring the p eriod o f th e Second In tern atio n al, the two m ain f o ^ s o f the
claw conflict w ere p arliam en tarian ism a n d tra d e unionism .
“It was the first In tern atio n al W o rk in ^n en 's A ôciation th a t originally
form ulated th e principles of this tactical ap p ro ach . It thus took u p a position
(in a m an n er consistent w ith M arxist theory) tow ard the ideas bo rn in the
precapitalist, petty-bourgeois phase, an d w hich were therefore outm oded
w ith th e passing o f th at phase. A ccording to those conceptions, the
pro letarian class struggle should take on the character of an u n in terru p ted
struggle to im prove the w orkers' conditions, cu lm inating in the conquest of
188 I P /A N ^K O E K AN D THE WORKERS’ COUNCILS
political power. Since the era of bourgeois revolutions and a ^ e d

insurrections was completed, political action could be pursued only within the
framework of national states, and trade union action only within an even
narrower framework. T he First International was doomed to break up for this
reason and also because of the division between the new tactical approach,
which it was n o t attem pting to implement, and anarchism, in which th e old
ideas and methods of struggle survived. It bequeathed this new tactical
approach to those charged with carrying it o u t - t h a t is, to the Social
Democratic Parties, which were springing up eve^w here simultaneously with
the trade unions. W hen the Second International developed from this legacy,
in the form. of a rather loosely knit federation, it had to confront once again
the traditions of the preceding period, embodied in anarchism, and, it
regarded the heritage of the First International as a foundation to be adopted
without question.
"Today, every m ilitant communist knows why these methods o f struggle
were necessary and useful. W hen the working class first effectively emerged
and grew with capitalism, it was not yet in a position to create organs allowing
it to direct and control social life, nor indeed would the idea of doing so have
occurred to it. It first had to discover its own way and understand what is
meant by capitalism and clas power. Through propaganda, the Social
Democratic Party, vanguard of the proletariat, had to unm ask the nature of
the regime, and, by establishing class demands, point out to the masses what
their objectives should be. T h at is why it was neceraary for their
representatives to go into Parliam ent, the center of bourgeois domination, to
voice their views there and to participate in the conflicts of the political
parties.
“Things are different now that the proletarian struggle has reached a
revolutionary stage. W e shall not discuss here whether parliam entarianism , as
a system of government, has any value whatever for the self-government of the
masses, or whether it weakens rather than strengthens the system of soviets. At
the point we have reached, it is a m atter of using it as an instrument for the
proletarian conflict. Parliam entarianism constitutes the typical f o ^ of
struggle waged through leaders, with the ma&es themselves playing only a
subordinate role. In practice, it boils down to handing over effective
leadership of the class struggle to special people, to deputies; and, this
naturally fosters the illusion among the m aês that others can wage the
struggle on their behalf. Yesterday it was assumed that such deputies were
able to secure by parliam entary activity im portant r e f o ^ s benefitting the
workers. T he illusion was even fostered th at they could achieve the socialist
revolution through a few parliam entary decrees. Today, when the system
W O ^ > REVOLUTION I 189
appears to be in decay, it is notew orthy that the utilization of the p a rlia

m entary seat holds a n extraordinary interest for co^nununist p ro p ag a n d a .
In both cases, power reverts to th e leaders, an d it goes w ithout saying
th a t th e shaping of policy is left to th e s p e c ia lis ts - if need be, u n d er the
dem ocratic guise of discussions an d congressional m otions. B ut the history
of Social D em ocracy is one of a constant succession of vain efforts aim ed at
en a b lin g th e m ilitants themselves to d e t e ^ i n e p a rty policy. As long as the
masses have n o t created th e organs for th e ir o-wn action, and as lonf; as
revolution is not th e o rd er of the day, this is inevitable. O n the other h and, as
soon as the ma&es show th at they are capable of actively intervening, and
therefore of. deciding for themselves, th e d am ag e caused by p a rlia m e n ta rian
ism is of u n p reced en ted seriousness.
“As we have already em phasized, th e tactical problem boils do-wn to the
essential q u estio n : How are we to u p ro o t am ong th e p ro letarian masses the
tra d itio n a l bourgeois m ode of thinking th a t is paralyzing them ? A nything
th at strengthens ro u tin e ideas is h a t f u l . T h e most tenacious, th e most
solidly anchored, aspect of this m entality is a dependence on leaders which
induces th e m a s e s to ab a n d o n to such people the pow er to shape and to
direct m atters p ertain in g to th e ir class . . . .
" T h e revolution requires th a t th e p ro le ta ria t itself solve all th e m ajor
problem s of social reconstruction, m ake difficult decisions, an d particip ate
com pletely in th e creative m ovem ent. It follows th a t the vanguard, and th en
the ever increasing masses, should take m atters into th eir o-wn hands, should
reg ard themselves as responsible agents, should investigate, propagandize,
fight, experim ent, w eigh an d th en dare a n d be involved to the utm ost. B ut all
this is difficult an d p a in fu l; an d th a t is why, as long as th e w orking class
believes th a t there is a n easier way, th a t o f having others act for th em . . .,
they will evade th e issue an d will rem ain inactive, im prisoned in old ways of
thinking an d old weaknesses.”
P arliam en tarian ism n o t only insures the absolute predom inance of leaders
over th e masses, b u t also corrupts the masses by leading them to m ake a fetish
of legality an d of party coalitions and to reg ard m eans as essential, and not
ends. “F rom being a vanguard uniting th e whole w orking class for
revolutionary action, th e Com m unist Party is changing into a p arliam entary
f o ^ a t i o n , w ith a legal existence equal to th a t of o th e r p a r t i e s - i n fact, a new
version of th e old Social D em ocracy, but with leftist slogans . . . . ”
V.
“O n the spiritual level, th e dom inance o f th e leadership over th e masses is
em bodied in p a rlia m e n ta rian ism ; on the m aterial level, it is em bodied in the
190 I P iÂ N K O E K A N D THE W ORKERS COUNCILS
trad e unio n m ovem ent. In a capitalist system, the trade unions constitute the
n a tu ra l p ro letarian f o ^ of o rg an izatio n —a n d M arx, in a period now
rem ote, strewed their im p o rtan ce as such. W ith the developm ent of
capitalism an d , still m ore, in th e e ra o f im perialism , the trad e unions were
tr a n s f o ^ e d increasingly into h uge b u reau cratic a&ociations with a tendency
to proliferate, analogous to that o f th e f o ^ e r bourgeois state organism . A
class of officials, a bureaucracy, was created am ong th em , w hich had a t its
disposal all th e m e a n s o f pow er: m oney, th e press, th e prom otion of ju n io r
personnel. In m any respects, they h a d extensive prerogatives, so m any th a t
th e ir m em bers, originally in ten d ed to be th e servants of the masses, have now
becom e th e ir m asters a n d identify th e organization w ith th e ^ e lv e s . T h e
trade unions also resem ble th e state a n d its b u reaucracy in this respect, so
that, d esp ite a d em ocratic set-up, th e ran k a n d file tra d e unionists have no
m eans o f im posing th e ir wishes on th e leaders; in effect, an ingenious system
of regulations a n d statutes sm others the least sign o f revolt before it can
becom e a th re a t to h igher echelons.”
Years o f incessant efforts on th e p a rt o f a tra d e union opposition are
required to secure any gains, w hich are often only a change o f leaders. "T h a t
is why, in re c e n t years, b o th before a n d after th e w ar, revolts occurred on
several occasions in E ngland, A m erica, a n d G e ^ a n y , in w hich th e ra n k and
file unionists w ent out on strike despite th e ir leaders' intentions an d the
decisions of their organizations. T h is occurred in a wholly n a tu ra l way and
was regard ed as such. It shows th a t tra d e unions, fa r from unifying their
mem bers, becam e estranged fro m th em . W e have h ere an o th er point in
com m on w ith th e s ta te : th e w orkers are no lo n g e r m asters in th e ir o-wn house,
but fin d themselves as opposed to th e ir o'wn organizations as they are to
external powers above th em a n d against w hich they see themselves com pelled
to revolt, even th o u g h such organizations w ere p roduced by th e ir o-wn efforts
and wishes. W hen th e revolt dies dow n, th e old leaders resum e th e ir place and
continue to m ain ta in their power, despite the hatred an d powerless
exasperation o f th e masses, because they can count on th eir indifference,
th e ir lack o f foresight, u n ited will an d perseverence. T h e old leaders have in
th e ir favor th e intrin sic n e e d fo r th e tra d e union, since these organizations
represent for th e workers the only m eans o f co m b attin g capital.
“By lim iting capitalist tendencies tow ard absolutism , th u s ensuring the
existence o f the working class, th e tra d e unio n m ovem ent fulfills its role
w ithin th e system an d thereby becomes a m a jo r fo undation o f the system. But
from th e m om ent th a t revolution breaks dow n th e p ro letariat assumes a
different role a n d is transform ed from a force stabilizing capitalist society into
an ag en t of its destruction. Consequently, th e p ro letariat m ust also com e into

conflict w ith th e tra d e un io n s.”
T h e tra d e unio n b u reau cracy does n o t lim it itself to dealing w ith the state
bureaucracy. It also encourages 'vorkers to approve the agreem ents it has
reach ed with the capitalists. In G e ^ a n y it resorts to dem agogy, to violence,
an d to th e most sh am ele^ lying; in E ngland, it uses m ore subtle m ethods so as
"to give the workers th e im p re ^ io n that it is using every means to achieve their
dem ands, while in reality it is sabotaging them .
“M arx a n d L enin have repeatedly said o f the state that its m ode o f
functioning, despite th e existence o f f o ^ a l dem ocracy, precludes its use as
an in stru m en t of p ro letarian revolution. T h e sam e, we believe, can be said of
th e tra d e unions. T h e ir counterrevolutionary pow er w ill n o t be destroyed or
even im paired sim ply by a change o f leadership, by th e substitution o f leftists
o r ‘revolutionaries' for reactio n ary leaders. R ath er, the f o ^ of organization
itself reduces th e masses to im potence an d prevents them from m aking it the
in stru m en t o f th eir will. T h e revolution can co n q u er only if th e tra d e union is
overthrow n, o r ra th e r, wholly sh attered so as to becom e som ething com pletely
different.
"A rising from within the p ro letariat, th e system o f soviets (workers
councils) can uproot a n d supplant both th e state and trad e union
bureaucracies. T h e m ission of the soviets is to serve as new political organs for
the p ro letariat in place of p arliam en t an d as the nucleus fo r new trade
unions. D uring th e recent lively controversies w ithin the G e ^ a n Social
D em ocratic Party, certain people d erided th e idea th a t an organizational
f o ^ could have a revolutionary ch aracter, since th e whole question centered
on th e a ttitu d e o f th e m ilitants. However, if th e revolution is one in w hich the
masses assume control o f th e ir o'wn a f f a ir s - t h e direction o f society an d of
produ ctio n - a n y f o ^ o f organization th a t excludes the poîbility o f th e ir
ru lin g a n d directin g themselves is counterrevolutionary an d h a t f u l . It m ust
be replaced by a revolutionary organization, revolutionary in the sense th a t it
enables th e workers to m ake all decisions. T his in no way implies th at a new
f o ^ o f organization should be created a n d p e r f e c te d - b u t w ithout th eir
h e l p - s o th a t they m ay th en be able to it to m anifest their revolutionary
will. O n the contrary, this new f o ^ can be created only w ithin the
revolutionary process, by th e w orkers radicalizing themselves. It is necessary,
however, to know th e real n a tu re o f th e present f o ^ s o f organization in o rd er
to d e t e ^ i n e th e a ttitu d e o f com m unist m ilitan ts tow ard subsequent attem pts
to w eak o r to destroy th e old fo^rms.
“In th e revolutionary syndicalist tendencies a n d even m ore in th e ‘in
dustrial' trad e u nion m ovem ent is to be fo u n d th e greatest evidence o f a
desire to restrain the b u reau cratic m achinery an d rely on the activity of the
masses. For this reason, the m ajority o f com m unists support these
organizations instead of th e centralized federations. As long as capitalism
continues, these new f o ^ a ti o n s will have only a lim ited following. T h e
IW W is im p o rtan t because of a special circum stance: the great m any
unskilled workers, m ainly recent im m igrants, who m ade a m ass exodus from
the old fed eratio n .1^ T h e English shop com m ittees a n d shop stewards
represent an exam ple m u ch closer to the p ractical organ o f struggle created
by th e masses confronting b ureaucracy. 14 By design, th e G e ^ a n unions
conform even m ore to the idea of workers councils but rem ain weak b e
cause of th e stagnation of th e revolution. T o the extent th a t it succeeds in
weakening th e cohesion of the centralized associations a n d the co u n ter
revolutionary power of the tra d e unio n bureaucracy, every new f o ^ a -
tion o f this k in d clears the way for revolution. T h e id e a of unifying all
opposition forces within these associations to secure a m ajority there an d to
transform them com pletely is certainly attractive. But, in the first place, it is
just as absurd as the idea of conquering th e Social D em ocratic Party from
w ithin (since bureaucracy is so ad ep t at strangling an opposition before it
really becom es a th reat). In the second place, a revolution does not unfold
13. Pannekoek would return to this subject in an article published in the United States. An
extract from it will show his skill to get to the essence of a revolutionary current, assessing its
strengths and its weakness. He first recalls that the IWW came about in response to the narrow
conservatism of the American Federation of Labor and the multiplicity of trade union
organizations within the same industry. to which they counterposed their slogan: “one big
union.” “Contrary to the haughty disdain of the well-paid old American skilled labor toward the
unorganized immigrants, it was these worst paid proletarians that the IWW led into the
fight . . . . By a glorious series of big battles it infused the spirit of organization and self-reliance
into the hearts of these masses . . . . Instead of the heavy stone-masoned buildings of the old
unions, they represented the flexible construction, with a fluctuating membership. contracting in
time of peace. swelling and growing in the fight itself. Contrary to the conservative capitalist
spirit of the trade unionism, the Industrial Workers were anti-capitalist and stood for revolution.
Therefore they were persecuted with intense hatred by the whole capitalist world. They were
thrown into jail and tortured on false accusations; a new crime was even invented on their
behalf: that of ‘criminal syndicalism.'
“Industrial unionism alone as a method of fighting the capitalist class is not sufficient to
overthrow capitalist society and to conquer the world for the working claw. It fights the
capitalists as employers on the economic field of production, but doesn’t have the means to
overthrow their political stronghold, state power. Nevertheless, the IWW so far has been the most
revolutionary organization in America. More than any other it has contributed to r o ^ claw
consciousness and insight, solidarity and unity in the working class, to turn its eyes toward
communism, and to prepare its fighting power.” Pannekoek wrote this under the pen name ofj.
Harper, “Trade-Unionism,” International Council Correspondence, II: I, Jan. 1936, pp. 18-19.
Cf. also, Workers' Councils, pp. 170-71. For an excellent account of this, cf. Daniel Guerin,
Mouvement ouvrier aw: Etats-Unis, 1867-1967 (Paris, 1968), pp. 36-46, 51.
14. Cf. Branko Pribicevic, The Shop-Stewards Movement and Workers' Control, 1910-1922
(Oxford, 1959).
according to a well-ordered p ro g r^ n . R ather it is the spontaneous explosion

of com m itted, active groups that is the m ajor motive force. If the communists
opposed these attem pts by opportunists to obtain immediate advantages by
glossing over the different trade union tendencies, they would then find that
the obstacles presented by the opportunists are larger than ever.
"W hen the workers have succeeded in creating the soviets, their own organs
of power and action, it can be said that the state is already disintegrated,
abolished. T he trade unions, a m odern f o ^ of self-generated organization,
will survive the state for a time because they are rooted in m ore recent
traditions, based on intense personal experience. They will continue to
function as representative organs of the proletariat, even though the illusions
of the democratic state have dissipated. T he new fo ^ a tio n s will appear as
attem pts to adapt trade unions, which, after all, are the products of working
class activity, to new conditions. As a result of the revolutionary process, the
new f o ^ s of proletarian struggle and organization will develop on the soviet
model through constant metamorphoses and new developments."
V I.15
It is a n e o -re fo ^ ist idea to suppose that capitalism will succumb to a
well-ordered siege, using methods proven by the a ^ y of the Communist
Party and m ounting wave after wave of a&ault, while workers gradually take
control in the factories. Such thinking is out of touch with reality in W estern
Europe. First the old conditions must be dissolved an d the workers must free
themselves from old ways of thinking; bourgeois power must be crippled by
strikes; the peasants m ust sweep away the vestiges of feudalism. P ut simply,
“a period of social and political chaos is inevitable .. ..
“However, two questions can be dealt with briefly. T he first, concerning
industrial technicians, will cause only passing difficulties. Even though these
specialists think in an absolutely bourgeois m anner and are passionate
enemies of proletarian power, they will necessarily come around in the end.
The proper functioning of transportation and industry involves, above all
else, the supply of raw materials. It coincides, therefore, with the problem of
replenishing supplies, an essential problem of the revolution in Western
Europe, where highly industrialized capitalist countries cannot subsist
without imports. In the context of the revolution, the problem of renewing
food supplies is closely linked to the agrarian question; from the beginning of
the revolutionary period, a communist reorganization of agriculture should
15. This section and the following have been substantially cut. They deal with problems of
the “transitional phase" in immediate, concrete terms and therefore have at best a historical
interest. However, we have included one pa&age to give a general idea of Pannekoek's concerns.
take precautions against f ^ i n e . T h e big lan d ed estates of th e nobility are

ripe for expropriation and collective ad m inistration. T h e small peasant class
will find itself freed fro m all capitalist exploitation an d encouraged tow ard
intensive cultivation through state cooperation and assistance. T h e m iddle
peasant class, which, for exam ple in western and southern G erm an y ^6 holds
half o f the lan d , th i^ te in highly individualistic t e ^ s an d is therefore
anti-co^mmunist. B ut because it holds an unshakable econom ic position and
cannot be expropriated, it m ust be in teg rated into th e whole economic
process by controliing th e exchange of foodstuffs, and encouraging
productivity. In agriculture, com m unism will pursue a policy of increasing
productivity an d o f restricting individual cultivation, similar to th e policy it
pursues in industry. It follows from this th a t the workers should re g a rd the
landed p ro p rieto rs as th eir enemies, th e ag ricu ltu ral labors and lower peasant
class as their allies, w hile taking care n o t to alien ate the m iddle peasant class,
although the la tte r m ight well be hostile to them a t first. T hus, during the
chaotic first phase w hen the economy is badly d isrupted, the requisition of
food supplies p roduced by these categories o f peasants should be resorted to
only as an exceptional m easure and solely for the purpose of securing a scarcity
b alance between u rb an an d rural areas. It is im ports, above all else, which
will win the b attle against fam ine. Soviet Russia, with its abundance of
agricultural products and raw m aterials, will be the savior an d the sustainer
of the revolution in W estern Europe. T herefore, it is vital to its o ^ interests
th at the w orking class o f W estern E urope should defend Ru&ia.
“T h e reconstruction o f th e economy, however form idable, is n o t a problem
to be solved by the C om m unist Party. It is th e p ro letarian masses who will
solve it, as soon as th eir spiritual an d m oral capabilities are b ro u g h t into play.
T he P arty ’s task is to arouse these forces an d accelerate their developm ent. It
should seek to uproot all th e accepted ideas th a t intim idate th e proletariat
and th re a te n its confidence; it should discredit everything th at fosters the
iUusion th a t there is a n easier a n d w hich therefore dissuades the p ro letariat
from using radical m ethods, lim iting them to half-m easures and com
promises.
V II.
“T h e transition from capitalism to com m unism will not b e achieved b y the
simple conquest of political power, th e establishm ent of soviets or the
abolition of private p roperty, a lth o u g h such m easures do provide the broad
16. On the peasants’ councils in Bavaria, cf. Paul Werner (FrOlich), Die ba^wche
Rltterepublik, undated (1919), pp. 36-37; and especially Wilhelm Mattes, Die ba^schen
Bauernrltte (Stuttgart, 1921).
outlines o f developm ent. T his transition will b e m ad e possible only through

the pow er to build anew. At th e present, th e o f enterprise and
organization c reated by capitalism a re solidly g rounded in th e m inds o f the
masses, an d it will tak e political an d econom ic revolution to change this.
W ith in the w orking claw u n d e r capitalism , fo:rms o f organization have come
into existence whose power can n o t be im m ediately an d fully m easured and
w hich, therefore, will play a fu n d am en tal role in the course of th e revolution.
“T h e prim ary such fo:rm is th e political p arty . T h e notorious role o f Social
D em ocracy in th e p resent crisis of capitalism is n e a rin g its end.17 Its left-w ing
factions (such as th e USP in Ge:rmany) are ha-rmful, not only because they
divide the p ro letariat, b u t even m ore because they foster confusion and
prevent th e masses from resorting to action d u e to their concept o f Social
D em ocracy, according to which th e d o m in a n t political leaders shape th e
destiny of th e people by th e ir acts a n d negotiations. A nd if a com m unist party
opts for th e p arliam en tary ro a d an d aspires, n o t to c la s dictatorship, b u t to
p a rty d ic ta to r s h ip - in o th e r words, d ictato rsh ip by the party le a d e rs - th is ,
too, m ay shackle developm ent. A case in point is th e a ttitu d e o f the KPD
d u rin g th e M arch revolutionary m ovem ent; by favoring a ‘loyal opposition'
in th e event th a t a ‘purely socialist governm ent’ should com e in to po w er—
their pretext being th a t th e p ro letariat was not ready to exercise its dic-
ta to r s h ip - th e y d eflected any vigorous m a u opposition to this k in d o f
regim e . . . .
“N ot only is such a gove^rnment in cap ab le o f actively prom oting the
revolution, b u t its only purp o se can be to arrest its developm ent at som e
halfw ay stage. Seeking by every m eans to p rev en t enlarging th e divisions in
capitalism an d th e em ergence o f workers' power, it behaves in a deliberately
counterrevolutionary fashion. T h e com m unists have no choice b u t to com bat
it vigorously a n d w ith no concern for th e consequences.”
In th e Anglo-Saxon countries th e leftist tra d e union leaders such as those o f
th e IW W , who adhere to th e T h ird In tern atio n al, “d o n o t regard the system
o f soviets as th e purest form of th e dictatorship o f the p ro letariat b u t, on the
contrary, as a governm ent of politicians a n d intellectuals whose pe:rmanent
basis is supplied by th e w orkers' organizations. In th e ir view, th en , it is the
tra d e union m ovem ent .. . th at should exercise pow er. If the old ideal o f
17. This prognosis was by no means an exaggeration at the time, at least in regard to
Germany, as election results show. While by the Constituent Assembly elections of January 19,
1919, the Majority Party had secured 11.5 million votes, or 38 percent of the votes cast,
compared with 2.3 million votes-8 percent-received by the Independents, in the next year’s
National Awembly Qune 6, 1920), the USPD polled nearly 6 million votes (18 percent), only
700.000 more than that (21 percent), and the KPD just 442,000 votes (2 percent); in Berlin
456.000 electors voted USPD; only 186,000 voted SPD.
'industrial dem ocracy’ is realized, if th e trad e unions becom e m asters of the

factories, econom ic ad m in istratio n as a whole will re tu rn to th eir com m on
organ, th e congress o f tra d e unions. T hus th e workers' p arliam en t will replace
the p a rlia m e n t of th e bourgeois p arties. B ut, in such situations, som e will
recoil a t th e idea o f a n exclusive a n d ‘u n ju st' class dictatorship, reg arding it as
a violation of dem ocracy: by all m eans led th e w orkers accede to power, they
say, b u t th e others m ust not be deprived o f their rights. Consequently, in
ad ditio n to the workers p arliam en t, which adm inisters everything connected
with lab o r, they suggest a second cham ber, elected by universal suffrage,
representing all classes an d invested with certain powers over m atters of
public a n d c u ltu ra l life as well as political questions in g en era l.” 18
P annekoek is not concerned here w ith th e idea o f a ‘labor' g o v ^ ^ m e n t
endorsed in E n g lan d by th e official tra d e u n io n m ovem ent, since such a
governm ent could only serve th e bourgeoisie. “However, it still rem ains to b e
seen w hether th e discerning English bourgeoisie, with th e ir liberal views, will
prove capab le by them selves of deceiving a n d choking th e masses m ore
effectively th a n is done by th e workers' b u re a u c ra ts.”
T h e leftist tra d e unionists, fo r th e ir p a rt, express “ a lim ited ideology, w hich
was developed in th e course o f tra d e u n io n conflicts an d w hich hinders them
from seeing in world cap ital a totality w ith m ultiple interlocking
fo^rms—financial, banking, ag rarian , c o lo n ia l-s in c e they are aware only o f
its in d u strial f o ^ . .. . As a result o f th e ir fa ilu re to see th a t th e whole
abstract d om ain of political an d spiritual life is conditioned by th e m ode of
p roduction, they are ready to h an d over th a t dom ain to th e intellectual
bourgeoisie, provided th a t it agrees to allow lab or to pred o m in ate. Such a
workers' governm ent w ould be, in reality, a gove^nunent by th e trade union
bureaucracy, aid ed by th e leftist sector o f th e old state governm ent, th e first
h and in g over to th e second, because o f its specialized ability, control over the
dom ains o f cu ltu re, politics, etc. Its econom ic p ro g ra m would surely have
nothing in com m on with com m unist expropriation, b u t would m erely seek to
ex p ro p riate big capital, th e larg er ba^nks and landed capital, while leaving
u n tou ch ed th e ‘honest’ profit o f th e small employer, fleeced by big capital
an d dependent u p o n it. It is even doubtful w hether this governm ent would
support full an d com plete freedom for th e Indies, whereas this d e m an d is an
e ^ e n tia l p a rt o f th e com m unist pro g ram .
"O n e can n o t foresee th e m an n er in which a political form such as this will
be realized. In effect, it is possible to discern the m otive forces an d the general
18. In this connection, cf. Max Adler, Dlmocratie et conseil.s ouvriers (Paris, 1967).
Oririginally published in 1919.
te n d e n c ie s - th e a b stract characteristics—b u t n o t the concrete aspects it will

assum e from one country to another, th e p a rtic u la r com binations on which it
will rest. T h u s, th e English bourgeoisie has always sho'wn its skill in m aking
tim ely concessions th a t tak e th e steam o u t o f th e revolutionary th ru st; and
th a t is why th e lim its o f this tactic will vary in term s o f the intensity o f the
econom ic crisis a t any given m om ent. I f ran k -an d -file revolt th reaten s tra d e
union discipline w hile th e masses are o p tin g for com m unism , th e reform ist or
rad ical tra d e u nion leaders will a d o p t a m iddle course; if th e opposition
against th e old political policy of th e r e f o ^ i s t leaders is accentuated, the
leftist leaders a n d th e com m unists will walk h a n d in h and.
“These tendencies are not p eculiar to E ngland. In every country, th e tra d e
unions constitute th e m ost pow erful workers' organization; a n d after a
political conflagration, when th e old pow er is o v e rth ro w , they are th e ones
th a t em erge as th e best organized force a n d th a t have the greatest au th o rity .”
T h e old tra d e unio n leaders th en try to increase still m ore their g rip on
governm ental power, b u t this has the effect o f com prom ising th em w ith the
masses. In these circum stances, other, m ore leftist leaders seek to f o ^ a
workers’ governm ent; in G erm any, th e ir chances o f succeeding a re by no
m eans negligible. B ut this re ^ m e would be unstable, since a new split is
inevitable: some w ould sim ply aim at consolidating th eir positions o f strength
w ithin th e b u reau cracy an d , eventually, at th e p arliam en tary level; others
w ould strive to ex ten d th e system of soviets. “It m ay be th a t th e ro a d taken by
th e com m unists often skirts th a t o f certain leftist leaders, b ut, nonetheless, it
w ould be a m istake n o t to stress th e differences o f principles an d objectives.
T his is relevant to th e com m unists’ a ttitu d e tow ard th e present tra d e union
organizations, since everything th a t contributes to strengthening their
cohesion a n d power also s tre n g th ^ u a force destined one day to be a
stum bling block in th e way o f the revolutionary m ovem ent.
“W hen com m unism wages a b itte r struggle against these transitional
political f o ^ s , it represents the living revolutionary tendency w ithin the
p ro letariat. T h is sam e p ro le ta ria n action, which, by sh attering the old
m achinery o f bourgeois power, opens th e door to workers' bureaucracies, is
th e action th a t sim ultaneously leads th e masses to create their o'wn organs, the
councils, a n d set about u n d e ^ in in g th e nucleus o f this bureau cratic
m achinery in th e tra d e unions. T h u s, th e creation o f the system o f soviets also
represents th e struggle o f th e p ro letariat to replace the incom plete f o ^ of
class dictatorship w ith its com plete f o ^ .
"D ue to the problem s involved in ‘reorganizing' the economy, a
bureaucracy of leaders could retain a g reat m easure o f pow er for a long tim e
while th e ability o f th e ma&es to rid themselves of this bureaucracy slowly
198 I P ^ A N K O E K AND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
develops. These diverse f o ^ s an d phases o f developm ent, however, do not

gradually evolve in the logical succession we have o u tlined here. O n the
contrary, they parallel, in t e ^ i n g l e w ith a n d crisscross each oth er in a chaotic
mix o f com plem entary tendencies a n d separate conflicts so th a t it is
impossible to grasp the course o f developm ent in its entirety. As M arx pointed
out, th e p ro le ta ria n revolutions ‘constantly criticize one another, in te rru p t at
every m om ent th eir own course, tu m back to w hat seem ed disposed o f in
order to begin o n it anew, pitilessly ridicule th e hesitations a n d w eakneses
an d miseries o f th eir early attem pts, seem to knock down th e ir enem y only to
allow h im to draw new stren g th from the g ro u n d a n d to rise u p ag ain in
f o ^ i d a b l e opposition . . . . ’
“Those f o ^ s o f p ro letarian pow er th a t insufficiently express its strength
m ust be overturned as p a rt o f th e process o f developing this s tr e n g t h - a
process th a t occurs th ro u g h the oppositions an d catastrophes o f cla »
struggle. A t the b e ^ n n in g th ere was action, b u t the action was only a
beginning. A m om ent of unanim ous d e t e ^ i n a t i o n is enough to sweep away
one f o ^ o f pow er; b u t only p e ^ a n e n t u n ity -w h o s e neceâry condition is
clea r-sig h te d n ess -c a n ensure th a t th e victory is n o t d i^ ip a te d for those who
have won it at such cost. In th e absence o f this unity, a com plete reversal o f
the situation occurs, n o t the re tu rn o f the old m asters, b u t new f o ^ s o f
dom ination, w ith new p eo p le an d new illusions.
“Every new phase o f the revolution sees the em ergence o f a new category of
leaders who h ith erto d id not have any leadership role. T hey now em erge as
the representatives o f specific f o ^ s o f organization whose trium ph
corresponds to a new, m ore advanced stage in th e self-em ancipation o f the
proletariat.
V III.
“W hile capitalism in W estern E urope is collapsing, in Ru& ia the
productive ap p aratu s is m ak in g progress u n d er th e new regim e despite great
difficulties. T h e existence of a com m unist regim e does n o t imply th a t
production has been com pletely collectivized, for this can only be the en d
pro d u ct o f a prolonged process of developm ent. It does signify, however, th a t
the w orking class is deliberately directing p roduction tow ard com m unism .
This process can n o t exceed the present level o f technical a n d social
developm ent. T h a t is why it necessarily assumes tran sitio n al f o ^ s in w hich
vestiges o f the old bourgeoisie take o n a special im portance. O n the basis of
w hat we know in W estern Europe, this is w hat has h ap p en e d in Russia.
“Russia constitutes an im m ense peasant region, w here industry has not
developed to th e poin t w here exports an d expansion are a vital neceîty, as
they are in W estern E urope, the ‘w orkshop’ of the world. Despite th at,
R u ^ ia ’s social developm ent has still provided it w ith a working c la ^ th a t has
progressed to the po in t o f being able to take over the adm inistration of
society. Since most o f its pop u latio n are ag ricu ltu ral workers, the big m odern
in dustrial enterprises em ploy only a m inority o f the workers. W hile small
enterprises stiU predom inate, they no longer constitute a factor of
exploitation a n d m isery as in W estern E urope. O n the co n trary , they are
industrial enterprises th a t are a tte m p tin g to im prove the peasants’ living
standards, an d w hich the Soviet governm ent is seeking to link m ore closely
w ith the whole society by providing th em w ith needed products and
im plem ents, as well as by accelerating scientific a n d cu ltu ral education. In
spite o f all this, it is u n d erstan d ab le th a t this form of enterprise engenders a
certain individualist spirit, w hich can foster com m unism am ong the ‘rich ’
peasants. T h e E ntente was certainly relying on this when it m ad e certain
com m ercial propositions to the ag ricu ltu ral cooperatives in order to draw
these social categories into the profit cycle a n d thereby create a bourgeois
opposition m ovem ent. B ut the fear of feu d al reaction is the stronger
m otivation, a n d th eir loyalties are therefore w ith the present governm ent.
T h a t is why these a ttem p ts are doom ed to failure, a n d if W estern E uropean
capitalism collapses, this d an g er will vanish com pletely.
“Industry, now largely centralized, is devoid of any kind of exploitation; it
is the h e a rt of th e new o rd e r, a n d the s ta te leaders rely on the industrial
proletariat. B ut this produ ctio n , too, is in a transitional situation; the
technical a n d adm inistrative cadres of state factories and services have
considerable powers, an und erstan d ab le phenom enon in this developing
com m unist regim e. T h e need b o th to secure a ra p id production grow th and
to raise a n a ^ y to m eet the reactionary assaults d em anded th a t som ething be
done w ith all urgency to rem edy the d e a rth o f highly skilled personnel. T h e
th re a ts of fam in e an d enem y attack precluded full dedication to th e m u ch
m ore prolonged task of developing the n e c e ^ a ry skill an d raising the cu ltu ral
level of all citizens in o rd er to lay the foundations of the com m unist
coUectivity. T h a t is why a new b u reau cracy h a d to be co nstructed out of
political leaders an d high officials; an d why it was necessary to include w hat
rem ained of the old o r d e r - o f th a t class whose existence h ad , up to then,
been regarded as a th reat to the new o r d e r .19 T h e only effective way to
counter this th reat is to work zealously to develop the masses, b u t there will be
no p erm an en t foundations for this developm ent u n til th e tim e of abundance
19. The problem of the administration of industrial enterprises had at that time
(March-April 1920) been discused at the Ninth Congres of the Co^mmunist Party of the Soviet
Union. Cf. Uonard Schapiro, Les Bolchroiks et i'Oppontion (Paris, 1947). pp. 184-98.
200 I PÂNEKOEKAND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
comes, when m a n will cease to be a slave to his work. A bundance alone

creates the conditions for freedom a n d equality. As long as the struggle
against n a tu re a n d capital rem ains undecided, excessive specialization cannot
be avoided.
“I t is notable th a t o u r analysis of th e different situations in W estern Europe
(insofar as one c a n foresee th e resum ption o f th e revolutionary process there)
an d in R u » ia uncovers th e sam e politico-econom ic stru ctu re: a basically
com m unist industry, w ithin w hich th e workers' councils f o ^ the organs of
self-adm inistration, b u t w hich is subject to the technical direction and
political dom in atio n of a workers' bu reau cracy; while alongside this,
agriculture, d o m in ated by sm all a n d m edium lan d ed property o-wners,
preserves an individualist an d petty bourgeois character. T h e re is nothing
surprising ab o u t this coincidence, since such social structure is n o t decided by
political prehistory b u t by basic econom ic an d technological c o n d itio n s -th e
degree b o th o f industrial an d of ag ricu ltu ral developm ent a n d of the
f o ^ a t i o n o f the masses; an d this level was identical in bo th places. B ut apart
from this sim ilarity there is a g reat difference of direction a n d of aim . In
W estern Europe, this politico-econom ic stru ctu re constitutes m erely a passing
stage in the bourgeoisie's last-ditch effort to avoid dow nfall, whereas in Russia
it represents a deliberate a tte m p t to move tow ard com m unism . In W e sto n
Europe, this stru ctu re represents a phase of th e class struggle betw een the
p ro le ta ria t a n d th e bourgeoisie; in R u » ia it is a phase of econom ic
reconstruction. A lthough externally sim ilar, W estern Europe is a civilization
m oving tow ard decline, w hereas Russia is on its way to a new civilization.
"W h en th e Russian Revolution, still very recent a n d weak, was placing its
hopes of success in a p ro m p t o u tb reak o f th e E uropean revolution, in the
W est a very different idea of Russia's significance was taking shape. Ru&ia, it
was th e n asserted, w as'just th e advance post of the revolution. Circum stances
as favorable as they were fortuitous enabled the R ^ i a n p ro le tariat to seize
power, b u t this o ccurred too soon. In effect, this p ro letariat, sm all and
uned u cated , counts for little com p ared w ith th e e n o ^ o u s mass of peasants.
In view o f Ru& ia’s econom ic backw ardness, it can only lead th e way for a
while. As soon as th e revolution occurs am ong the p ro letarian masses of
W estern Europe, w ith th eir experience an d education in m atters of
technology an d organization, we shall see a blossom ing o f com m unism
against which th e beginnings of Russian com m unism , however worthy of
interest, will seem poor by com parison. It is in E ngland, G e ^ a n y , Am erica,
the countries w here capitalism has reach ed its highest stage o f developm ent,
w here th e possibility of a new m ode of p roduction has been raised th a t the
center an d th e strength o f th e new com m unist w orld will be found.
“T h is way o f viewing th e question does n o t take into account the difficulties

faced by th e revolution in W estern E urope. In a situation where the
p ro le ta ria t progresses only slowly in streng th en in g its power, a n d where the
bourgeoisie is cap ab le o f continuaU y regaining power o r sectors of power,
there can be no question o f econom ic reorganization. In a capitalist context,
the reason for this is sim p le: every tim e the bourgeoisie ^ s th a t the
p o ^ ib iiity is becom ing real, they create a new chaos an d destroy the
foundations for a com m unist system o f pro d u ction. R esorting always to
bioody re p re ^ io n an d to ruthless destruction, they prevent a new proletarian
order from developing any k in d of stren g th . T h is has been th e p a tte rn in
R ussia. T h e destru ctio n o f th e in d u strial a n d m ining installations o f the Urals
an d of the D onetz Basin by the a ^ i e s of K oichak and o f Denikin and the
need to mobilize th e cream of th e workers a n d th e buik of productive capacity
against these a ^ i e s have seriously in ju red a n d delayed the construction of
the com m unist econom y . . . .
“In Russia, the Soviet R epublic nonetheless rem ains im pregnable . . . , while
in W estern E urope, where the d estruction has been equally severe, the best
p ro le ta ria n forces n o t only have been an n ih ilated, b u t they also lack th at
source of power supplied by th e existence o f a g reat soviet state. As iong as
chaos an d m isery prevaii, there can be no question of construction. Such is the
fate o f countries where th e p ro ie ta ria t has n o t im m ediately grasped its task
with a ciear u n d erstan d in g of its n a tu re a n d w ith a unanim ous w il i - i .e ., the
countries in which bourgeois traditions have w eakened and divided the
workers, m aking th em tim orous a n d destroying th eir ideas. In the oid
capitalist countries, it will take decades to overcome the stupefying influence
exerted over the p ro le ta ria t by bourgeois cu ltu re; and, in the m eantim e,
production wiii be doom ed to stagnation a n d th e ia n d to econom ic sterility.
“W hiie W estern Europe is painfuily struggling to free itseif from its
bourgeois p a s t,” stag n atio n is eroding its m ateriai riches an d dim inishing the
productive capacities o f its popuiation. “T h e indestructible forces, the
know ledge, the tech n icai skiiis, are not iinked w ith these countries; those who
possess th em are finding a new fa th e ria n d in Russia, where the im p o rtatio n of
E urop ean m a te ria i goods an d technology can also have iiberating effects. T h e
p ro bab ie outcom e of th e com m ercial agreem ents th a t R u » ia has conciuded
with W estern E urope an d A m erica - i f they are seriousiy an d extensiveiy
carried o u t - w il i be a deepening of these contrasts, since they wiii stim uiate
the econom ic construction in Russia whiie in E urope they wiU deiay the day of
destruction, aiiow capitaiism to get a second wind, and paraiyze the action of
the masses. N eith er the d u ra tio n nor the ex ten t of this p ro ce^ is presentiy
foreseeabie. A t the politicai ievei, this wili probabiy iead to stagnation,
202 I PjANEKOEKAND THE WORKERS' COUNCIL
expressed either in a bourgeois governm ent o r in one of the forms of

governm ent we have described above, accom panied by a ra p id sp read of
o p p o rtu n ism in th e com m unist m ovem ent. Resum ing the old m ethods of
s tru g g le -p a rtic ip a tin g in p arliam en tary activities a n d ac tin g as a loyal
opposition w ithin th e old trad e u n i o n s - t h e com m unist parties of W estern
Europe will a d a p t to th e institutions exactly as did Social D em ocracy before
them , a n d they will attem p t to suppress the rad ical, revolutionary tendency,
now red u ced to a m inority. T h e idea o f a new and real developm ent of
capitalism seems, however, extrem ely unlikely . . . . W hile it is possible to hold
back an aggravation of the crisis” - d u e in large p a rt to tra d e w ith Russia, “a
p erm an en t am elioration is o u t of th e question, and sooner or late r the crisis
will recu r. W hile the p ro ce« of revolution a n d civil war will initially be
retard ed , they will come an d w hen they do, they will involve a long,
pro tracted struggle . . . . M eantim e, in the East, the econom y is developing
unhin d ered , an d new perspectives are opening up. M ankind’s newly acquired
dom ination o f social forces is draw ing support from the m ost developed
n a tu ra l sc ie n c e s-w h ic h th e W est does not know how to u s e - a n d is being
united w ith th e social sciences. A nd these forces, m ultiplied a hundredfold by
the new energies engendered by liberty an d equality, will m ake Russia the
center o f th e new com m unist w orld ord er.
"O f course, this will n o t be th e first tim e in h u m an history th a t, du rin g the
transition to a new m ode of pro d u ctio n o r to one o f its phases, th e center o f
the w orld has shifted. In antiquity, it shifted from th e N ear East to Southern
E urope; then, in th e M iddle Ages, from th e South to the W est. W ith the
appearance of m ercantile cap ital a n d colonialism , first Spain, th e n H olland
and E ngland, took th e l e a d - a lead th a t would rem ain w ith E ngland alone
after th e b irth o f the industrial revolution. In seeking to und erstan d the
causes o f these changes, one m ust also be g uided by th e general principle
th at, w hen th e prim itive econom ic f o ^ has reached its full m aturity, the
m aterial and spiritual forces, th e political an d ju rid ical institutions
g u aran teein g its existence an d necessary to its developm ent, becom e almost
irresistible obstacles to any developm ent tow ard new form s. For instance,
tow ard th e end of antiquity, th e slave system held back th e developm ent of
the feudal o rd e r; subsequently, guild regulations, in force th ro u g h o u t the
great an d rich cities o f the M iddle Ages, com pelled capitalist enterprise to
establish itself only in places hitherto devoid o f econom ic im portance.
Similarly, the political o rd er o f F rench absolutism , though encouraging
industry u n d er C olbert, was later in the 18th century to shackle th e expansion
of new m ajo r industry, w hich in E ngland was in the process o f transform ing
the country into a m a n u fa c tu rin g econom y.
"Everything occurs, therefore, as though th ere exists a law o f the ‘survival

of outm oded f o ^ s , ' analogous to Darw in's law of ‘the survival of th e fittest' in
organic n atu re. W h en an anim al s p e c ie s -fo r exam ple, th e saurians of the
second e ra -e v o lv e d in to a g reat variety of f o ^ s , perfectly ad a p te d to the
living conditions a p p ro p ria te to a p a rtic u la r epoch, they becam e unable to
evolve in to a new type, because they h a d lost all th e ir ability to develop. A t
the tim e of th e origin o f a new type, one always finds prim itive f o ^ s th a t,
because they have rem ain ed in a n u n d ifferen tiated condition, have kept their
evolutionary p otential, w hile th e adaptive abilities of the old species have
disappeared. In society we see th e p h en o m en o n th a t bourgeois science shrugs
off by t e e i n g it a n im aginary ‘exhaustion o f vital energies’ am ong a people
or race in which econom ic, political a n d cultural prim acy constantly passes
from one people o r country to an o th er.
“W e have ju st seen th e reasons why th e pred o m inance of W estern Europe
and o f A m e r i c a - a p red o m in an ce th a t th e bourgeoisie so readily attrib u tes to
a racial superiority th a t is b o th spiritual a n d m o r a l- h a s vanished; we have
also seen where th ere is a m ajor possibility o f a new predom inance em erging.
T h e countries destined to constitute th e center o f the new com m unist universe
are those new countries where the maMes, fa r from being intoxicated by the
ideological m iasm as of the bourgeoisie, have em erged, w ith th e onset of
industrialization, from th e ir old, resigned passivity, acq u irin g a t th e same
tim e a sense of com m unity, w hich th e com m unist spirit was aw akening
am ong th e m ; countries in which th ere exists th e raw m aterials necessary for
th e m odern technology they have inherited from capitalism , now used for the
renovation of traditional form s of pro d u ctio n ; countries w here oppression
inevitably engenders conflicts an d th e will to struggle, b u t w here th ere is no
bourgeoisie w ith th e pow er to block it. Ru&ia, a veritable subcontinent, is
destined henceforth to fi^gur in th e first rank. T hese conditions also
exist in other countries o f th e E a s t - t h e Indies an d C hina. Even if these
A sian countries a re still q u ite underdeveloped, any consideration o f th e world
com m unist revolution m ust take these regions into account.
“T o consider th e w orld revolution only from the W estern E uropean
perspective is to miss its universal significance; Ru&ia is not just th e eastern
p a rt of E urope, b u t is, to a far g reater extent, th e w estern p a rt of Asia, both
econom ically a n d politically as well as geographically. T h e R u ^ ia o f f o ^ e r
times h a d alm ost noth in g in com m on w ith E urope. C om pared w ith the West,
it seem ed close to those political an d econom ic f o ^ a t i o n s th a t M arx called
'orien tal despotism ,’ a genre to w hich all th e g iant A sian em pires, old and
new, belong. In th a t genre, an aristocracy a n d princes w ith absolute power
reigned over a largely hom ogeneous peasantry th a t varied little from one
204 I PANNEKOEKANDTHEWORKERS’COUNCILS
region to an o th er. Equally im p o rtan t, they also h a d full control of co^mmerce,

which, though relatively m odest, was im p o rta n t at this prim itive stage.
Despite freq u en t changes o f m asters, w hich in no way altered the basic
structure, th e sam e m ode of p ro d u ctio n continued u n altered for thousands of
years. W estern E uropean cap ital has b u rst upon these countries as a
disruptive factor, bringing ab o u t th e ir overthrow an d im poverishm ent, a n d
the su b ju g atio n a n d exploitation of th eir masses . . . .
“A lthough Ru&ia has been n u m b e re d am ong the large w orld powers since
1700, it too has becom e a colony of E u ro p ean c ap ita l. Its co ntacts w ith
E urope, often warlike, m ade it choose the sam e ro ad th a t w ould later on be
followed by Persia a n d C hina. Before the last w ar, 70 percent of th e iron
industry, m ost of the railways, 90 percent of platinum production, and 75
percent of petroleum extraction were in the hands of E uropean capitalists. 20
F urtherm ore, the e n o ^ o u s debts of the czarist state forced the E uropean
capitalists to squeeze th e Russian peasants alm ost to the p o in t of starvation.
W hile the working class in Russia lab o red u n d e r working conditions sim ilar to
those in W estern E u ro p e -w h e n c e the em ergence of a proletarian com m unity
with revolutionary M arxist id e a s - th e ir econom ic situation as a whole m ade
the country still just the m ost western of A sian lands.
“T h e Russian R evolution m arks the b eginning of the great A sian revolt
against W estern E uropean capitalism , co n cen trated in England.21 As a
general rule, W estern Europe has been interested only in the reactions of the
W est to this revolution, in w hich Russian revolutionaries, because of their
high level of theoretical developm ent, have becom e the educators of a
proletariat aspiring tow ard com m unism . B ut th e revolution’s effects in the
East are m ore im p o rta n t still, an d th a t is why the policy of the Soviet
R epublic is governed by A siatic considerations as m uch, or nearly so, as by
E uropean. From Moscow, w here A siatic delegations arrive one after another,
there issues a constant caU for lib eratio n , for th e peoples’ right to
self-determ ination, a n d for co n stan t struggle against E uropean capitalism
thro u g h o u t th e whole of Asia . . . .
“T h e A siatic cause is th e cause o f hum anity. In Russia, in C hina an d in the
20. For statistical data showing that the essential sectors of pre-1914 Ruîan industry were
largely in the hands of foreign capital and that foreign banking capital had penetrated into all
domains there, see Peter Lyaschchenko, History of the National Economy of Rusia to the 1917
Revolution (New York, 1949), pp. 712-17.
21. Such sentiments were also repeatedly expreêd by Lenin. For instance, at Zurich in 1917,
he said: “The 1905 Revolution not only signified the awakening of the biggerst and most
backward of the Asian countries ... ; it also set all of Asia ablaze.” Cited by Stanley Page,
“Lenin; Prophet of World Revolution from the East," The Rusun Review, XI, April 1952; cf.
also the collection edited by Stuart Schramm and H6l£ne Carrifcre d’Encauwe, Le Marx^m et
I'Asie (Paris, 1965), pp. 170-94.
Indies, in the Russo-Siberian p la in an d in th e fertile valleys of the Ganges an d

th e Y angtse-K iang, are 800 m illion people, m o re th a n h a lf the e a rth ’s
popu latio n , alm ost th ree tim es as m any as in E urope. O utside Russia, the
revolution is g e m in a tin g everywhere: on th e one h an d , m ajor strikes are
b reak in g o u t in towns w here th e industrial p ro le ta ria t a re penned up, such as
B om bay a n d H angkow ; on th e o th e r h an d , n atio n a l m ovem ents led by
intellectuals a re em erging b u t a re still weak. As fa r as one can ju d g e from the
sparse i n f o ^ a t i o n th a t th e English press allows to filter th ro u g h , the W orld
W ar has greatly facilitated n atio n al m ovem ents, even though they are still
violently repressed, w hile industry is u n dergoing such a level o f developm ent
th a t A m erican gold is copiously flowing in to the F ar East. T h e wave of
economic crises, w hen it reaches these c o u n tr ie s - it seems to have already
reached J a p a n - w ill provoke a fresh o u tb re a k of conflict there. It may be
questioned, therefore, w hether support should b e given to the purely
nationalist movements in Asia, w hich aim a t restoring a capitalist regime an d
w hich a re opposed to m ovem ents to free th e proletariat. However, it is
p ro b ab le th a t this developm ent will tak e a different course. U p to now, the
em erging intellectual class has certainly d ra w n its inspiration from E uropean
nationalism , an d , inasm u ch as it is com posed o f ideologists of the nascent
native bourgeoisie, it p ropagates the idea o f a bourgeois-national gove^rnment
m odeled after the W estern type. B ut this ideal is losing its a ttrac tio n as
E urope declines; an d doubtless th e intellectuals are b o u n d to feel strongly the
influence of R ussian bolshevism, th ereb y will b e led to jo in th e p ro letarian
m ovem ent o f strikes a n d insurrections. 22 T hus, sooner perhaps th a n one
m igh t suppose, th e A siatic m ovem ents o f n atio n al liberation will a d o p t a
com m unist outlook an d a c o m m ^ u st program , on the solid m aterial basis
offered by th e class struggle o f workers an d peasants against th e barbarous
oppression th a t w orld capital is exercising over them . 23
22. is an allusion to two articles published in German in Vorbote on April 2, 1916:
Radek's “Theses on Imperialism and Oppresion"; and Lenin's "The Socialist Revolution and the
Right of Peoples." We shall return to this question shortly.
23. Rudi Dutschke, La Revolte des dtudiants allemands (Paris, 1968), pp. 95-96, cited in a
flippant way certain lines from the end of this section, omitting among other things any reference
to the links between inteUectuals and the bourgeoisie in the national liberation wars in
underdeveloped countries. According to him, Pannekoek's analysis remains "descriptive” while
taking on a “prophetic" aspect. And Dutschke comments on this as follows: “This pa&age
vaguely outlines the need for a prolonged cultural evolution, especially in the highly developed
countries of Central Europe, as a prelude to a poffiible revolutionization of the whole of society.”
Then, after having cited long extracts from an article by Lenin on the emergence of the
revolution in Asia, he adds in connection with the Bolshevik leader: "One searches his work in
vain for an ûwer to the very e&ential questions posed by the need to transfo^ the consciousnes
of the European proletariat." One could not find a clearer example of what has separated
Rusian Bolshevism from Western European Communism.
“T h e fact th a t these societies are mostly peasant does not pose an in-
s u ^ o u n ta b le obstacle, any m ore th a n it did in Russia. T h e com m unist
collectivity does not foirm a dense netw ork o f m a n u factu rin g towns, for the
capitalist division betw een industrial a n d ag ricu ltural areas does not exist in
R ussia; o n th e contrary, agriculture m ust occupy a m ajor position there. No
d oub t, th e p redom inance of th e agricu ltu ral sector m akes the revolution
m ore difficult, since th e necessary m e n ta l attitu des are not quite as strong
am ong th e peasants as the p ro le ta ria t. C ertainly, therefore, a longer period of
political an d spiritual upheavals will be required. In these countries the
difficulties are com pletely different from those fo u nd in E urope. M ore passive
th a n active, they are less concerned w ith th e effort of resistance th a n they are
w ith th e delay in th e f o ^ a t i o n o f th e hom ogeneous force req u ired to rout the
foreign exploiter. W e shall n o t dwell h ere on th eir specific tra its: religious
and n a tio n a l divisions in th e Indies, or th e petty-bourgeois c h a ra c te r of
C hin a. In w hatever way the p o litical a n d econom ic f o ^ s develop, the basic
and prelim inary problem is to end th e d o m ination o f E uropean and
A m erican capital.
“T h e g reat task of th e workers of W estern E urope and the U nited States,
united w ith the Asian m ultitudes, is to accom plish the final destruction of the
capitalist system. T his task now is only in its beginning stages. W hen the
G e ^ a n revolution has tak en a decisive tu m a n d has successfully joined
R ussia; when th e wars o f th e revolutionary masses break o u t in E ngland and
in A m erica; a n d w hen th e Indies are in the grip o f insurrection; when
com m unism extends from th e R hine to the In d ian O cean — th e n the world
revolution will en ter into its most violent phase. T h e English bourgeoisie,
m asters of th e w orld, supported by th eir vassals in the League o f N ations and
by their Japanese an d A m erican allies, will find themselves attacked both
from w ithin a n d from w ithout. In th e colonies, upheavals and wars of
liberation will th re a te n its hegemony, w hile a t th e center, its power will be
paralyzed by strikes an d civil w ar. E ngland will b e com pelled to m obilize all
its forces an d to raise a ^ i e s o f m ercenaries in o rd er to hold o u t against these
two enemies. W h en th e English w orking class, vigorously supported by the
rest of th e E uropean proletariat, moves to th e offensive, it will fight in two
ways for com m unism —by opening u p th e way to com m unism in England,
and by helping Asia em an cip ate itself. In re tu rn , it can count on the support
of the com m unist forces w hen th e bourgeois m ercenaries a tte m p t to dro-wn
the p ro letariat's struggle in b l o o d - f o r W estern Europe, including G reat
B ritain, is simply a large, island-like extension o f the im m ense Russo-Asian
geographical unit. It is th ro u g h th e com m on struggle against capitalism th a t
the p ro letarian masses of the w orld will b e united. A nd on the day when, after
m any difficult struggles, th e exhausted E uropean workers at last see the

ra d ia n t daw n o f L iberty, they will be greeted from the East by the
em an cip ated peoples o f Asia. At th e cen ter o f everything will be Moscow,
capital of th e new h u m an ity .”
Postscript
“D r a ^ u p in A pril, th e preceding reflections were sent to Russia so th a t
they m ight influence some of th e decisions to be m ade by the Executive
C om m ittee an d th e Congress of th e Com m unist In tern atio n al. Since then, the
Moscow executive an d th e R ussian leadership have w holeheartedly rallied to
opportunism , thus insuring th e dom inance o f this tendency d u rin g the
Second Congress o f th e C om m unist In tern atio n al.
"T his policy was first applied in G e ^ a n y , where R adek becam e its most
zealous advocate. I t consisted of im posing o n th e G erm an c o m m u n ists-o v e r
w hom he exercised control th ro u g h th e leadership o f th e G erm an Com m unist
P arty (K P D ) - h is tactics o f p arliam en tarian ism and o f support for the tra d e
u n ion federation. T h e effect o f this was to divide an d weaken th e m ovem ent.
Since R adek has becom e secretary o f th e executive, this policy has becom e
th a t o f this organ as a whole. A lthough fruitleK thus far, the attem pts to
persuade th e In d ep en d en ts to a tta c h them selves to Moscow have been
pursu ed w ith th e utm ost vigor. O n th e other hand, the an ti-p arliam en tarian
m em bers of th e G e ^ a n Com m unist W orkers Party (KAPD) have been
tre a te d in a com pletely different way, alth o u g h it cannot b e d o u b ted th a t
they naturally belong w ith th e C om m unist In tern atio n al. T h e K APD, it was
said, h a d taken positions against th e T h ird In te rn atio n al in all im p o rtan t
m atters, and it was ad m itted as a m em b er only on certain conditions. T h e
auxiliary b u re a u in A m sterdam , w hich was once looked upon as its equivalent
and treated as such, has been reduced to silence. 24 Talks have begun with
24. This auxiliary (or provisional) bureau was set up in January 1920 at the initiative of the
executive of the Communist International (and of Radek) to serve as a liason among the various
groups or parties of Western Europe and America that claimed membership in the Int^âtional.
Its objectives were to serve as a regional propaganda center, to publish a theoretical organ, and to
organize exchanges at the regional level. Due to a lack of funds, only the last of these objectives
was achieved. In addition, an international conference was held in Amsterdam in February 1920,
but the police intervened and the assembly had to disperse. Cf. James Hulse. The Filming of the
Intei^tional (Stamford, 1964), pp. 152-60. The leadership of the bureau (Wijnkoop,
Roland-Holst and Rutgers) was up to its neck in the controversy within the Dutch Communist
Party between the majority parliêntarian sector led by the deputies Wijnkoop and Ravest^m
(who had the upper hand in the editorship of De Tribune) and the partisans of the council fo ^ .
Cf. van Ravesteyn, op. cit. ; and H. Gorter, Het opportun^me in die N.C.P. (Amsterdam, 1921).
The Bureau's first and only Bulletin published "Theses on Parliamentarianism,” whose author
could easily have been Rutgers. According to these theses, parliamentary action is useful for
propaganda, but not in a revolutionary period, when Parliament "can serve only as a rallying
delegates of th e center o f th e French Socialist P arty with a view to their

admission.25 A ccording to Lenin, the English com m unists should n o t only
take p a rt in th e legislative elections, b u t also jo in th e L abor P a r t y - a political
association affiliated w ith th e Second In tern atio n al an d with the m ajority of
the re a c tio n tra d e u n io n leaders as its m em bers. T hese various options show
the d ete:m in atio n of th e Russian leaders to establish close relations with the
workers' organizations of W estern E urope, even th o u g h they are n o t yet
com m unist. W hile th e rad ical com m unists still try to enlighten the masses
and to inculcate revolutionary ideas in them through a vigorous and
principled struggle against all bourgeois, social-patriotic and w avering
tendencies, th e leaders of th e In tern atio n al are trying to win them over en
masse, w ith o u t d e m a n d in g th a t they fu n d am en tally revise th eir basic ideas.26
“T h e Russian Bolsheviks, who only recently were actively advocating
radical tactics, have therefore tak en a position squarely opposed to th a t of the
rad ic a l com m unists of W estern E urope. This em erges notably an d clearly in
L enin’s recent p am p h le t: L e ft-W in g C o m m u n ism : A n Infa n tile Disorder.
T h e im p o rtan ce of this p am p h let lies in th e statu re of its a u th o r ra th e r th a n
in its content, since th ere is little new in th e argum ents p u t forw ard; for the
most p a rt, they a re identical to th e ones others have long been using. T h e
novelty lies in the fact th a t L enin is now espousing them . T h e re is no need,
therefore, to refu te th em . T h e ir basic erro r lies in establishing a sim ilarity
betw een th e conditions prevailing in W estern E u ro p e -p a rtie s , organizations,
p arliam en tary activities, etc. - a n d th a t w hich in R u ^ ia goes by the sam e
names. W h at all of this points to, o f course, is the crystalization o f a
p articu lar policy.
“As can readily be seen, th e needs of th e Soviet R epublic lie a t the basis of
this policy.” U nderstandably, Russia, ru in ed by civil w ar, is seeking a political
and economic m odus vivendi w ith th e W est. B ut it is the In ternational's task
to prep are for th e p ro letarian revolution th ro u ghout the whole world. It
should th erefore be in d ep en d en t of th e Soviet gove^rnment; b u t instead, the
Intern atio n al is its instru m en t. “R a th e r th a n c o u n tin g on a radical
point for the bourgeoisie.” The “theses on the trade union movement” came out in favor of
revolutionary trade unions and of wildcat strikes against the workers' bureaucracy, but looked to
factory councils rather than a federation of trade unions as the basis of a new socialist society.
25. Two prominent social-patriots, Frossard and Cachin, went to Moscow on a negotiating
minion at the time of the Congres. The merger was to be approved shortly afterwards at the
Touis Congres in December 1920.
26. For example, the famous 21 "conditions for the admiraion of parties into the Communist
International," adopted at the Second Congress, extols parliamentary and trade union action
and is drawn up so as to eliminate certain persons; in fact, it contains no features that were not
already contained in the programs of clauical Social Democracy, the only difference being in
their more “leftist" rhetoric.
com m unist p a rty w orking tow ard a fu tu re revolution, Moscow w ants to be

able to rely o n a large organized p ro letarian force capable o f intervening on
its b e h a lf now and of b ringing pressure o n th e ir respective governm ents.
"H ence it is advocating in W estern E urope a policy th a t does not too
b latan tly contradict th e trad itio n al ideas a n d m ethods of th e larg e mass
organizations," one th a t favors the com ing to pow er o f leftist gove^rnments,
w ith p articip atio n of tra d e unions and of th e C om m unist P arty u n d er the
aegis o f "a n organization of councils on th e R u ^ ia n m odel. . . . T h e task of
com m unism is to uncover th e forces an d th e tendencies th a t seek to stop th e
revolution m idw ay; to show to th e m a ^ e s th e way to forge a h e a d , th e way to
reach , th ro u g h im passioned conflict, th e u ltim ate goal o f undivided pow er;
to arouse the energies o f th e p ro letariat a n d to d eepen the revolutionary
course. A nd it can do all this only if, h ere an d now, it opposes th e tendencies
to subject itself to th e power of th e leaders . . . .
"If one accepts th e perspective of im m ediate protection of Soviet R u ^ ia,
one inevitably accepts this p a rtic u la r idea o f th e world revolution (seizure of
pow er by th e workers' leaders whose sym pathies are w ith the Soviet U nion). In
effect, if o th e r E uropean countries have political systems sim ilar to
R u ^ ia 's - n a m e ly , d o m in atio n by a workers' b u reaucracy based on a system
of c o u n c ils - it will be possible to keep im perialism in check, a t least in
Europe. Russia, su rro u n d ed by friendly workers' republics, would th e n be
able to p ursue in peace its econom ic construction in the direction of
com m unism . H ence, w hat we re g a rd only as i n t e ^ e d i a t e an d inadequate
f o ^ s to be vigorously opposed is regarded by Moscow as th e full realization of
the p ro letarian revolution, th e suprem e purpose of com m unist policy.
" . . . If those in pow er in R u ^ ia fraternize w ith the W estern European
workers’ b u re a u c ra c y -c o rru p te d by its situation, its opposition to the
masses, its com prom ise w ith th e bourgeois w o r l d - a n d becom e im pregnated
with its spirit, th e force th a t is draw ing Russia tow ard com m unism will
evaporate. A nd sim ilarly, if this group o f leaders relies on the peasant
proprietors ra th e r th a n on th e workers, th e re is a danger th a t bourgeois-
ag rarian fo:m s will develop, causing th e w orld revolution to stagnate. 27
T h e source of this stag n atio n lies in th e fact th a t the political system in
Russia, w hich represents th e transitory f o ^ of th e ro a d tow ard com
27. It wiU be seen here that Pannekoek envisions a "degeneration" of the Soviet leaders
through contact with and imitation of the traditional workers' movement and its chiefs. This
hypothesis is diametrically opposed to all the judgments reached by observers of all persuasions
since then. Without, of course, being able to measure the extent of such a counter-influence, one
can trace some real indication of it at the level both of the Communist International and the
Communist Party (not to mention the ideological level), particularly in the early 1920s, a period
in which the distinctive traits of clasical Marxist-Leninism were taking shape.
210 I PANNEKOEK AND THE WO^RKERS' COUNCILS
m u n is m - a n d which has n o t yet developed into a full-fledged bureau-

c racy -sig n ifies in W estern E urope a decidedly reactionary obstacle to
revolution. W e have already strew ed th a t such a ‘workers' governm ent' is
incapable of arousing the energy d e m a n d e d for the construction of
com m unism . B u t since, after th e revolution, th e m iddle an d lower m iddle
classes (allied w ith the peasants) will still hold an in o rd in ate am o u n t o f
p o w e r - a situation very d ifferen t from th a t in Ru&ia after the O ctober
R e v o lu tio n -th e reaction wiU have every o pportunity to sabotage even the
smallest efforts a t construction, while th e p ro letarian masses, for th eir p art,
will have to redouble their efforts to b reak away from this system . . . . ”
C H A PT E R N IN E
COM M UNISM AND N A T IO N A L L IB E R A T IO N
T e n years (but w hat yearsi) separate the w riting o f Tactical Differences

from th a t of C om m unist Tactics. T en years before, Pannekoek, like all the
in tern atio n al L eft, believed it was possible to fight revisionism by radical
tactics. Now, however, facts showed th a t this strategy belonged to a cu rren t
th at was seeking to gain pow er by im posing o n W estern Europe th e old
m ethods o f s tr u g g le - i.e ., p arliam en tary an d trad e union action, b o th of
which were products o f th e lack of solidarity a n d the spiritu al weakness o f the
p ro letariat. O n this basis, Pannekoek could p redict th a t the policy o f a
“workers' gove^rnment” (or th e P o p u lar F ro n t, as it was later called) was
doom ed to im potence an d failure, and, in fact, th a t it would on occasion help
d i^ ip a te revolutionary forces.
A no th er prognosis o f th e highest im p o rtan ce concerned Russia and, in a
m ore general way, th e Asia countries. T h e revolt against foreign capital, he
said, broad en in g his 1909 views, would h enceforth be ex tended to the
bourgeois intellectuals w ith socialist leanings, b u t this expansion w ould
depen d on th e course tak en by th e p ro le ta ria n revolution in W estern Europe
and A m erica. In R ussia, th e backw ardness o f th e country neceârily entailed
the em ergence of a bureau cracy in th e state a n d in industry th a t fused w ith
th e o ld b u r e a u c r a c y . F ro m th is w as c o n s titu te d a n in d e p e n d e n t
adm inistrative m achinery, a leadership pow er based o n the system o f co u n
cils. w hich, in o rd er to survive, h a d to com prom ise w ith the capitalist pow
ers. H ence, w hile m a in ta in in g th e unity o f th e C om m unist In ternational,
the policy pursu ed in W estern E urope h a d to be free o f the least interference
from Moscow. F u r t h e ^ o r e , th e fate o f th e revolution, the destiny o f the
contem porary w orld, depended on th e masses' initiative, w hich it was the
Com m unist P arty ’s mi& ion to express an d to stim ulate, an d not to deflect into
actions decided from “above.” T his “above” represented a body of
professionals com m itted to achieving a com prom ise betw een the classes on th e
basis o f im m ediate forces a n d by m eans of specialized p r o c e d u r e s - in
P arliam en t, in th e a rb itra tio n of la b o r disputes, in m unicipal councils, in a
host o f adm inistrative services. Needless to say, its o ^ specific interests carried
a certain weight in th e m easures th a t it un d erto o k in the nam e of its “electors.”
Such was th e twofold criticism th a t Pannekoek would henceforth m ake of

Social D em ocracy’s basic prem ise (and therefore equally th at o f W estern
E uropean Leninism and, for th a t m a tte r o f every exploitative society):
“Someone m ust le a d .” A nd Pannekoek w ould not base his critique on a
p o p u lar policy, as a defender o f a rival th ird party, b u t he w ould argue in
t e ^ s of the new organizational f o ^ s th a t h a d em erged d u rin g the great
revolutionary crisis o f th e first half o f this century.
T h ere is one fu rth e r poin t th a t should be m entioned here, even th o u g h it is
only indirectly connected. Pannekoek was aw are o f the differences am ong the
left-Zim m erw aldians over the n a tio n a l question, yet he did not e n te r directly
into the controversy. A t m ost, he em phasized a little earlier th a t the
independence o f the Indies was som ething th a t the C om m unists should
dem and.
T h e G e ^ a n left (L uxem burg, K nief, an d others), convinced th a t the era
of the bourgeois n atio n al liberation wars was over, m ain tain ed th a t in the fu
ture th e only th in g th a t counted was th e class struggle for socialism. W h a t had
Pannekoek an d his friend G orter to say ab o u t this? Early in 1918, Gorter
w rote: “T h e nations arden tly aspire to real s e lf-d e te ^ in a tio n . B ut however
cruel this m ay seem, th e realization o f this right, u n le » it is subordinated to
socialism, can be expressed only in im perialism . C apitalism , an d in particu lar
im perialism , can n o t effectively resolve th e problem o f nations. Some nations
m ay a tta in independence, b u t in th a t case th e sm all nations becom e the stake
in a conflict betw een the g reat nations, o r o f the small nations am ong
themselves, w hich seek to subjugate or annex th em . ”
However, G orter very carefully ad ded th e following footnote: “W ith regard
to the rig h t to s e lf-d e te ^ in a tio n , a decided distinction m ust be m ade
betw een W estern a n d E astern E urope, o n the one h an d , a n d A sian countries
an d th e colonies, o n th e other. ” 1 In th e theses w hich L enin published in
Vorbote, he rem ark ed ab o u t a p am p h let o n im perialism th a t G o rter had just
p u b lish ed : "G o rter errs w hen he denies th e principle o f national
s e lf-d e te ^ in a tio n , b u t he correctly applies this principle w hen he dem ands
the im m ediate ‘political a n d national independence' o f the D utch Indies an d
u^nmasks th e D u tch opp o rtu n ists who are refusing to f o ^ u l a t e this dem and
an d to fight for it.” 2
Lenin, w ith his em inently p ractical m ind, thus clearly highlighted the basic
divergence: w hat to him was a position o f principle was in no way so for the
1. H. Gorter, Die Wereldravolutie (Amsterdam, undated), p. 30.

2. Lenin, "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination,” Works,
XXII, p. 164.
COMMUNISMAND NATIONAL LIBERATION I 213
W estern E uropean Com m unists. A ccording to them , the slogan of

self-determ ination cam e from one im perialist group w anting to plunder
anoth er, 3 an d therefore created confusion; or it cam e from a ria n g do m inant
class, in w hich case it could be historically progressive (as can be inferred
from their analysis of the situation in Asia). B ut it was not there that the
im po rtan ce lay, at least in reg ard to the developed industrial world centers of
Europe an d A m erica.
L enin once contended th a t his theses established w ith p a rticu la r clarity the
connection betw een th e question of self-determ ination an d the general
question of the struggle for dem ocratic refo m is.” 4 Now, at this general level,
a decisive questio n o f p rin cip le was involved: the W estern E uropean
com m unists were rejecting, once an d for all, the idea o f su b o rd in atin g the
proletarian class struggle to p ractical r e f o ^ s to be achieved only by
p arliam en tary action.
Unlike the classical Social D em ocrats, they m ade n o secret o f th eir
sym pathy for th e national liberation m ovem ents in the colonies (m ovem ents
still alm ost non-existent in this period); b u t confined active solidarity with the
colonized nations to the fram ew ork o f the class struggle since this solidarity in
itself did n o t at all constitute a significant force in this struggle.
A t the level of theoretical analysis, G orter clearly distinguishes between the
colonies’ prospects for n atio n al em an cip atio n and those th at existed in the
m ajor A sian countries. Twenty-five years later, Pannekoek's “W orkers’
Councils” m akes this sam e distinction b u t in a changed context: “W hen
socialism grew up , h a lf a century ago, th e general expectation was th a t th e
liberation of th e colonial peoples w ould take place together w ith th e
liberatio n of th e workers. T h e colonies th e re a n d th e w orkers here were
exploited by the sam e c a p ita lism ; so they were allies in the fight against the
com m on foe. It is tru e th at their fight for freedom did n o t m ean freedom for
the entire people; it m eant the rise of a new ru lin g class. B ut even th en it was
com m only accepted, w ith only occasional doubts, th a t th e working class in
Europe an d th e rising bourgeoisie in the colonies should be allies. For the
C om m unist P arty this was still m ore self-evident; it m ea n t th a t the new ruling
class o f Russia looked u p o n the future ru lin g classes in the colonies as its
n a tu ra l friends, and trie d to help th em ." A t th a t tim e, however, Pannekoek
says in effect th a t the forces o p erating in favor o f th e liberation o f th e colonies
were very weak.
3. Anton Pannekoek, in Wilson.sche Programm (Vienna, 1919). sees in self

determination “the ideological garb of the world domination of Anglo-American capital,"
but makes no allusion to the right of self-detennination as such.
4. Lenin, Works, XXIII, p. 10.
214 I P ^ A N K O E K AND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
"T h e essence o f colonial policy is ex ploitation o f foreign countries while

preserving th e ir prim itive fo:rms o f p ro d u ctio n o r even low ering their
productivity. H ere capital is n o t a revolutionary a g en t developing production
to hig h er fo:rms; ju st th e reverse. E uropean capital is here a dissolving agent,
destroying th e old modes o f work a n d life w ithout replacing them by b etter
techniques. E uro p ean cap ital, like a vam pire, clasps the defenseleK tropical
peoples an d sucks th eir lifeblood w ithout c a rin g w hether th e victims
succum b . . . .
“T h e W estern bourgeoisie considers its ru le over the colonies a n a tu ra l an d
lasting state o f things, idealizing it in to a division o f tasks p ro fitab le to both
parties. T h e energetic intelligent race from th e cool climes, it says, serves as
the leaders o f p ro d u ctio n , w hereas the lazy, careless colored races execute
u n d e r their co m m an d th e unintelligent m an u al labor. T h u s the tropical
products, indispensable raw m aterials a n d im p o rtant delicacies, are inserted
into th e world's co^mmerce. A nd E uro p ean cap ital wins its well deserved
profits because by its governm ent it g u a ra n te e d to th e fatalistic aborigines
security, peace an d , by its m edical service a n d hygienic m easures, health, too.
Suppose this idyll o f a p a te rn a l governm ent, honest illusion o r deceptive talk
o f theorists an d officials, was tru e even though in reality it is impossible u n d e r
capitalist rule, th en still it w ould b e faced w ith an insoluble dilem m a: I f by
the cewation o f wars, epidem ics a n d in fan t m ortality th e population
increases, th e re results a shortage o f arab le la n d n o tw ithstanding all the
irrigatio n a n d reclaim ing, th e conflict is only delayed. Industrialization for
export, p roperly speaking an u n n a tu ra l way o u t for the m ost fertile lands, can
give only tem porary relief. Every p o p u latio n th a t is ru led from above m ust
arrive a t such a state if left to its own instincts. Every econom ic system
develops its o-wn system o f p o p u latio n increase. If a n au tocratic rule from
above suppresses th e feelings o f responsibility, th e n any active force of
self-restraint a n d self-rule over th e conditions o f life is extinguished. T h e
im pending clash betw een th e pop u latio n increase an d the restriction o f m eans
of subsistence can fin d its solution only in a stro n g display o f in n e r energy a n d
will-power a m o n g a people, consequence o f its self-reliance a n d freedom , or
of a n active fig h t fo r freedom .
“In th e la tte r p a rt o f th e 19th century an d thereafter it is n o t the
com m ercial cap ital in the first place th a t exploits th e colonies . . . . In In dia,
in such towns as B om bay, a claw o f rich m erchants also take p a rt an d
constitute th e burgeonings o f a m o d e m In d ia n bourgeoisie. T his In d ian
industry consists alm ost exclusively o f textile facto ries; a n d o f all the textile
goods consum ed in In d ia, nearly 60 percent is im ported from E ngland an d
Ja p a n , 20 p ercen t com es from th e cottage industry, a n d only 20 percent is
COMMUNISM AND NATIONALLIBERATION I 215
provided by In d ia n factories. Yet to exhibit a n d introduce aspects o f m odern

work a n d life is sufficient inspiration for a n ationalist m ovem ent to throw off
th e yoke o f th e W estern rulers. Its spokesm en a re th e intellectuals, especially
younger ones, w ho are acq uainted w ith W estern science, a n d who, in o rd er to
oppose it, study a n d em phasize w ith strong conviction their own national
c u ltu re . . . . T h e m ovem ent, o f course, is still too weak to throw off the
dom ination o f W estern capitalism . W ith th e rise o f capitalist factories there
also arises a class o f in d u strial workers w ith extrem ely low wages an d an
incredibly low sta n d a rd o f living! Strikes have o cc u rred against In d ia n as well
as E u ro p ean em ployers. B u t co m p ared with th e im m ense p opulation, all this
is a n insignificant start, im p o rta n t only as in d ication o f fu tu re developm ent.
"W ith the present w orld war, colonial exploitation a n d th e problem of
liberatio n acquire a new aspect. A fight for independence in its old m eaning
has n o longer any chance against th e eno:rmously increasing pow er of
capitalism . O n th e o th e r h a n d , it is likely th a t, from now on, w orld capital
u n d e r A m erican hegem ony will act as a revolutionary agent. By a m ore
ratio n al system o f ex p loitation of these hundreds o f millions o f people, capital
wiU b e able to increase its profits considerably—by following a n o th e r way
th a n th e previous prim itive im poverishing m ethods o f plu n d er, by raising
la b o r in th e colonies to a h ig h er level o f productivity, by better techniques, by
im provem ent o f traffic, by investing m o re cap ital, by social regulations an d
p ro g re ^ in education. All o f this is n o t possible w ithout according a large
am o u n t of independence or a t least self-rule to the colonies.
"Self-rule o f th e colonies, o f In d ia, a n d o f th e M alayan islands, has already
been announced. It m eans th a t E uropean parliam ents a n d viceroys c a n no
longer rule th e colonies despotically. I t does n o t m ean th at politically the
w orking masses will be th e ir own masters, th a t as free producers they will
dispose o f th eir m eans o f pro d u ctio n . Self-rule relates only to the u p per cla&es
o f these colonies; n o t only will they be inserted into the lower ranks o f
adm inistration, b u t they will occupy th e leading places, assisted o f course by
w hite advisers an d experts, to en su re th a t cap ital interests are properly served.
A lready from th e u p p e r cla&es o f In d ia a ra th e r large group o f intellectuals
has em erged, q u ite cap ab le as ru lin g officials o f m odernizing political an d
social life.
“T o characterize m odern capitalist p ro d u ctio n as a system w herein the
workers by th eir own free responsibility a n d will-power are driven to the
utm ost exertion, th e expression was often used th a t a free w orker is no coolie.
T h e problem o f Asia now is to m ake the coolie a free worker. In C hina, the
process is taking its co u rse; there th e workers o f olden tim es possessed a strong
individualism . In tropical countries it will be m uch m ore difficult to
216 / PANNEKOEK AND THEWORKERS1COUNCILS
t r a n s f o ^ th e passive d o ^ t r o d d e n masses, kept in deep ignorance an d

superstition by heavy oppression, in to active, skilled workers capable of
han d lin g th e m o d em productive a p p a ra tu s an d forces. T h u s capital is faced
w ith m an y problem s. M odernization o f th e gove^rnment a p p a ra tu s th ro u g h
self-rule is necessary, but m ore is need ed : the possibility of social a n d spiritual
organization an d progress, based on political a n d social rights a n d liberties,
on solid general instruction. W hether world cap ital will be able a n d willing to
follow this course cannot be foreseen. If it does, th e n th e working classes of
these countries will be cap ab le o f in d ep en d en t fighting for th eir class interests
and for freedom along with th e W estern workers.
“To all th e peoples a n d tribes living in prim itive fo ^n s o f p ro d uction in
Africa, in Asia, in A ustralia, it will, o f course, m ean a n entire change o f the
world, w hen th e working claK will have an n ih ilated capitalism . Instead of as
hard exploiting m asters an d cruel tyrants, the w hite race will come to them as
friends to h elp them an d to teach them how to take p a rt in the progressing
developm ent o f h u m a n ity .” 5
T hus, according to Pannekoek, th e colonies as late as 1947 were not
capab le o f lib eratin g themselves by their o ^ m eans. O f course, a
subcontinent such as In d ia h a d some ch an ce o f in itiatin g a really new stage of
its developm ent, capab le o f engendering a com plete overthrow of outm oded
a ttitu d e s ; b u t, in every respect, all this was still rem ote a n d depended on the
developm ent o f W estern capitalism . As for th e o th e r countries, everything
seem ed to in d icate th at these prospects, however tenuous, were closed to
them . If salvation was to be, it h a d to com e from th e w orkers of the W est. 6
B ut C h in a —both because o f th e historical weakneK of th e trad itional
“bourgeoisie" an d because o f th e p ressure o f the peasant m a s s e s - in all
probability is ab o u t to have a t its h ead a n exploiting class capable o f leading
it out o f its age-old backw ardness: "T h e C hinese C om m unist Party, a n d still
m ore th e R ed A ^ y , however, consists o f rebellious peasants. N ot th e nam e
stuck on a label outside, b u t th e claw c h a ra c ter d e t e ^ i n e s th e real co n te n t o f
th ou g h t an d actio n . . . . T o th e red leaders th e ideal o f the fu tu re was a
dem ocratic m iddle-class C hina, w ith free peasants as o ^ e r s , o r a t least
well-to-do f a c e r s of th e soil. U n d er C om m unist ideas an d slogans they were
the h eralds an d cham pions o f th e cap italist developm ent o f C hina . . ..
“T h e ideals a n d aims for which th e working masses o f C hina are fighting
wiU, o f course, n o t be realized. L a n d o ^ e r s , exploitation an d poverty will not
d isappear; w hat disappears a re th e old stag n an t prim itive f o ^ s of misery,
5. Anton Pannekoek, Workers' Councils, op. cit., pp. 195-200.

6. Cf. Franz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (New York, 1968). Of course, it would be
wrong to exaggerate the parallel between the European left-Marxist and the African nationalist.
COMMUNISM AND NATIONAL LIBERATION I 217
usury an d o p p re ^ io n . T h e productivity o f labor will be e n h a n c e d ; th e new

f o ^ s o f direct exploitation by industrial ca p ita l will replace th e old ones.
T h e problem s facing Chinese capitalism will require central regulations by a
pow erful governm ent. T h a t m eans f o ^ s of dictatorship in th e central
governm ent, p erh ap s com plem ented by dom estic fo^ns of autonom y in the
sm all units o f district a n d village. T h e introduction of m echanical force into
agricu ltu re requires th e conjunction of th e sm all lots into large production
u n its; w hether by g rad u al expropriation o f th e small peasants, or by th e
found atio n of cooperatives or kolchozes a fte r th e R u ^ ia n m odel, will depend
on th e relative pow er of th e contending classes. T his developm ent will not go
on w ithout pro d u cin g deep changes in th e economic, a n d thereby in th e social
relations, th e sp iritu a l life a n d th e old fam ily structure. T h e dimensions,
however, of things there, of th e country, o f th e population, o f its misery, of its
traditions, o f its old c u ltu ra l life a re so colossal, th a t to c h an g e conditions,
even if it's done with th e utm ost energy, will take m any dozens of years.
"T h e intensity of this developm ent o f econom ic conditions will stir the
energies an d stim u late th e activity o f th e classes. T h e fight against capitalism
will arise sim ultaneously w ith capitalism . T h e fight o f th e industrial workers
will spring u p with th e grow th o f factories. A n d in C hina, w ith th e strong
spirit of organization an d great solidarity s h o ^ so often by th e Chinese
proletarian s a n d artisans, a pow erful w orking class m ovem ent m ay be
expected to arise m o re quickly th a n in E urope. T o be sure, th e industrial
w orkers will rem ain a m inority co m p ared w ith the mass o f th e ag rarian
po p u latio n , w hich is equally subjected to cap italist exploitation, th o u g h in
different ways. T h e m echanization of ag ricu ltu re, however, will weave strong
ties betw een th em , m anifesting itself in th e com m unity o f interests an d fights.
So th e c h a ra c ter o f th e fight for freedom a n d m astery in m any regards m ay
take on different aspects in China than in W estern E urope a n d A m erica.” 1
7. Anton Pannekoek, Workers’ Councils, op. cit.. pp. 193-95.

CHAPTER TEN
T H E C O U N C IL ST A T E
Pannekoek saw n o n eed to reply specifically to L enin’s pam phlet,

L e ft-W ing C om m unism : A n Infa n tile Disorder, since, as h e rightly
emphasized, it contained n o new line o f arg u m en t. B ut G orter d id discu& it,
in his O pen Letter to L enin. 1 W e need n o t re tu rn to it here, except to
consider one aspect o f th e controversy: th e accusation o f utopianism .
W h en th e accusation cam e from th e W estern academ ic cam p, it consisted
in ascribing to religious delusions anything in th e ideas or activity o f a hu m an
gro u p th a t rejected th e e q u atio n o f passive subm i&ion to circum stances with
active ad ap tatio n to th e existing ord er. I t involves, therefore, a value
ju d g m e n t whose values them selves need to be ju d g ed , were its content n o t so
clear to begin with. Considered from a p o litical viewpoint, however, this
assertion sought to defend th e old organizational forms by presenting th e new
f o ^ s as a n historical accident in n o ^ a l tim es, and as a necessary b u t
subordinate elem ent in critic a l tim es. H eld in com m on by th e spokesmen of
b o th branches o f Social Dem ocracy, it was therefore f o ^ u l a t e d either in
classical o r rad ical te^rminology.
T h e cla&ical f o ^ u la tio n w o u ld r u n alo n g th ese lines: “Even th o u g h L enin
m ay have b een rig h t beyond question a t th e tactical level, G orter was right
w hen h e m ain tain ed th a t th e Russian R evolution was m oving to its
destruction, tow ard a new slavery.” 2 In other words, the Leninist tactic was
excellent so long as it was n o t a p p lie d ; if in Russia an d in th e underdeveloped
countries it led to k n o ^ catastrophes, it w ould lead to sim ilar fiascos in
W estern Europe. B ut, this ju d ^ n e n t is itself com pletely a-historical, since the
left-com m unists h a d devoted most of th e ir a tte n tio n to the backw ard and
therefore reactionary c h a ra c te r o f th e old M arxist tactics, b o th classical and
radical. In fact, if these criticism s are o f any value today, it is in term s of a
b attle th a t was not even theirs: th e electoral rivalry between th e Socialist
1. H. Gorter, Repome a Lenine (Paris, 1980), pp. 26-29, 50-51. Here Gorter takes up the
criticisms of trade union and parliamentary action made in La Tactique Communiste.
Translated and prefaced by Andre Prudhommeaux, the text first appeared in the Oumier
communiste, organ of a group of Parisian council communists.
2. S. Tas, “Herman Gorter, rfevolutionnaire et p^te," la Revolutionprolttanenne, 50 (May
1951), p. 172.
220 I P/ANiEKOEK AND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
Party a n d th e Com m unist Party, g ra fte d onto the ideological conflict betw een
the two blocs.
From th e sam e basic assum ptions, A rth u r R osenberg, a historian an d a
f o ^ e r Com m unist deputy, reached a similar ju d g m en t. H e presented a
p o rtra it c;f th e KAP m em bers, w hich a t least sheds light on the feelings o f the
petty Leninists o f his type tow ard th e left com m unists: “T o this m ovem ent
(u to p ian extrem ism ) belong th e poorest a n d m ost h o p elea o f th e workers.
T hey passionately h a te n o t only bourgeois society b u t all those whose
existence is a little less w retched th a n th eir o ^ . T hey reject all diplom acy
an d all com prom ise, an d accept only extrem ist a c tio n . . . . It is a purely
em otional m ovem ent, in cap ab le of elab o ratin g any doctrine o r organized
action whatsoever. T h e u to p ia n extrem ists accept Bolshevist ideas en
masse. " 3
T his in n o way prevented R osenberg from paying hom age to G orter, whom
he reg ard ed along with Trotsky a n d L uxem burg as “representing the fu tu re
w ithin th e p ro le ta ria t,” a n d as a theoretician who “really raised the essential
question” w hen he challenged the d o m in atio n o f Moscow over the Com m unist
In te rn a tio n a l.4 O nce m ore, theory, reg ard ed as a good research instrum ent,
was divorced from ' its p ractical consequences, was ascribed to p a rticu la r
people, an d was appro v ed only to th e e x te n t to w hich it ag reed with the views
of a Social D em ocracy, which did not even d are speak its n a m e .5
Georg Lukacs was, of course, a theorist of a com pletely different
persuasion. H e clearly p in p o in ted th e m eaning of “the 1912 Pannekoek-
Kautsky controversy" w hen h e w rote ab o u t K autsky: "F or to adopt the stance
of opposition m eans th a t the existing o rd er is accepted in all essentials as an
im m utable foundation a n d th e efforts o f th e ‘opposition’ a re restricted to
m aking as m any gains as possible for th e w orkers w ithin the established
system .” 6 A ccording to this classical perspective, the state is regarded as the
prize in a class w ar betw een th e bourgeoisie a n d the p ro letariat, while for the
revolutionary, th e state constitutes a n elem ent o f force against w hich the
proletariat m ust be m obilized. But w hat is this revolutionary tactic based on?
Lukacs rejected th e solution o f th e G e ^ a n Left since they, along w ith Rosa
L uxem burg, did n o t acknow ledge th e council f o ^ as “the w eapon by which
to fight for a n d gain by force the presuppositions o f socialism ,"7 an d he
3. A. R<osenberg, Histoire du bolcheuis^ (Paris, 1936), p. 176.

4. Ibid., pp. 85, and 222-24.
5. Thus one finds Pannekoek's successful"refutation ofLenin"acknowledged "despite his
penchant for an orthodox Marxism." M. Rubel, Karl Marx (Paris, 1957), p. 324, n. 49.
6. Georg Lukacs, History and Class Consciousnew (Cambridge, Mas., 1976) p. 260
7. Ibid., p. 280.
THE CO UNCIL STA TE I 221
stressed th a t Rosa, "in her criticism of th e replacem ent of the constituent

Assembly by the soviets . . .im agines the p ro le ta rian revolution as having th e
stru c tu ra l f o ^ s of th e bourgeois revolutions.” 8 Curiously, however, he traced
this idea to her tendency “to overestim ate the im p o rtan ce of spontaneous mass
actio n s,” 9 w hereas L u x em b u rg h erself justified p articipation in the elections
in G erm any, by th e n eed "to ed u cate th e masses," to rem edy the
“im m atu rity ” of th e p ro le ta ria t.10
Lukacs invoked this sam e idea as the theo retical basis of the categories of
m e d ia tio n - p a r ty an d tra d e unions. T h e desire for a synthesis betw een
p arliam en tary a n d tra d e union action a n d th e council form, th e n an im atin g
th e G erm an left wing, especially the K PD (against w hich P annekoek speaks
out in C om m unist Tactics), is therefore sh ap ed on the idea o f a specialized
k in d o f Jaco b in “political leadership" freed from the influence of backw ard
social categories. In reg ard to the refusal of th e D utch an d th e ^ A P to
identify th e “d ictato rsh ip of th e p ro letariat a n d dictatorship of th e p a rty ,”
Lukacs accused them o f placing “u to p ian an d exaggerated hopes o n th e
anticip atio n of subsequent phases of d evelopm ent,” a n d of ig n o rin g “the real
structu re of forces here a n d now .” 11
T h u s, as L u k a c s-w h o se opinion in this m a tte r has varied l i t tle - q u ite
recently reaffirm ed, u to p ia n sectarianism involves the effon to realize general
or final principles in d ep en d en tly o f a socio-historical developm ent th a t yields
perm an en t tr a n s f o ^ a tio n s of f o ^ s an d functions an d in w hich new
m ediations constantly ap p ear, while the old f o ^ s lose th eir validity or
undergo essential m o d ificatio n s.12 In reality, th is is to re tu rn “w ithin th e
established o rd e r.” T h e classical tactic, linked w ith the old fofm of
organizatio n an d w ith th e old m ethods of struggle, could not b u t becom e an
e n d in itself, as is shown, for exam ple, in th e history of th e G e ^ a n
C om m unist Party. Based on th e “real stru ctu re” (i.e., on th e m arket
relationships an d th e relationships of im m ediate forces) the p arliam en tary
an d tra d e union tactic takes precedence, in ordinary circum stances, over the
new tactic, w ithout the f o ^ e r being able to develop into the latte r in tim e of
crisis. T heoretically in ten d ed to allow for accom odations, th e o ld tactic in
8. Ibid., p. 284.
9. Ibid., p. 303.
10. Prudhommeaux, op. cit., p. 48.
11. Lukacs, History and Clas Conscio^ês, op. cit., p. 296.
12. G. Lukics, “Reflections on the Split,” Studies on the Left, IV, 1, 1964, p. 25. Lukacs
here regards the anti-parliamentary position of the 1920 “sectariâns as tantamount to what he
calls the "extreme subjectivism" of Stalin and of Mao, which conasts of dogmatizing without
regard to the “facts.” These “facts” are, of course, decided by Lukacs in his own way.
222 I PANNEKOEKAND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
practice only strengthens th e tra d e unionist consciousness of th e masses,

m aking th em forget th a t they o u g h t to act directly, by themselves.
In contrast, th e partisans o f th e new tactic w anted to develop the initiative
of th e masses through e x tra-p arliam en tary form s o f organization. In the
1920s, they were concerned, therefore, w ith creatin g or strengthening organs
linked with the concrete life of th e exploited an d with their im m ediate
dem ands: in th e factories, these organs were th e facto ry organizations, the
Revolution&re B etrebsorganisation (R BO ), which, in theory at least, u n ited
workers of all tendencies on th e basis o f th eir enterprise; while a little later
on, there em erged th e action com m ittees (Aktioinsauschilsse) centered on
districts, em ploym ent exchanges, e tc .13 R egrouped w ithin the AAU, these
organs were an im ated by m ilitants of th e vanguard party, th e ^ A P . T h e
la tter did not in ten d to becom e a m a s party. Its m in io n was “to point the way
throu g h the confusion an d th e wavering o f the p ro leta rian revolution, to keep
the course steadily fixed tow ard C om m unism .” T h e party, “an organization
o f th e m ost conscious elem ents, should attem p t to p u t an en d to these
waverings, an d n o t allow itself to be draw n into them . Its task is to help the
ma&es to s u ^ o u n t them as quickly an d as com pletely as possible, by the
clarity an d purity o f its conduct, by th e consistency betw een its words and its
actions, its presence in th e fro n t line of b attle, and the correcm ew of its
foresight.”14 Consequently, this p a rty o f th e elite should show a particularly
rigid a ttitu d e w here principles are concerned. N o th in g shows this m ore
clearly th an does a letter w ritten by Pannekoek in th e fall of 1920, in answer
to a proposition m ade by Eric M uhsam . M iihsam , the anarchist leader, had
p u t forw ard th e idea o f a federation of all the groups “who resolutely walk
the Bolshevist path to com m unism , w ithout bowing to the decrees of
Moscow.”^
“If I u n derstand you correctly,” Pannekoek wrote, “you blam e the [Second]
Moscow Congress for having excluded a section o f the revolutionaries [notably
lS. Cf. Programm und organuatioiu-statut der K.A.P.D. (Berlin, 1924), pp. 45-47.
14. Die Hauptfragen der revolutionaren Taklik (Berlin, 1921), pamphlet of the KAPD, pp.
7-8. The party, notes Gorter, is "a nucleus as tough as steel, as pure as crystal." In Gorter, op.
cit., p. 98.
15. Die Aktion, X: 45-46, Nov. 13, 1920. Mn.sham was then in prison, after the crushing of
the Bavarian Commune. The anarchists, after participating very actively in the operations of the
Spartakists in Berlin, the Ruhr, and elsewhere, had for a time separated from both Communist
wings. Thus, in March 1919, one of their principal leaders, Rudolf Rocker, declared that the
centralism of the Bolshmfo could lead only to a kind of state socialism; in December of the same
year he denounced even more vigorously "the R ^ ian ‘commissariocracy,' founded on a principle
of authority like that of all other clara depotisms." Cf. Peter Losche, Der Bolschevismus im Urteil
der deutschen S.D., 190S-1920 (West Berlin, 1967), pp. 276ff. For Pannekoek's a&essment of
anarchism, see the final paragraph of the present chapter.
THE COUNCIL STATE I 223
the KAP] an d , by doin g so, for having com m itted the sam e e rro r an d shown
the same narrow in tolerance as did th e Congress o f the First Intern atio n al
[T he H ague, 1872] a n d of th e Second In tern atio n al [London, 1892]. And
you propose to all th e groups or parties outside the Moscow Intern atio n al
th a t they should f o ^ themselves into a free federation, leaving to each o f its
m em bers com plete freedom o f ag itation an d o f action. I shall now give the
reasons why I am opposed to this idea.
“W e reg ard th e C o n g re s as guilty o f showing itself to be, n o t intolerant,
b u t m uch too to leran t. W e do n o t rep ro ach the leaders of th e T h ird
In tern atio n al for excluding us; we censure them for seeking to include as
m any opportunists as p o îb le. In o u r criticism , we are not concerned about
ourselves, b u t ab o u t th e tactics of C om m unism ; we do n o t criticize the
secondary fact th a t we ourselves were excluded from the com m unity of
com m unists, b u t ra th e r th e p rim ary fact th a t th e T h ird In tern a tio n al is
following in W estern E urope a tactic b o th false and disastrous for the
proletariat. T h e exclusion is simply th e disagreeable f o ^ assum ed by the
necessary separatio n from those who w ant to be able to m anifest their
opposition freely an d a re not content to slink furtively away. A nd yet, struggle
of tendencies is necessary, since it enables th e p ro leta riat to find its way. T he
fact th at m en w ith ardent revolutionary ideas em brace and co ngratulate one
an o th er on their excellence serves no useful purpose; w hat is necessary,
however, is th a t th e p ro letariat, the h u g e masses, clearly see the p ath and the
purpose, cease to h esitate an d waver at th e m ercy o f events, a n d move
resolutely into action. T his cannot be th e fruit of purely sentim ental
aspirations tow ard unity. It can only resu lt from a clear and coherent theory
o f co m b at —a theory w hich, in the h eat of b a ttle and u n d e r the pressure of
necessity, ultim ately imposes itself, so that th e theory and the people becom e
as one.
“T h e First In te rn a tio n a l in 1872 was therefore right to exclude the
anarchists; and, even th o u g h opportunism had already risen in its ra^nks the
Second In tern atio n al was equally justified in rep eating this expulsion. T he
theory of com bat which alone can lead th e p ro le ta riat to victory is none other
th a n M arxism . Precise know ledge ab o u t the conditions ap p ro p riate to the
p ro letarian revolution c a n be acquired only by the science of M arxism , a
factor in th e rad ical overthrow o f ideas. N o d oubt, in recent years, M arxism
has b een d e f o ^ e d by those who have m isused it in order to exorcise the
rev o lu tio n : first of all, by th e conservatives o f the M arxist tra d itio n o f the
USPD type, an d th e n by th e R ote F ahne follow ing th em along th e same road.
It m ust therefore be proclaim ed w ith th e utm ost clarity th a t th e agitation and
th e tactic of the KAPD, w hich does n o t involve M arx at every tu rn , is linked to
224 I P /^N E K O E K A N D THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
a m o re au th en tic an d m ore p ractical M arxism , in which the revolutionary

flam e o f M arx b u m s m ore actively a n d effectually th a n it does for the
spokesmen of th e USPD a n d th e K PD , w ho are constantly paying lip service to
M arx.
“Because o f this d e fo rm a tio n -w h ic h is causing m any young revolution
aries to tu rn aside as th o u g h M arxism w ere really a theory o f m echanical
evolution a n d fatalistic certitu d e - t h e em phasis m ust constantly be placed on
the im p o rtan ce o f M arxism fo r the revolution. T his in no way implies th a t
those m ost learn ed in th e le tte r o f M arxism m ak e th e best m ilita n ts: on th e
contrary, experience has sho-wn over an d over ag ain th a t theoretical
know ledge an d enthusiasm for action w ere linked w ith dispositions o f m in d
which often m ad e these two qualities incom patible, a n d th a t th ere are m any
who com e to p ro p er revolutionary actions w ithout theory, thanks to intuitive
practice. W h at we m ean by th e im p o rtan ce o f M arxism is th at th e
m aterialist-revolutionary conception o f th e w orld an d o f society, w hich was
th a t of M arx, should p e n e tra te th e ma&es in o rd e r to m ake th e m clearsighted
an d self-assured.
“You w an t to create a federation o f all th e revolutionary groups excluded by
Moscow. W e disagree, because a federation o f this kind w ould au to m a t
ically becom e a declared o p p o n en t o f Moscow. A lthough th e Congress
has excluded o u r tendency, we feel a solidarity w ith th e Ru& ian Bolshe
viks. W e rep ro ach th em for having insufficient know ledge o f th e situ a
tion in W estern Europe, th e conditions o f class struggle in th e key co u n
tries, cap italist fo r centuries, or o f n o t taking sufficient account of them ,
an d w ith allying themselves w ith th e big o pportunist parties in th e hope of
achieving th e w orld revolution m ore quickly. A n d we say to th em : the
opportunists have no rig h t to be in your r a ^ b ; we are the ones who should be
there. W e rep ro a c h them fo r underestim atin g both the enorm ous differences
between Russia an d W estern Europe an d those betw een the Bolshevik Party
an d th e W estern E uropean parties, a n d for th e e rro r o f rein io rcin g th e power
o f leaders whose exclusion is th e first condition for securing revolution in the
west. However, it w ould be a n exam ple of th e sam e narrow doctrinaire
a ttitu d e to com m it a sim ilar e rro r by applying to Russian conditions
considerations th a t a re valid only fo r W estern Europe, by projecting our
analysis of th e role o f th e leaders h ere o n to w h at it is there, th at role being
very d ifferen t because it is exercised u n d e r very d ifferen t conditions. W e
therefore proclaim o u r solidarity, n o t only with the Russian proletariat, but
also w ith their Bolshevik leaders, even while we criticize with the utm ost vigor
th eir intervention w ithin in tern atio n al com m unism . It is from this sam e
p o s itio n - o f com plete fratern al solidarity w ith the Russian com m unists,
THE COUNCJL STATE I 225
linked w ith an equally categorical rejection of the tactics they a re p u rsuing in

W estern E u ro p e—th a t th e KAPD has proposed affiliation w ith th e T h ird
In tern a tio n a l as a ‘sym pathetic' p a rty .” 16
W e shall re tu rn to Pannekoek's final analysis o f Russian Bolshevism, and
also to his definitive ideas ab o u t anarchism .- B ut, first, w ithout going into
details, we shall a tte m p t to trace th e trajectory of the ^ A P .
F rom th e onset, th e p a rty faced a difficult task. T h is, however, is
som ething it h a d in com m on w ith all th e young com m unist form ations o f the
period, orthodox o r not, which w ere forced o u t o f nece«ity to com pete with
the old socialist a n d tra d e u nion organizations. T h e latte r h a d lo n g years o f
consum m ate experience in th e m an ip u latio n o f the masses a n d in dialogue
with th e authorities, n o t to m ention th e stren g th they drew from direct
p articip atio n in state pow er (m inistries, public adm inistrations, police, etc.).
T hey therefore enjoyed a superficial stability w hich, in tu m , won fo r them the
support o f th e m ost stable stra ta o f th e w orking class an d of a section o f the
petty bourgeoisie. T h e K PD , com pelled th erefore to recru it in the sociaUy less
stable s tra ta ,17 was cau g h t betw een th e extrem e aspirations o f a group often
subjected to ab ru p t an d terrib le setbacks a n d those o f a g ro u p whose sole
purpose, in th e final analysis, was to enlist as m an y people as possible by every
m eans powible, from electoral prom ises to c h a u v in i^ . By its n a tu re , the
K A P c o u ld n o t in c re a s e its a u d ie n c e — th e a im o f e v e ry p o litic a l
organization - b y resorting to these m eans, except fo r the last one.
In February-M arch 1921, th e C om m unist In te rn a tio n al (or some o f its
leaders) d e cid ed to la u n c h an "offensive” in G erm any, p artly because o f an
explosive situ atio n in R ^ i a (this was th e eve o f th e K ro n stad t rising).
U nam biguously invited to p repare a n arm ed insurrection, th e Zentrale o f the
16. Die Aktion, XI: 11-12, March 19, 1921. We cannot deal in detail here with the various
relations of the ÂPD with both the Third International and the KPD. The following quotation
from Lenin s ^ s up very well the attitude of the Co^mmunist International to those whom it had
just used-with their c o ^ n t- a s cannon fodder during the “March action” of 1921: "Provided
that Co^mmunist parties of sufficient strength, experience and influence, have secured firm
footholds, at least in the most important countries, then we should tolerate the presence of
semi-anarchist (KAP) elements at our inte^rnational congrwes. Their presence may even be
useful up to a point, to the extent to which such elements provide a ‘discouraging example' to
Co^mmunists devoid of experience, and to the extent to which these elements are thêmselves
amenable to instruction . . . . In Germany, we have tolerated them too long. The Third Congres
of the International has delivered an ultimatum with a precise expiration date. If today, they
have themselves withdrawn from the Communist International, so much the better. . . . By
arguing with them, we merely provide publicity for their ideas. They are very unintelligent; it is a
mistake to take them seriously; it is not worth irritating ourselves over them. They have no
influence, nor will they have any if we take a f i ^ line against them.” Lenin, "Letter to the
German Communists,” Works, Vol. XXXII.
17. On the considerable fluctuations of KPD membership, see Flechtheim, op. cit., pp.
235-236.
226 I PA^NNEKOEKAND THE WORKERS ' COUNCILS
KPD (in the absence o f Paul Levi, th en touring Italy) com plied docilely w ith
the orders. T h e Moscow emmissaries (Bela K un, in p articular) contacted th e
^ A P ’s “g an g leaders” (to ad o p t an ex p reîo n used by one of th e m ),18 who
then gave the green light.
In Saxony, th e sp irit of revolt rem ained alive am ong th e w orkers, and, since
the bosses’ rep reîv e m achinery (spies, private an d sem i-public militias)
proved incap ab le of coping w ith it, th e Social D em ocratic authorities, with
their usual servility, decided to send in the arm ed forces. W hen th e police
battalions w ere sent into cen tral G erm any to occupy the factories, strikes
occurred, w ith the support of th e KPD, an d a t M ansfeld, at Eisleben, at the
Leuna chem ical factories (n ear M erseburg, a bastion of the ^ A U ), the police
were m et with rifle fire. Amost e v e ^ w h e re in th e country, the Kapists sought
to unleash strikes, an d even resorted to violence in o rd er to induce the
recalcitrants to stop work. O n the whole, these efforts proved useless and, due
to a lack o f active solidarity, the in surrection (M arch 16-31) soon ended in a
blood b a t h 19
T h e leaders of the KAPD saw in the terrorist action (whose results were
always ridiculous) a way to give the p ro le ta ria t confidence in its own strength,
“to up ro o t th e belief in the superiority, cohesion and unshakable ch aracter of
bourgeois power, an d to dissipate forever the fe a r of the om nipotent directors
and bosses. "20 A nd they d id not hesitate to present the M arch action as an
indication of th e “rad icalization” o f th e KPD m ilita n ts: “T h e masses of the
C om m unist P arty," they w rote in th e ir cen tral organ, 21 “are adopting ou r
18. Karl Plaetner, Der mitteldeutsche BandenfUhrer(Berlin, 1930). Cf. also Max HB!z, Vom
“Weisen Krew.” zur Roten Fahne (Berlin, 1929), pp. 141-71.
19. Here are two viewpoints of the time. First, that of Paul Levi, opposed to Moscow: “Only
the will, clearsightedne& and resolutene^ of the ma&es themselves can set a mass party in
motion, and it is only when this preliminary condition has been met that a good leadership is able
to lead. . . . This distrust and this total negation of the Marxist principle regarding relations
between the Communists and the ma&es, has almost automatically engendered ... the
undoubtedly anarchist qualities of the March action. The struggle of the unemployed against
the employed, the intervention of the lumpenproletariat, the d ^ ^ i t e attempts (an abortive
campaign of Max HBlz), followed inevitably. And all this shows the true character of the March
movement-the biggest Bakuninest putsch of history.” P. Levi, Unser Weg wder Putschismus
(Berlin, 1921), p. 39. And the viewpoint of the ex-KAPist Reichenbach: "When for months a
parliamentary and trade unionist tactic has predominated exclusively and when from one day to
the next sees a headlong plunge into revolutionary activity, a central leadership can no doubt
adapt to so sudden a change, but not the ensemble of permanent officials, not the maw of the
militants . . . . The March action was the last a tt^ p t to involve the latent elements of the
revolutionary cla« struggle on a broad b asis, with a view to inaugurating the struggle for the
conquest of power.” Reichenbach, op. cit., pp. 124-25. Recent academic literature on the
subject merely reflects the division of the world into two ideological blocs.
20. Kommunistische Arbeiter Zeitung, No. 189, Sept 20, 1921.
21. Ibid., No. 181, March 24, 1921.
slogans, an d are forcing th em o n their lead ers.” (T he latter, of course, were

keeping well out o f th e way).
However, the K AP a n d th e AAU constituted only one wing, the bigger and
m ore com bative one, o f R& tekom m unism us, o r council com m unism , as it was
beginning to be called to distinguish it from P arlem entskom m unism us, or
parliam en tary com m unism . T h e o th er w ing sought to be “a u n itary
organization" (th e AAU-E, which was constituted late in 1920). It rejected the
p arty f o ^ (at least in theory), a n d regarded Bolshevik R u ttia as a state
founded on centralism , “an organizational principle o f the bourgeois-
capitalist e p o c h ." 22 O tto R tihle, one o f its p rin cip al theoreticians, harshly
criticized th e whole M arch operation, p articu larly for w hat h e reg ard ed as a
bourgeois m ilitary type strategy, th a t o f guerrilla w arfare by ill-equipped
small groups. F or this, h e would su b stitute a ^ e d self-defense o f the factories
(in spite o f th e failu re at L eu n a).23
T hese differences a ttu m e d an im m ediate p ractical political c h a ra c ter th a t
they certainly never h a d in H olland. T h is is why Pannekoek could
concentrate on analyzing the real significance o f these events. In his view, the
special im p o rtan ce o f th e M arch operation lay in its being sym ptom atic of
“the internal developm ent o f com m unism ," o f the lim its a lig n e d to its
a c tio n : “T h e M arch m ovem ent,” he writes, 24 “was a fiasco th a t resulted from
the policy p lan n ed by Moscow a n d from th e tactics d e t e ^ i n e d by the Second
Congress. T h a t is why an en d m ust b e p u t to the dictatorship of Russia over
the W estern E uropean revolution.” It was a tactical erro r “such as has often
been m ad e in th e past, an d d early p aid fo r” by the fighting workers with
w hom P annekoek expressed his u n q u alified solidarity.
T o establish a tactical error, th e tactic itself a n d its consequences m ust be
exam ined, a n d th en it m ust be tra c e d back to its m aterial a n d conceptual
origins. Pannekoek does this as follows: “In W estern Europe, Com m unism
wiU never successfully p ro g re s in th e f o ^ of a new p a r ty - w ith com pletely
new cadres, slogans a n d program s - b u t a p a rty analogous in its internal
n a tu re to th e old parties, w ith th e sam e political jobbery, the sam e blustering
leadership tactics, a n d th e sam e noisy publicity. C ertainly, R u ttia has been a
beacon in the d a rk n e tt a n d has awakened enduring hope; however, this light
could only feebly filter th ro u g h the thick sm okescreen t h r o ^ u p by lies in the
22. O. RUhle, “Bericht Uber Rusland," Die Aktion, X: 39-40, Oct. 2, 1920.
23. "Das Ende der mitteldeutschen Kampfe," Die Aktion, XI: 15-16, May 16, 1921; For
infoâuon on Rll.hle, see Paul Mattick, “Otto Ruhle et le mouvement ouvrier," Cahierj du
communisme de conseil, No. 3, January 1968.
24. Anton Pannekoek, “Sovjet-Rusland en het West-Europeesche Kommunisme," De
Nieuwe Tijd, 1921, pp. 436-48.
228 / Pj^ E K O E K AND THE W ORKERS COUNCILS
new s; an d those who presented themselves here as the emi&aries o f this light
were often too m uch influenced by th e old Second In tern atio n al spirit to be
able to c o n trib u te effectively tow ard arousing the necessary enthusiasm .
Simply replacin g Scheiderm ann w ith Levi is not enough to give the workers
the courage to face u p to d eath a n d m isery.”
Both on th e basis o f in tern atio n al solidarity a n d th e instinct o f
self-preservation, he contin u ed , th e R ussian C om m unists should have
su p p o rted th e W estern E u ro p ean revolution. But th ey d id so only in th e ir own
way, th a t is, by "m isinterpreting” th e whole situation. And Pannekoek
stresses: "W h at we wrote at th e tim e in Verbote ab o u t the m ajo r catastrophe
of the Second In tern atio n al w hen faced w ith the w ar (nam ely, th a t this
catastrophe signified m u ch m ore th a n the fact th a t the p ro leta ria t was still
too w eak to d e fe a t th e bourgeoisie), applies equally to this m inor catastrophe
o f the M arch a c tio n : It signifies th a t th e m ethods o f the Second In ternational
period a re in capable o f raising th e m aterial an d spiritual force of the
p ro le ta ria t to th e strength re q u ire d to b reak th e pow er o f th e d o m in an t
class.”
Despite its "enorm ous exem plary value,” th e Ru& ia of the Soviets, through
the C om m unist In tern atio n al has co n trib u ted in no small way to m ain tain
this condition o f weakness, Pannekoek says, by im posing a re tu rn to
parlia m e n ta ry a n d tra d e unionist tactics, at th e expense o f tactics based on
“the factory organizations o f G e ^ a n y a n d o f E ngland, w hich arose
spontaneously an d in a m ore or less d elib erate way am ong the most advanced
workers. . . . T h ese tactics consist o f b u ild in g u p by m eans o f theoretical
p ro p ag an d a an d o f practical struggle, organizational f o ^ s th at exclude any
possibility of d o m in atio n by professional leaders, a n d th at com bine, on the
basis o f th e factory, all th e wills to com bat existing w ithin th e p ro letariat, so
as to transform th em into forces for action. T h a t these tactics alone can
achieve o u r objective is som ething which th e M arch experience has just
sho-wn.”
Its tragic results derived, first o fa ll, from th e fact th a t the G e ^ a n workers
were n o t ab le to set ab o u t finding their way for themselves. Why? Because,
Pannekoek writes, "the policy a n d th e tactics of the T h ird In tern atio n al are
closely connected to th e state policy o f th e Soviet R epublic. T h e new
orientation o f th e Russian state policy ought, therefore, to exercise a
reciprocal influence on the T h ird In te rn a tio n a l’s p ra c tic e .” Now, this policy
is c o m m itted to two essential im p erativ es: a t hom e, to m ake concessions to
capital an d to private property; abroad to re-establish trad e with the
capitalist countries.
A t hom e, "th e R ussian leaders know th a t they m ust foster a spirit o f
developm ent am ong the peasantry in o rd er to create a basis for th e building

of com m unism . N o d o u b t, this has less to do w ith a M arxist perspective than
with th e attitu d e o f th e peasants. T h e sabotage of agricultural production,
the peasant uprisings a n d th e K ro n stad t insurrection have s h o ^ to the
Russian g overnm ent th e d angers th a t it faces. In effect, th ere is a chance th a t
a peasan t counterrevolution m ay follow th e revolution, as has h ap p en ed in
the past (1792, 1848). W hile the peasants, com pletely im bued with bourgeois
lies, are lean in g to w ard th e restoration of a capitalist g o v ^ ^ m e n t, the
Russian leaders, of M arxist persuasion, are consciously ad ap tin g th e ir policy
to economic necessity, while attem p tin g to steer th e economy in th e direction
of com m unism .
“T o sum m arize this situation, it can be said th a t th e R ussian Revolution is
a bourgeois revolution, like th e F ren ch one o f 1789: at th e econom ic level, its
essential con ten t has been the t r a n s f o r a t i o n o f th e peasantry into
freeholders an d sm all producers; at th e political level, it represents th e
com ing to pow er o f a new b u reaucracy whose p rim ary concern m ust be to
satisfy the interests o f these peasants. O f course, there are big differences
between these two revolutions in reg ard to class relationships, degree of
developm ent, o rien tatio n o f th e m ovem ent an d perspectives, w hich are not
taken into account here. N everthele^, this relationship highlights one
im p o rta n t fact, a n d therefore clarifies th e relations betw een Russia an d
W estern E uropean com m unism .” 25
Pannekoek th en described the N EP, w hich he refused to reg ard , as did the
Leninist prew of the tim e, as ”a m ajo r triu m p h of com m unism .” A ccording to
him , th e streng th en in g o f private p ro p e rty in th e rural areas an d in towns,
together w ith th e com m ercial agreem ents w ith th e capitalist powers, though
unavoidable m easures, posed serious consequences for the fu tu re of
com unism in Ru&ia, an d were in danger of strengthening the forces of
reaction there. “It is to be hoped, however, th a t th e Russian leaders who, of
course, are perfectly aw are of th e dan g er, will succeed in strangling these
forces by m eans o f their political pow er, by m eans of ‘state c ap ita lism '; b u t,
at th e present tim e, th e new capital is ab o u t to attem p t to b rin g pressure on
th e governm ent th ro u g h d o u b tfu l elem ents o f th e bureaucracy of th e
Soviets."
In th e final p a rt o f this article, Pannekoek once again severely criticizes th e
G e rn a n L eninists who were seeking to f o r n jo in t “w orkers’ governm ents”
with th e Social Dem ocrats, who, in o th e r respects, w ere th eir professed
enemies and, w hom , at times d u rin g this period, they were actually fighting.
Shortly a fte r the p ublication of this article, N ieuw e T ijd ra n o u t of funds
25. Pannekoek, op. cit., p. 442.
an d was forced to cease publication a t th e very time w hen the D utch group,
th e K A PN , was experiencing repercussions of th e crisis th a t was shaking its
(relatively) pow erful G erm an equivalent. Begining in 1921, Pannekoek’s
nam e ap p eared only rarely in th e jo u rn als a n d m agazines o f the extrem e left.
Because of th e ch anged situation, th e astronom er took over from the m ilitant
thinker. W e shall see, however, th a t th e re was no question of the theoretician's
renouncing th e struggle; b u t simply th a t th e theoretician's intervention,
w ithout break in g w ith th e m ovem ent (or with w hat rem ained of it), took on a
less im m ediate character.
T h e M arch 1921 defeat b eg an a p erio d of particularly bestial repression
legally sanctioned by a law “for th e protection of the R ep u b lic.” Arrests,
tortures, condem nations m ultiplied; the KAPist newspapers were suspended,
their prem ises seized. T h e historical d ram a was redoubled by personal
dram as; th e enforced disintegration of the practical m ovem ent was
accom panied by a theoretical stagnation, a n d “the m ost active m ilitants,
driven u n d erg ro u n d , resorted to conspiratorial m ethods th a t only precipi
ta te d th e m ovem ent's disintegration.” 2b
Such were th e causes of a sudden a n d swift decline. But all this does not
explain why th e council m ovem ent was n o t able to regain its position a fte r the
defeat. T h e K PD also underw ent the rigors of repreîons, b u t it th en found a
perm anent raison d ’etre in day-to-day action, first an d forem ost within the
established institutions, an d therefore in the ordinary form s of bourgeois
politics, w here it constituted an effective force. However, the revolutionary
elements, disgusted w ith everything, reno u n ced political activity an d
aban d o n ed th e p arty en ^masse. 27 T h e p arty continued, of course, to recruit
but, in fact, it h a d lost its substance. As a result o f this policy, it fo u n d itself
unable to o ffer any real resistance to th e N a z i s - a n incapacity whose m ain
cause is m ost frequently attributed, in a m an n er as frivolous as it is revealing,
to a strategic error, to a refusal to form a com m on p arliam entary fro n t with
the Social D em ocrats for w hich Stalin alone was to blam e.
In any case, the m em bership of th e K A P, once counted in the thousands, in
tim e cam e to be co u n ted in h u ndreds. 28 O n several occasions, the tem ptation
to resort to a “flexible tactic” was fe lt in its ranks (especially w ithin th e AAU);
a tem p tatio n to a m odified re tu rn to trad e union practice, to p ro p ag an d a for
im m ediate dem ands. T h e first serious crisis o ccurred in 1921-22, which ended
26. Paul Mattick, “Otto Ruhle ...," op. cit., p. \7.

27. In 1927, in the region of Thuringia, nearly 75 percent of the ex-militants of the USPD
and of the Spartakusbund had left the party. Cf. the excellent study by Siegfried Bahne, "Die
K.P.D." in Das Ende der Partim (Dumeldorf, 1960), p. 661.
28:. Cf. Informations Correspondance Oumfres, op. cit., pp. 12-14.
in a new split. 29 In 1927, the problem cam e up again. In effect, the

“u ltra -le ft” wing of the KPD drew close to th e KAPD, after its expulsion from
th e C om m unist P arty. JO Its m ilitants p u t the accent on the “an ti-p arlia
m en tary p arlia m e n ta rian ism ,” an d m ore especially on the “revolutionary
tra d e unionism ” of the early days of th e C om m unist In tern atio n al.
From 1921, Pannekoek rem ained to a large extent outside th e party, and
intervened only to em phasize “th e need for a n intensive p ro p ag a n d a centered
on th e new situation a n d the new tasks.” 31 H e was to re tu rn to an d develop his
argum ents in 1927, in a n article entitled “Principle and T a c tic ,” 32 with which
we shall now deal.
Pannekoek began by offering this diagnosis: "From 1918 to the present
day, every ch ap ter o f E uropean history could be head ed : T he D efeat o f the
R evo lu tio n .”
T h e W orld W ar, he continued, h a d increased to the utm ost th e distinctive
traits of ca p ita lism : exploitation of th e masses, m ilitarist oppression, misery
an d privations. “T h e collapse occurred first in Russia, the country with the
lowest level of capitalist organization. A fter the revolts in the t o ^ s caused by
fam ine, the m utiny of th e peasant troops, th e overthrow of th e Czarist
regim e, th e re followed some six m onths of feverish political developm ent.
Petty bourgeois strata an d parties succeeded one another in pow er: the
Kadets, th e Mensheviks, the socialist-revolutionaries, each showed th em
selves to be too tim orous, too c o ^ p t fro m the spiritual viewpoint, to
take the necessary drastic m easures. T hey lacked the resolution to see things
throu g h , to break once an d for all out of centuries accum ulated misery. T he
course taken by th e revolution d id n o t fit in w ith these exhausted
organizations. O nly the Bolsheviks, form ed on radical M arxism , carried the
revolution on to its u tterm ost limits, a n d fou n d ed in 1917 the R epublic of
Soviets; th e C om m unist P arty cam e to pow er in the f o ^ o f th e dictatorship
of the p ro le ta ria t.”
T h en , G e ^ a n y cracked. Soldiers’ an d workers’ councils cam e into
existence, an d were im m ediately coopted by “a whole stratum , alm ost a class,
29. Cf. H. Gorter, Die Notwendigkeit der Wiedervereinigung der K.A.P.D. (Berlin, 1923).
30. Cf. S. Bahne, “Zwischen ‘Luxemburgismus’ und ‘Stalinismus.' Die ‘ultra-link.e’
Opposition in der K.P.D.," Vierteljahrshefte fUr Zeitgeschtchte, October, 1961.
31. K. Homer, “Marx^mus und Idealismus," Proletarier (theoretical organ of the KAPD), I,
4, February-March 1921.
32. K. Homer, “Prinzip und Taktik,” Proletarier, No. 7-8, 1927, pp. 141-48 and 178-86. An
editorial note states: “Since before the war, the author of this article has defended, within the
Social Democratic Party and in concert with Rosa Luxemburg, the Marrist line against
reformism. We shall return to various points of this work which demand a reply or additional
information."
of p e ^ a n e n t officials,” th e w orking class having been disciplined by a

prolonged Social D em ocratic an d trade union e d u ca tio n .” M oreover, “there
was n o party, however sm all, th a t was an im ated by revolutionary class
consciousness. T h e f o ^ a t i o n of such a p a rty was prevented by circum stances
arising as m uch from questions of personalities as from concrete difficulties.
Everywhere, small groups were spontaneously organizing themselves, and
th ro u g h th eir spokesmen, L ieb k n ech t an d L uxem burg, m ad e th e ir appeal to
the masses, b u t th ere was n eith er p ro g ra m n o r cohesion. T h e revolutionary
workers w ere d efe a te d a fte r b itte r clashes, a n d th eir leaders were assassinated.
T hen began th e decline of th e revolution . . . .
“W hereas th e p ro le ta ria t was scarcely p re p a re d for its historic m iwion, th e
bourgeoisie knew how to ex p lo it p ro letarian deficiencies to th e fullest . . . .
Becom ing socialist m in d ed , they agreed, w ithout a blow having been struck,
to the refo rm s which they h a d stubbornly opposed for decades: th e Republic,
universal suffrage, th e eight-hour day, th e recognition of th e rig h t to trad e
u nions . . . . T h e rep u b lican regim e a n d d em ocracy served solely as m eans to
in au g u rate new f o ^ s of political d om ination for th e benefit of cap ital. T h e
worst aspect of this was n o t th a t these r e f o ^ s h a d been set u p by th e workers
in the course of a revolutionary m ovem ent, but th e fact th at the workers
believed th a t they h a d gained som ething by all this. U n d er m odern
capitalism , th e purpose of dem ocracy, both in t e ^ s o f its n a tu re a n d its
function, is to nourish this conviction an d to weaken th e workers’ will to
action. T h u s, dem ocracy, once acquired, was exploited to th e full:
henceforth, th e task of elab o ratin g an d im plem enting r e f o ^ s and other
m easures was en tru sted exclusively to p arliam entarians, to tra d e union
leaders, to m inisters. F or it is of th e essence of dem ocracy to see to it that the
w orking masses are kept away from th e political te rra in , th a t they are kept to
their ro u tin e tasks in th e d o m ain o f pro d u ctio n , and doom ed to revolutionary
inactivity. A nd thus, the revolutionary episode was t e ^ i n a t e d ; in effect,
revolution is considered to be th e intensive, daily an d direct political action o f
th e masses themselves .. . .
‘T h e power o f th e bourgeoisie stems essentially from the im m aturity, the
fears, the illusions o f th e p ro letariat, from lack o f p ro le taria n cla»
consciousnew, clear vision of purposes, unity an d cohesion. Since no one knew
to what extent th e workers would be cap ab le of pow erful and u n ited actions,
the bourgeoisie was forced to jettison th e b a lla st.” T h en , "the revolutionary
elite having been d ecim ated ,” power m oved tow ard th e right “as th e fear of
the p ro le ta ria t dim inished.” A nd th e Social D em ocrats found themselves
gradually ousted.
"In W estern E urope, th e effect of th e revolution scarcely went beyond some
kind o f social re fo ^ n s (e.g. the eig h t-h o u r d a y ); b u t in E astern Europe, a very

im p o rtan t econom ic revolution took place, w here th e big, m ore o r le ^ feudal
estates w ere p arc e le d o u t, a n d gave rise in tu m to sm all or m ed iu m f o ^ s of
exploitation. T h is revolution was m ad e m o re ra d ic al by th e fact th a t m odern
industry an d m o d e m c la ^ antagonism s w ere less developed th ere. It was in
Ru&ia th a t th e revolution w ent fu rth e st. It is still going o n in th e neighboring
states, w hich have been re-established o r enlarged a fte r th e w ar (Poland,
R um ania, Czechoslovakia, etc.). Finally “th ro u g h o u t the w hole o f Europe,
capitalism feels politically stro n g a n d self-assured: the specter o f socialism,
which had terrified it for decades, has b een rem oved . . . . ”
Nevertheless, th e KAP holds th e theory th a t capitalism has en tered a final
crisis, “a n econom ic crisis fro m w hich capitalism can never em erge a n d is
therefore h e a d in g tow ard its d estru ctio n .” T h is thesis, says Pannekoek, has
n o th in g in co m m o n w ith M arxism . “M arx an d Engels have constantly and
em phatically stressed th a t only th e conscious action of the p ro letariat, with
pow er acquired th ro u g h th e class stru g g le an d la te r th ro u g h the
establishm ent o f a new m ode o f p ro d u ctio n , could p u t an end to
capitalism . . . . Socialism is som ething th a t concerns people, som ething th a t
involves th e will, th e clearsightedness an d th e energy to seize p ow er and to
break all th e fetters shackling th e new econom ic developm ent, by
overthrow ing th e political, ju rid ical an d ideological system o f th e bourgeoisie.
W h a t hap p en s in th e econom ic d o m ain m ust first becom e alive in the m inds
of m en, for only th ere does th e tr a n s f o ^ i n g act occur . . . . Econom ic causes
act as a stim ulus to c la ^ consciousne^, b u t w ith a n intensity th a t varies very
greatly from case to case. W hereas in phases o f proseperity th e m a ^ e s are
satisfied w ith th e ir lot an d think only a b o u t working, these phases are
followed by crises in w hich discontent grows, revolutionary attitudes gain
strength, a n d th e p ro le ta ria t moves in to action . . . . Favorable an d fortuitous
circum stances c a n never com pensate th e lack o f internal vigor, b u t can
m erely o p en u p w ays.”
T hese are considerations o f a gen eral kin d . T h e present g re at postw ar
political crisis is over: “m in o r crises c a n no d o u b t still occur in th e field of
capital, and establish w hether it is b e tte r to g overn through dem ocracy or
th ro u g h reaction. B ut, as fa r as th e p ro le ta ria t is concerned, it is for th e
m o m en t solely a question o f econom ic crisis, for too m u ch credence m ust n o t
be given to the constant prophesying of world w ars. T h e bourgeoisie is now
o n its g u ard . T h e capitalist world is m ak in g every effort to overcom e the
deep postw ar crisis, b u t the fact is th a t we are still a t the very cen te r of this
crisis an d th a t u n em p lo y m en t weighs heavily o n th e w orking class.
“W h at, th en , are th e prospects for revolutionary developm ent?
It is often alleged th a t “if we m ove tow ard a prolonged a n d severe econom ic

depression, its effect will b e to revolutionize th e pro letariat an d lead to an
u n in te rru p te d developm ent of the revolution.
“T h e idea th at th e capitalist system is cau g h t u p in a p e ^ a n e n t and
irresolvable crisis has u n d o u b ted ly some v a lu e —insofar, at least, as it is not
just wishful thinking, b u t is traceab le in p a rt to L uxem burg's w ork on the
accum ulation o f cap ital, w hich provides som ething o f a theoretical basis for
it. Since h e r book was published two years before the w ar, Rosa L uxem burg
did not herself f o ^ u l a t e this perspective; b u t, today, this conclusion is
draw n from it. It is th erefo re absolutely necessary to re tu rn to this subject.
“In th e last section o f Book Tw o o f Capital, M arx deals w ith the process of
capitalist reproduction. H e does so by m eans o f m ath em atical exam ples of
purely th eoretical value, and consequently this section o f the book aroused
very little a tte n tio n ; b u t th e way th a t these exam ples are being invoked at the
present tim e shows th e extent to w hich a clearly abstract question can a ^ u m e
a p ractical relevance for th e tactics o f th e class struggle. M arx shows in these
pages how th e capitalist p roduction goes o n by its o ^ accord as long as all
th e p ro d u cts re tu rn in th e new "circuits” o f production, in th e f o ^ o f
consum er goods, o r o f raw m aterials, o r again o f the m eans o f production.
T his holds equally tru e for th e stage w hen production is constantly
expan d in g ; a different distribution suffices fo r this, according to the
branches of p ro d u ctio n a n d th e types o f m e r c h a n d is e -fo r exam ple, when
there is a relatively greater need for m eans o f production. I f a correct
relationship is established betw een th e d iffe ren t branches, supply an d
d e m a n d will always strike a b alance. O f course, this is tru e only a t th e level of
theoretical ab stractio n ; since cap italist p ro d u ctio n is decentralized, supply
and dem and rem ain u n k n o ^ q u an tities a n d equilibrium is n o t achieved
without certain m erchandise rem aining unsold. T h a t is why th e branch
prod u cin g such m erchandise does n o t expand, an d sometimes goes into a
deep deprew ion. A nd since a t th e sam e tim e, equilibrium is established,
capital grows a n d sets off in quest o f new fields o f investm ent; th e abstract
equilibrium is in p erp etu al developm ent a n d is kept in m otion through
ceasele^ creations an d trial runs, in quest o f a final, self-regulating situation.
“F ro m th e theoretical viewpoint, however, it is im p o rtan t th at equilibrium
be established o n an average, fo r this m akes it possible to verify th a t the
capitalist proceM o f p roduction can have, w ith equal likelihood, a large o r a
sm all o u tp u t, since it is n o t concerned w ith consum er needs outside its own
cycle. C apitalism does n o t produce th e necessities o f life in te^n s o f h^m an
needs; w hat interests it is n o t th e n u m b er o f m en who are starving, b u t the
quantity of workers in its service whose salaries are convertible into necessities
of life. In a tim e of crisis, the whole process c o n tra c ts; in a tim e of prosperity,
it expands. O f course, th e reserves o f m en a n d of raw m aterials available
ultim ately impose lim its on this process, b u t b o th alsO increase in a regular
way. For it absorbs th e vestiges o f the prim itive modes o f production, small
enterprises a n d sectors where self-consum ption still dom inates, w ith which it
establishes exchange relationships, and w hich supply it with m erchandise an d
raw m aterial, while at th e same tim e serving it as resevoirs of work power, an d
at whose expense it ceasele^ly expands.
“In her book on accum ulation, L uxem b u rg believed she had detected an
error in M arx’s calculations. She therefore concluded th a t, in the process of
capitalist pro d u ctio n , supply and dem and could not coincide, an d th a t,
throu g h the accum ulation of capital, there was always an excess of
m erchandise for w hich th ere was no d e m a n d - a n d th a t aU this holds true
even at the level of abstract theory. ^h is, therefore, m ust necessarily produce
a m ark etin g crisis th a t cannot be rem edied except by violence an d by the
opening u p o f new territories to serve as m arkets. It is this, then, th a t is the
basic c a ^ ^ o f im p erialism : because o f its internal necessities, the capitalist
system is inevitably forced to u n d e rta k e the conquest of foreign countries.
“It is only a short step from this theory to the idea th a t the m arketing crisis,
linked by its very natu re to the expansion o f p roduction, is bound to assume
such b re a d th an d gravity that it becomes impossible to s u ^ o u n t it. Hence,
with any am elioration o f th e situation ru le d out, capitalism finds itself in an
impasse, an d one can most certainly see in this a fatal crisis. W e have already
pointed out th at L u x em b u rg never concluded th a t capitalism will one day
inevitably find itself face to face w ith such an insurm ountable crisis. She
f o ^ u l a t e d h e r theory purely as a n exp lan ation in econom ic t e ^ s of
im perialism an d of th e reasons w hy every crisis necessarily leads to an
enforced extension o f the sphere of im p erialism ; the fac t th at today th ere are
no fu rth e r m ark ets to open up is som ething th a t scarcely needs em phasizing.
“In any case, this th eo ry is incorrect. As was p o in ted out in th e Brem er
Bilrger-Zeitung, 33 shortly after th e p u b licatio n of L uxem burg’s book, she was
!l!I. Cf. Pannekoek’s articles in the Bremen paper—iroues for January 29 and SO, 1913 (and
also in Neue Zeit, XXXI: l, pp. 780-92, and Nieuwe Tijd, XXI, 1916, pp. 268-83). Pannekoek
returns again to this problem in Ratekorrespondenz, No. l, 1934, pp. 1-20, where he criticizes
the important work by Henryk Gro^mann: Das Akkumulations- und Zusammenbruchs-gesetz
der kapitalistischen Systems (Leipzig, 1929). Gro^mann also upheld the theses of the inevitable
economic coUapse, but in a sense different from Luxemburg. In both cases, Pannekoek strongly
challenges, on the basis of a simple mathematical treatment of Marxian schemas, the posibility
of disproportionalities between the two sectors of production over a long period and with regular
growth. According to him, the overthrow of capitalism cannot occur without the massive and
copious intervention of the exploited and of their strnggle by and for themselves.
236 I P/ÂN K O E K A N D THE WORKERS' CO UNCILS
w rong in saying th a t M arx h a d m ad e an e rro r in his tables. W e cannot dwell

here o n th e details o f th e theory (alread y discussed in one o f th e early num bers
o f Proletarier); suffice it to recall th a t th e accum ulation o f cap ital, the
perpetual f o ^ a t i o n o f new masses o f cap ital in quest of investm ents in
spheres yielding th e highest profits, furnishes a prim ary and absolutely
a d eq u ate explanation o f th e reasons why capitalism is constantly e n larg in g its
dom ain a t th e expense o f m ore prim itive modes o f production, as well as of
th e m eans w hich it uses to achieve this end, w ith o r w ithout recourse to
violence acco rd in g to th e existing relationships o f forces.
“So, therefore, anyone seeking to base his tactics o n th e id e a th a t capitalism
will em broil itself in a p e ^ a n e n t crisis th a t it will n o t be able to s u ^ o u n t
com m its a dangerous erro r. A n illusion o f this k in d leads one to elaborate, in
effect, w hat is m erely a s h o r t - t e ^ tactic, a n d th e subsequent disillusionm ent
is calcu lated to b reed discouragem ent. I t m ust also b e stressed th a t this belief
has n o serious fo u n d a tio n -in d e e d , n o foundation o th er th a n wishful
th in k in g a n d th e p a te n t fact th a t u p to now capitalism has n o t succeeded in
s u ^ o u n t in g its postw ar crisis. B ut th e bases of M arx’s theory re m a in v a lid : it
is entirely possible for capitalism to increase production a n d thereby
s u ^ o u n t a h ig h ly u ^ a v o ra b le situ atio n . T h e difficulty, in fact, is th e one
th at always follows crisis: how to start u p p ro d u ctio n again. F or one m ust first
buy in ord er to be able to sell; each b ra n c h o f p ro duction m ust therefore wait
for th e others, since in a p erio d o f speculation n o one dares to ex ten d credit.
How ever, i f th ere is a n upsurge i n any one b ra n c h th a t enables it to get u n d er
way ag ain , th e o thers begin to g et orders, a n d the expansion begins to spread
from b ra n c h to b ra n c h . O f course, different factors m ay delay this recovery
(for exam ple, th e present political restru ctu rin g o f E urope is, in m any ways,
shackling econom ic grow th). How a n d w hen p roduction will begin a new
cycle depends on so m any u n k n o ^ factors th a t any prediction on th e m atte r
w ould be h ig h ly speculative; nevertheless, one th in g is c e r t a i n - t h a t there is
no fo u n d a tio n w hatever for th e id ea th a t th ere can b e n o chance o f a change
in th e co n ju n ctu re o f circum stances now w orking against capitalism ."
Pannekoek cites two factors in favor o f a n eventual resum ption of the
pro d u ctio n cycle: a large-scale increase in gold production, ow ing to the
discovery o f new gold fields, a n d “th e prom otion o f eastern Asia to th e ran k of
an au to n o m o u s sector o f capitalist p ro d u c tio n . . . . C apitalism is fa r from
b eing at its last gasp. A ccording to those who th in k th a t it is, it is enough
simply to w ait awhile and th en the final victory will com e. But this is just
su g ar coating the pill. T h e h a rd fact is th a t an arduous clim b still lies before
us; we have only reach ed th e foot o f th e m oun tains. I t is difficult today to
th e s h o r t - t e ^ econom ic developm ent. H a phase o f expansion has just
begun, it is equally certain th at it will be followed by just as significant a

crisis. A nd w ith th e crisis, th e revolution will re a p p e ar. T h e old revolution is
finished: we m ust p rep are th e new o n e.”
In th e second p art o f this article, Pannekoek attem pts to define th e nature
an d th e function o f th e C om m unist Party, whose task it is to p re p a re the
fu tu re. (Clearly, h e is concerned with W estern E uropean C om m unism , not
w ith th a t o f th e T h ird In tern atio n al). L ater, we shall present a tex t especially
devoted to this subject. However, even at th e risk o f some repetition, it is
interestin g to see w hat he has to say here.
“Since b o th Social D em ocracy a n d com m unism take as th e ir objective the
seizure o f social pow er by th e w orking class, they cannot be distinguished
from one an o th er by th eir aim s. N o r can they be distinguished by the m ethods
used to a tta in this com m on objective. W hile it rem ains tru e th at th e
com m unists o p t fo r th e m eth o d o f revolution w hereas th e Social D em ocrats
look to a n evolution involving th e slow m a tu ra tio n of th e fu tu re state in the
w om b of th e p resen t society, th is division is b lu rre d by th e fact th a t they both
foresee th e p o îb ility of a final cla^-against-class struggle in o rd er to deliver
th e final blow after a p erio d of num erous p ro le tarian successes an d defeats.
A gain, a basis for distinguishing betw een them cannot be th at the
com m unists seek to take pow er by a single blow rath er th an w aiting for power
to fall in to th e ir hands, like the Social D em o crats: this is n o t the com m unist
idea. W e are well aw are th a t th e transition to social pow er constitutes a
process full o f shifts, of victories a n d defeats, in m any countries and regions of
the w o r ld - i n fact, a whole historical period d o m inated by a violence whose
harbingers have ap p eared in th e course o f the events o f th e last ten years.
“T h e fu n d am en tal difference between these two tendencies lies in th e idea
they have each f o ^ e d o f the m eans, o f th e organs, th ro u g h w hich the
p ro le ta ria t will g ain pow er.
"Social D em ocracy has always viewed th e p a rty (linked with th e trad e
unions) as th e o rg an th a t is to lead th e revolution to victory. T h is does not
n e c e sa rily im ply th e exclusive o f electoral m e th o d s; in th e opinion o f the
radical wing, th e p a rty should com bine th e p re ^ u re s o f p arliam e n tary an d
ex tra-p arliam en tary m eans, such as strikes a n d dem onstrations, in o rd er to
assert the pow er o f the p ro letariat. B ut, w hen all is said a n d done, it was the
party th a t directed the b attle, called th e masses into the streets, o r acted as an
advance d etach m en t. A nd if th e oppressive m a n tle of state power were to be
whisked off, it is again th e p arty . as representing th e p ro letariat, th a t m ust
assum e pow er, along w ith th e tra d e u n io n s who were exercising th e basic
econom ic role of executive o rg an s of p ro d u ctio n.
" T h a t is th e reason why, according to this conception, th e Social
D em ocratic P arty was quite different from any o th e r party. It was the p arty of
the w orking class, a party serving as a political organization o f the
p ro le ta ria t; in d u e course, it w ould prevail over the organizations of the
bourgeoisie, a n d its ap p aratu s in full m a tu rity w ould th en come to power.
A nd it was fo r this reason th a t it was necew ary to a ttra c t m o re and m ore
workers w ithin th e sphere o f the party, as m ilitants, as m em bers, and as
electors. T h e p a rty card was to show which side o f the barricad e one h a d
opted for. Moscow p ro p ag ated a n id ea th a t although basically th e sam e, was
carried to grotesque len g th s: the idea o f th e dictatorship o f a sm all p a rty th a t
was th e in c a rn a tio n o f th e ‘dictatorship o f the p ro le ta ria t.' T h e developm ent
of Social D em ocracy before, d u rin g an d a fte r the W ar has shown th a t it was
impossible to fulfill this project. A p a rty that develops in this way, w ith a
corresponding a p p a ra tu s of p erm an en t officials, takes on a conservative
ch aracter. Its b u reaucracy naturally fears th e consequences o f a revolution
and has an interest in m ain tain in g an d im proving the established order. Its
body o f officials h o p e to succeed th e capitalist bureaucracy n atu rally and
peacefully, o r to govern in coalition with th e la tter, at least fo r some tim e.
W ithin a dem o cratic p arty o f this kind, exactly as w ithin a dem ocratic state,
th e m ass o f m ilitan ts lack th e m ean s to im pose th e ir will on a bureaucracy
h o ldin g all the m eans o f po w er; a n d this is all the m ore tru e in a dictatorial
p arty o f th e Moscow type.”
C ontem porary m ass m ovem ents “have shown how things h ap p en an d m ust
happ en , in w hat way the great conflicts blow u p , and have thus confirm ed the
history o f form er revolutions. In all o f these, it was the gigantic power of
^ ^ e n s e m a s e s o f the people at their highest degree o f expansion an d unity
th at overthrew the old o rd e r an d o pened the way to new developm ents. Such
a pow er does not sudd en ly a p p e a r in a m eteoric fashion; it originates from
deep an d long-felt discontent, from an intense agitation th a t gives the ma&es
a clear picture of the situation, from a series o f experiences th a t educate the
doubters an d th e hesitan t. Frequently, it is p reced ed by abortive attem pts and
violent clashes, fo r only through such things does the power o f the masses take
shape. In previous revolutions, it was mostly p etty bourgeoisie o r artisans who
intervened o n th e basis of craft o r o f district. In the m odern pro letarian
revolutions, the m ajority belong to th e m a jo r enterprises; the w orking masses
intervene a n d m ake decisions on th e basis of th eir factory. T h e general
assemblies (of a factory, o r o f the branch o f industry as a larg er un it) decide
on m a in ta in in g social peace o r on holding a strike o r dem onstration,
deliberate w ith th e o th er enterprises th ro u g h delegate awemblies, a n d po u r
th eir m em bers in to the street to fo rm a com pact nucleus aro u n d w hich the
class as a whole crystalizes.
“These experiences have shaped com m unist thinking about revolution. It is

not th e party th at m akes th e revolution, b u t the class as a whole. H ence, the
p arty has a com pletely different fu n ctio n from th at ascribed to it in the old
Social D em ocratic conception. It cannot absorb in itself the whole o f the cla»
an d act f o r th e c l a » ; o n the contrary, it c a n only be the avant-garde o f the
claffi an d rem ain tru e to its spiritual o rien tatio n . In th eir places o f work, the
com m unists are th e ones w ho see farth est, who have the clearest ideas, an d
who are th e m ost devoted to cau se; th a t is why they are able to step forw ard at
any tim e, to propose th e best solutions, to size u p th e situation, to disperse th e
fears of th e hesitan t, an d to deflect anything liable to set the m ovem ent o n a
wrong course. T h e p a rty also plays this role in connection with general
delegate assemblies charged w ith taking m a jo r decisions, inasm uch as it
points o u t th e rig h t ro ad to them an d presents a program o f action. A gain,
b o th d u rin g th e grow th period a n d th e p eriod o f ra p id developm ent, it is the
party th a t spreads am ong the masses th e slogans n eeded to show th e way, to
clarify the situation, a n d to avoid m istakes.
“All action invariably d em ands a spiritu al b a ttle o f th e m a ^ e s aim ed at
achieving lu c i d i t y - a b a ttle in w hich opposing p a rtie s a n d tendencies m eet
a n d clash; a n d th e C om m unist P arty sh o u ld w age this b attle fo r th e workers
u n d e r th e eyes o f th e workers. In this way, th en , the party becom es, at each
stage o f th e class struggle, a prim ordial o rg an , as it were, the soul of the
revolution . .. .
"Q u ite simply, th e party is th e o rganization of com m unist m ilitants
an im ated w ith th e sam e sentim ents. Its stren g th grows th ro u g h d is c ^ io n s
abou t pro g ram a n d principles, a n d th ro u g h the particip atio n o f all its
m em bers in ag itatio n a n d in actio n .” T h e re is no question o f rec ru itm e n t at
any price. “Q uality, correctness o f principles, th a t is w hat counts m ost in the
eyes o f th e p arty . . . . ”
T o d ay , certain people call for "flexible tactics calculated to increase the
attractiveness o f th e KA P. A nyone lately involved in the workers' m ovem ent
an d fam iliar w ith its lite ra tu re wiU re a d betw een the lines propositions
analogous to those o f an earlier p eriod th a t sought a softening o f principles
an d a n a d a p ta tio n to circum stances. T h e slogan, 'L et's be done with
p o w e rle K n e sl,' also constituted, a t th a t tim e, th e point o f d e p a rtu re for
oppo rtu n ism . . . . B u t th e party's power to a ttra c t does not reside in the p arty
itself, but in its principles. A nd w hen th e w orkers do not w ant to l i s t e n - i n
other words, w hen conditions are such th at no challenge of a revolutionary
kind presents itself w ith any u r g e n c y - o th e r principles pred o m in ate. In these
circum stances, it is useless fo r th e party to try to prevail a t any and all costs,
for this w ould signify th a t it h a d sacrificed its principles to secure an
240 I PANNEKOEKAND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
accom odation w ith things as they are. N o r does it serve any good to
com prom ise w ith principles in o rd e r to m ake th em ap p ear acceptable to a
large n u m b er of people; w hat m atters for the fu tu re is n o t the num ber of
adherents who find th e principles acceptable, b u t th e com m unists who
u n d erstan d th em an d who m ake th em deeply an d personally th eir o ^ . ”
H ence, according to Pannekoek, “w hat i s o f greatest value in the K A P press
is not th e im passioned appeals, w hich now interest only a sm all n u m b er of
w orkers, b u t serious i n f o ^ a t i o n , critical com m entary o n th e econom ic
situation, a n d discussion of tactical problem s lin k ed w ith th a t situation . . . .
“T h e m ain objection to carrying out a tactic based on th e theoretical
principles of M arxism is th a t th e tactic is inapplicable an d ineffectual. Those
who delve in to bookish theory c a n com pletely a n d contentedly accept an
a ttitu d e strictly in accordance w ith these principles an d w ith these alone. But
th e masses, w ho have not stu d ied the theory, take a very different view : they
a re co n cerned only w ith p ractical consequences. A n d if one wishes to win
them over, one m ust b ear in m in d th e ir objectives an d their asp iratio n s: the
securing of r e f o ^ s . It could be said th at principle is th e salt o f practice, b u t
if one over-salts th e dishes, th e m eal becomes inedible.
“However, excessive attachm ent to one o f these m utually opposing
positions w ithin the workers' m ovem ent involves th e d a n g er o f overlooking
w hat is essential. T h e difference betw een a principle-centered tactic and an
opportunist tactic is n o t th a t th e first originates out o f fe a r th a t th e theory
m ay lose its p u rity th ro u g h contact w ith a b a d w orld, w hereas th e second
never leaves th e te rra in o f real life. T h e alleged d o ^ n a tis t always guides his
tactic tow ard p ra x is—revolutionary praxis, that is. T h e difference betw een
these tw o tendencies arises from w hether th e em phasis is p laced on short- or
l o n g - t e ^ tactics. T h ere is no question h ere of reproaching the opportunists
for th e ir fixation o n practice in general, b u t for their lim ited practice, which
takes in to account only th e p resen t m o m en t and sacrifices w hat is o f
p erm an en t value for th e fu tu re to im m ediate gains.”
I n tim es o f prosperity, when th e workers are concerned only w ith securing
refo:rms, o p p o r t u n i ^ thrives. A m ass p arty will feel the re p e rc u ^ io n of this
an d will inevitably be d r a ^ in to opportunism , w hatever its past history;
G e ^ a n Social D em ocracy is a case in point, but m erely a typical case. “A
small p a rty is b e tte r able to defend itself against these influences. Faced w ith
a given alternative, it can choose: it can reject th e inclinations o f the masses,
stick fi:rmly to principle, an d th erefore u n d erg o a shrinkage o f size and
influence; o r it can attem p t to increase its m em bership, win influence, and
fall in to th e m orass. W e are speaking h ere only ab o u t th e spiritual effects of
econom ic circum stances on th e workers. Political situations can, of course,
also develop and present a party with th e same type of choice. A case in point
was th e T h ird In tern atio n al w hen it plu n g ed w ith bo th feet into th e m orass o f
opportunism , simply to g a in a ra p id increase of its political influence."
In a revolutionary phase, th e p ictu re changes com pletely. T he masses are
transfo:rm ed: “they cease to react in th e m a n n e r o f petty bourgeoisie, who are
deeply d istu rb ed by any talk o f revolution, an d they themselves seek
revolution. T hey d e m a n d clear slogans, d e a r-c u t program s, radical
objectives an d tu r n increasingly tow ard th e party th at can give them these,
owing to its principle-centered attitu d e. I t c a n thus h ap p e n th a t th e old
parties fin d them selves ab an d o n ed o n e after th e o ther, an d th a t a small
group , h ith erto despised as dream ers devoid o f com m on sense an d as rigid
dogm atists, suddenly comes forw ard an d takes over th e direction of the
masses in th e course o f th e revolution. T his was w hat occurred in th e case of
the Bolshe^ks d u rin g th e R u ^ ia n R evolution; w ithout th e rigid, intolerant
dogm atism th a t led L enin an d his com rades to extirp ate from th e ir party,
d u rin g the pre-revolutionary phase, every inclination tow ard opportunism ,
the R u ^ ia n R evolution would n o t have presented the clear-cut, radical
c h a ra c te r th a t c a rrie d it to su cce^ a n d m ad e it a m odel for the pro letarian
revolution. T h e subsequent fact th at, th ro u g h th e absence o f revolution in
E u ro p e an d th ro u g h th e petty bourgeois stru ctu re o f Russia itself, a relapse
into bourgeois politics inevitably o ccurred, does not le ^ e n in any way th e
exem plary value o f those first years o f th e R u& ian R evolution.
“In th u s co n trastin g th e p rinciple-centered tactic with th e opportunist
type, we have also c reated a clear distinction between revolutionary periods
and reactionary periods.” B ut this is a b ro ad distinction; for, in reality, all
kinds of i n t e ^ e d i a t e phases exist. Even in tim es o f crisis, the principle-
cen tered tactic “does n o t always have th e e a r of the proletariat, at least
as a w hole. T h e unem ployed look for tem p o rary a&istance, fo r reform s,
so th a t they m ay re tu rn to b ein g salaried slaves; those w ho a re em ployed
continue to count on th e stability an d co n tin u an ce o f the capitalist system.
Despite th e ir revolt, th e m asses have not yet th e desire to achieve th e objective,
still lack th e feel o f th e ir o ^ power a n d th e will to strive tow ard the u ltim ate
goal —th e prim ary conditions for rev o lu tio n . . . . It is th erefore im p o ^ ib le to
forecast w ith certain ty w hether th e situation in tim es o f crisis favors or does
not favor com m unist p ro p a g a n d a ; th ere are so m any economic, trad itional,
ideological a n d o th er factors at work to m ake m inds receptive or
non-receptive, th a t only by hindsight c a n o n e m easure w h a t has finally
prevailed.” B ut, in any case, to attem pt to a d a p t to a contingent situation is
to carry th e spirit of an ou tm oded phase in to a new phase of th e class struggle.
“However, th e principle-centered tactic is n o t learn ed from books, o r
242 / PANNEKOEK AND THE W QRKERS COUNCILS
th ro u g h courses on theory a n d political f o ^ a t i o n , b u t th ro u g h real life

practice o f the class struggle. It is true th a t prior to action, as well as after
actio n , theory c a n be expressed in concepts th a t present organized
know ledge; b u t, in o rd er to develop in a real sense, this know ledge itself m ust
be acq u ired in th e h a rd school o f experience, a harsh lived experience th a t
shapes th e m in d in th e full h eat o f com bat. P ractical action brings into reality
all factors of w hich th e theory speaks, a n d enables one to see th e increasing
forces of solidarity, o f awareness, b u t a ls o - th r o u g h the defeats th a t the
enem y inflicts thanks to its spiritual re s o u r c e s - th e weaknesses o f one’s own
class. It is only th ro u g h the p ractice o f its struggles against capitalism , as
M arx in his tim e already stressed, th a t th e proletariat is t r a n s f o ^ e d into a
revolutionary class capable o f co nquering the capitalist system . . . .
“T hese reflections are also valid for th e struggle against the bosses, and, in
this sense, are o f p a rtic u la r relevance to th e A llgem eine A rbeiterunion. Like
the' K A P, the AAU is essentially a n organization for revolution. U nder other
conditions, d u rin g a period o f revolutionary eb b, one w ould n o t d ream of
fo un d in g such an organization. B ut it is all th a t rem ains from the
revolutionary y ears; th e w orkers w ho created it a n d who fo u g h t u n d e r its
banners, do n o t w ant th e experience o f those struggles to be forgotten, an d
therefore are conserving the AAU as a precious m eans o f fu tu re developm ent.
T h a t is why a p erio d such as th e present one brings even m ore contradictions
for this unio n th a n it does fo r th e KAP.
“W ere th e AAU to decide to a c t as a tra d e u nion organization, we w ould
have sim ply an o th er K raft-Zentrale. A t present, it is AAU policy that, in
revolutionary phases, all the m em bers o f th e various confederations should
follow th e sam e p a th to insure coherent u n ity o f all th e factories. A nd it's clear
p ro p a g a n d a fo r this idea could only fo u n d e r if the AAU set itself up as a
com petitor to th e o th e r confederations, instead o f acting as the p ro ponent of
a tactic th a t com pletely tran scen d ed th e ir aims.
" . . . It has som etim es been said th a t the AAU was the proponent of an
organizational p rinciple: facto ry organization as superior to th e trade
unions." B ut, in an y case, it is n o t concerned w ith being a n in strum ent for
rean im atin g a tra d e u n io n ^ m d o f com bativeness. “T o a d o p t this objective
would b e to t r a n s f o ^ itself into a n organization involved o u t of necessity in
com prom ising with the bo«es an d in th e f o ^ a t i o n o f a b u rea u cratic
stratu m , a n d fo r these reasons w ould therefore be dra'wn onto th e p a th of
refo^nism . . . . W h en th e struggles for b e tte r pay a n d w orking conditions led
by th e trad e unions are in accordance w ith refo^nist principles, in the
m an n er o f carpet sellers o r o f pleaders b efore a court, th e AAU should subject
them to the m ost severe criticism . If, against the wishes of the tra d e unions,
the workers d eclare w ar o n the bosses, th e AAU should support th em with
enlightenm ent a n d advice a n d p u t a t th e ir disposal its m achinery of
agitatio n ; however, in doing so, it m ust never act as though seeking to fight
its com petitors, as though a ttem p tin g to lu re m ^ b e r s away from the trade
unions. It should n o t, therefore, adopt the a ttitu d e o f a new organization th a t
places itself a t th e h e a d o f th e w orkers, b u t, on the contrary, should seek to
m ake th e new principles prevail. T h e re is. no question, for the AAU, of
refusing to assume th e leadership of th e struggle because its m em bership is
smaU. O n th e contrary, indeed, these principles d em an d th at the workers
fight, think a n d decide for themselves, a n d not that they appeal for direction
from organizations o th e r th a n the trad e unions . . . . It will follow the proper
course only if all its decisions are in accordance w ith th e principle of not
trying to develop as a specific o rg an izatio n , b u t instead a ttem p tin g to
co n trib u te to th e m a tu ra tio n of th e workers. T his is tan ta m o u n t to saying th at
the m ission o f th e AAU is to a ^ is t th e progress of all social conflicts tow ard
revolution. But it can n o t b e m ain tain ed th a t th e revolution can be achieved
th ro u g h any a n d every social conflict; a n d th erefore the mi&ion of the AAU
m ust b e to t r a n s f o ^ every conflict in to a phase o f revolutionary developm ent
by raising th e level o f knowledge a n d o f th e will to fight.
“W h at really m atters is t h a t - i n th e years o f decline, of confusion, of
d e c e i t - t h e principles o f th e class struggle, in the M arxist sense, have been
protected by a h a n d fu l o f m en w elded to g e th e r; for w ithout this, no revival
would b e possible. Clear a n d proven principles an d an ardent zeal fo r struggle
are th e two pillars o n which th e revolutionary developm ent m ust be
reco n stru cted ."
T o argue th at th e realities of th e situation left room for no o th e r choice . is
not to lessen th e im m ediate im portance of the preceding considerations. T he
idea o f "flexible” (or “dynam ic”) tactics n o doubt em bodied a legitim ate
aspiration to b reak o u t of th e group-cen tered l i f e - t h a t fram ew ork w ithin
which, u n ab le to d ire c t one's a ^ ^ e ssio n effectively against the w orld, one
directed it against the nearest group, and, th ro u g h lack of nu m b ers, one saw
discussions ab o u t principles in t e ^ s o f personal antagonism s. Alm ost until
the last days of R lttekom m unism us, th a t was tow ard the end o f 1 9 3 2 -w h e n
the Social D em ocratic reprew ion was d irected against the leftist press, while
a t the sam e tim e th e different tendencies were u n itin g against fascism - t h i s
question provoked s t o ^ y controversies a n d individual or coUective rifts. But
the Leninist C om m unist P arty itself, alth o u g h relatively large, succeeded
n eith er in securing a foothold in th e r e f o ^ i s t tra d e unions (a policy urg ed
on it by its im p ractical m asters) n o r in creating a really com petitive central

body. 34
Pannekoek in no respect sought to develop elab orate f o ^ u la tio n s . H e was
interested only in the best hypotheses of developm ent, the only ones really
worth envisaging, the others being of no practical value. A nd he noted, in
t t n z i p und T a k tik , th a t even in the tim e of crisis, w hen th e inevitable
outcom e of the situation is “th e ra p id grow th of the party an d of its influence,
there is a strong probability th at one can only prepare the way for the com ing
revolutionary wave, every phase of this kind constituting m erely a stage w ithin
a total process.” 35
It is well k n o ^ th a t the official w orkers’ m ovem ent, w ith its p aram ilitary
organizations, its rituals and its b anners, collapsed before the N ational
Socialists an d the petty bourgeoisie, w ithout d arin g to fling itself into a real
battle, and offerin g as a pretext the arg u m en t th a t the consequences o f an
ex tra-p arliam en tary conflict were hazardous (while the m ovem ent itself h ad
done everything to ensure th a t this was so). A nd we know w hat a fearful price
th e people of E urope have paid for this new b a n k r u p tc y - a consequence
of an entire tactic, to use Pannekoek’s te ^ in o lo g y . It will be argued th a t there
were m any oth er causes for the triu m p h of fascism besides this sham eful su r
rend er; b u t one c a n argue against this p a rtic u la r cause. A n d this w as w hat
was attem p ted , th o u g h in vain, by the council m ovem ent in G e ^ a n y .
34. Under the pressure of the 1929 crisis, the KPD attempted to revive, in its own fashion, the
ÂPist tactic of the self-activation of the masses by “a twofold organization” -political and
trade-unionist. Cf. Flechtheim, op. cit., pp. 161-62. This attempt at adaptation, always linked
with the old parliamentary tactic, soon came to nothing.
35. Ibid .• 8, p. 183.
C H A P T E R ELEV EN
T H E RUSSIAN R E V O L U T IO N
Almost all th e ‘organized’ forces o f council com m unism disappeared

shortly a fte r th e in a u g u ra tio n o f th e N azi reign o f terro r. T h e re rem ained
only isolated elem ents a n d sm all groups scattered th ro u g h o u t th e w orld. Only
one g r o u p - t h e Groep van Internationale C om m unisten, o r C IC —continued
to display a t th a t tim e any theoretical o r p ractical activity. W e shall discuss it
later. F or th e m o m en t, though, let us n o te th at it published several pam phlets
by Pannekoek (generally anonym ous).1
O ne o f these G IC publications was his L e n in as Philosopher 2 to w hich we
have already referred . T h e title is itself revealing, since th e pam p h let
(subtitled “A C ritical E xam ination o f th e Philosophical Basis of L eninism ”) is
in effect a critiq u e o f L enin’s M aterialism and E m piric criticism published in
1908, a n d issued in G erm an in 1927. Following M arx a n d Dietzgen,
Pannekoek exam ined th e objective ch aracter b o th o f m a tte r (in th e m odern
sense, in clu d in g wave phenom ena) an d o f m e n ta l representations (from th e
sim plest to th e m ost com plex — a m ath em atical m odel, for exam ple), as well
as th e form s o f in teractio n betw een th e m a te rial w orld an d th e spiritual
world.
Pannekoek follows M arx, we have said, b u t this needs qualification. In
effect, Pannekoek stresses th a t M arxism is a body o f ideas th at are by
definition revolutionary, an d th at th e politics o f M arx, like his theories,
developed in d o se connection w ith th e o rganic tr a n s f o r a t i o n o f society.
“T h e m ethod o f research th a t they [M arx a n d Engels] fram ed rem ains u p to
this day an excellent guide an d tool tow ard th e u n d erstan d in g an d
in terp retatio n o f new events; ” th is m e th o d is th a t of historical m aterialism , “a
1. For instance, in the pamphlet De Arbeiders, het Parlement en het Kommunismus,

Pannekoek deals in broad outline with the idea of the councils. The table of contents provides a
good summary of this pamphlet: crisis and misery; the conflict between work and property; the
cla& struggles; parliamentarianism as an instrument of emancipation; leaders as emancipators;
the utility of parliament; the Communist Party; the direct action of the masses; the workers’
councils.
2. J. Harper, Lenin als Philosoph. Kritische Betrachtung der philosophischen Grundlage des
Leninismus (Amsterdam, 1938), mimeographed. The English version appears as Anton
Pannekoek, Lenin as Philosopher (New York, 1948).
246 I PANNEKOEK AND THE WORKERS1COUNCILS
living theory th a t grows with th e p ro le ta ria t a n d w ith the tasks a n d aim s o f its
struggle. " 3
Pannekoek applies this m eth o d to th e study of the bourgeois ideas o f th e
world, whose developm ent rests prim arily o n th e idea o f the n a tu ra l sciences,
“the sp iritual basis o f capitalism .” T hese ideas, he says, took on a m aterialist
ch aracter as lo n g as th e bourgeoisie fo u g h t for political pow er against feudal
absolutism a n d religion, the la tte r still being a t th a t tim e the spiritual basis of
the form er. B u t w hen th e bourgeoisie h a d com e in to pow er a n d the class
struggle h a d em erged, the new d o m in an t claw stressed th e weaknesses of
m aterialism a n d the lim its of science.
A nd it is in this context, with M arx having “stated th at realities d e t e ^ i n e
thought, th a t D ietzgen established th e relationship betw een reality a n d
th o u g h t.” H e was to show, in effect, th a t spiritual a n d m aterial phenom ena
“constitute th e en tire real w orld, a coherent entity in w hich m a tte r
dete^n in es m in d ” (th a t is, thoughts are “m a te ria l fo r o u r b ra in activity of
f o x i n g concepts”) a n d m in d , th ro u g h h u m a n activity, d e t e ^ i n e s m atte r.
W e are therefore dealing w ith w hat “m ay rightly b e called m onism " —a
m onism th a t Pannekoek was to take u p on his own account, ad a p tin g it to the
evolution of the exact sciences. 4
Pannekoek therefore exam ines, from this m onist and m aterialist p e r
spective, th e epistem ological theories o f M ach a n d o f A venarius. W e can
deal h ere w ith only one aspect o f this m asterly account, which certainly
deserves to be published in full. M ach, whose philosophical work m ade a
considerable co n trib u tio n to th e developm ent o f quantitative physics,
reduced th e w orld to a systei o f objects, the knowledge o f w hich was a m a tte r
o f sensations o f a predom inantly intersubjective c h a r a c te r - n o t the
interactio n of, b u t the n ear-id en tity o f m atter an d m ind. T o this, Pannekoek
answers, in line w ith M arxism , th a t knowledge does n o t originate in personal
m editatio n (as A venarius holds) o r only in the activity o f the p ro fe ^ io n a l
philosopher alone (as M ach holds), but in social labor, in the interaction of
m an a n d n atu re in general.
C ontinuing w ith a close analysis o f this anti-M achist work by
Pannekoek shows that the latter, w ho was in n o way equ ip p ed to und erstan d
m odern physics - a n d therefo re the ideas o f the A ustrian physicist —
thoroughly m isinterprets a n d m isunderstands it, an d , by way o f refutation,
can only indulge in invective. A ccording to Lenin, “the philosophical
S. Ibid., p. l3.
4. Ibid., pp. 24-25. Pierre Naville finds in the Pannekoek pamphlet, which has “some good
chapters," a “vague realism," then a “dualism,” and finally an “existentialism”! Cf. P. Naville,
Psychologie, Marxisme, matêrialisme (Paris, 1947), pp. 141-45.
THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION I 247
expression of objective reality” covers only physical m atter, whereas m atter

“in H istorical M aterialism [is] the designation of all th a t is really existing in
th e w orld. "5 B ut, says Pannekoek, w hat m ust be specially n o ted is th e identity
relationship th at L enin establishes betw een Marx and Engels, on th e one
h and, and the bourgeois m aterialists, on the other (with the exception of
three p o in ts—nam ely, the “m echanistic m aterialism ” of the bourgeois
thinkers; “the anti-dialectical c h aracter of th eir p h ilosophy;” an d the
“non-intelligibility of historical m aterialism ”).6 I n this connection, P an n e
koek points o u t: “O f course, th eo retical ideas m ust be criticized by th e o
retical argum ents. But the social consequences are em phasized with such
vehemence, the social origins of the contested ideas should not be left out of
consideration. T his m ost essential c h a ra c te r o f M arxism does not seem to exist
for L e n in .” 7
L enin, in speaking o f a book b y H aeckel, th e m aterialist popularizer, says:
“This little book has becom e a w eapon in th e class struggle.” 8 But what class
struggle does he m ean , a t w hat period an d und er w hat conditions? Pannekoek
com m ents as foliows: “Socialist w orkers em braced the social doctrines of
M arx and the m aterialism of n atu ral science with equal interest. T h eir labor
u n d e r capitalism , th eir daily experience an d th e ir aw akening understanding
of social forces contributed greatly tow ard u n d erm ining tra d itio n al religion.
T h e n to solve th eir doubts, the need for scientific know ledge grew, and the
w orkers becam e the most zealous readers of th e works of B uechner and
H aeck el. . . . T his, by th e way, concurs w ith th e fact th a t the working-class
m ovem ent h ad n o t yet reached beyond capitalism , th a t in practice the class
struggle only ten d ed to secure its place w ithin capitalist society, an d that the
dem ocratic solutions o f the early bourgeois m ovem ents w ere also accepted as
valid for th e w orking class. T h e full com prehension of revolutionary M arxist
theory is possible only in connection with revolutionary p ra c tic e .”9
“W herein, th en , do bourgeois m aterialism an d H istorical M aterialism
stand opposed to one another?
“B oth agree insofar as they are m aterialist philosophies, th a t is both
recognize the p rim acy of the experienced m a te ria l w o rld : both recognize th at
sp iritu al phenom ena, sensation, consciousness, ideas, are derived from the
form er. T hey are opposite in th a t bourgeois m aterialism bases itself up o n
n a tu ra l science, w hereas H istorical M aterialism is prim arily th e science of
5. Pannekoek, ibid., p. 61.

6. Lenin, Materialisme et empiriocriticisme (Paris, 1956), pp. 205-206.
7. Pannekoek, Lenin as Philosopher, op. cit., p. 64.
8. Lenin, Materialisme et empiriocriticisme, op. cit., p. 306.
9. Pannekoek, ^Lenin as Philosopher, op. cit., pp. 17-18.
248 I PANNEKOEK AND THE WO^RKERS’ COUNCILS
society. Bourgeois scientists observe m a n only as an object of natu re, the

highest o f th e anim als, d e t e ^ i n e d by n atu ral laws. F or a n explanation of
man's life a n d action, they have only general biological laws an d , in a wider
sense, th e laws o f chemistry, physics an d m echanics. W ith these means little
can be accom plished in the w ay of u n d e rsta n d in g social p h en o m en a an d
ideas. H istorical M aterialism , o n th e o th e r h and, lays b a re th e specific
evolutionary laws o f h u m a n society a n d shows the interconnection betw een
ideas a n d society.
“T h e axiom o f m aterialism th at th e spiritual is determ ined by th e m aterial
world, has th erefo re entirely d ifferen t m eanings fo r the two doctrines. For
bourgeois m aterialism it m eans th a t ideas are products o f the b ra in , are to be
explained o u t o f the stru ctu re an d th e changes o f th e b rain substance, finally
out o f the dynam ics o f th e atom s o f th e b ra in . F or H istorical M aterialism , it
m eans th a t th e ideas o f m a n are d e t e ^ i n e d by his social conditions; society is
his environm ent w hich acts u p o n him th ro u g h his sense organs. T his
postulates a n en tirely different k in d o f problem , a different approach, a
different line o f thought, hence, also a different theory o f knowledge.
“F or bourgeois m aterialism th e p ro b lem o f th e m eaning o f knowledge is a
question o f th e relationship o f a sp iritual phenom enon to th e physico
chem ical-biological phen o m en a o f th e b ra in m atter. For H istorical M a
terialism it is a question o f th e relationship o f our thoughts to th e p h e
nom ena th a t we experience as th e external w orld. Now m an 's position in
society is n o t sim ply th a t of a n observing bein g ; he is a dynam ic force who
reacts u p o n his environm ent a n d changes it .” 10
It is precisely this a ttitu d e o f bourgeois m aterialism th at Pannekoek traces
in L enin a n d in his teacher, Plekhanov, a fte r having s h o ^ its connection
with conditions th a t m ad e possible th e em ergence o f classical Social
Democracy. W h e n Plekhanov id en tified th e ideas o f M arx as an extension of
those o f Feuerbach, n he was, in a certain sense, u tte rin g a sim ple tru ism ; b u t
he also highlights th e basic a n d distinctive tra it o f the M arxist theory of
knowledge, w hich "proceeds from th e actio n of society, this self-m ade
m aterial w orld o f m an , u p o n th e m ind, a n d so belongs to the p ro le tarian class
struggle.” 12 It was o n this basis th at Pannekoek wrote th e ch a p te r “T h e
Russian R evolution,” w hich follows.
“T h e basic philosophical agreem ent o f Lenin a n d Plekhanov and th eir
com m on divergence from M arxism points to their com m on origin in Russian
10. Ib id ., pp. 18-19.

11. In this connection, Pannekoek uses many citations from Plekhanov's Questions
Jondamentales du marxisme (Paris, undated), 2nd ed. pp. 15-21.
12. Pannekoek, Lenin as Philosopher, op. cit., pp. 66-67.
social conditions. T h e nam e a n d g arb o f d o ctrin e or theory depend on its

sp iritu al descent; they indicate th e earlier thin ker to whom we feel m ost
in d eb ted an d w hom we th in k we follow. T h e real content, however, depends
on its m a te ria l origin an d is d e t e ^ i n e d by th e social conditions u n d e r which
it developed an d has to work. M arxism itself says th a t th e m ain social ideas
a n d spiritu al tre n d s express th e aim s o f th e classes, i.e., the needs of social
developm ent, a n d ch an g e with the class struggles themselves. So they cannot
b e u nderstood isolated from society an d claw struggle. T his holds for
M arxism itself.
"In th eir early days M arx a n d Engels stood in the first ranks of the
opposition to G erm an a b s o lu tis m - a n opposition th at was still unified,
containing b o th th e bourgeoisie an d th e w orking cla&. T h e ir developm ent
tow ard H istorical M aterialism , then, was th e th eoretical reflection o f the
developm ent of th e w orking class tow ard in d ep en d en t action against the
bourgeoisie. T h e practical class-antagonism fo und its exprew ion in the
theoretical antagonism . T h e fight o f the bourgeoisie against feudalism was
expressed by m iddle-class m aterialism , th e cognate of Feuerbach's doctrine,
w hich used n a tu ra l science to fight religion as th e consecration o f the old
pow ers. T h e w orking class in its o ^ fig h t has little use fo r n a tu ra l science,
the in stru m en t o f its fo e ; its theoretical w eapon is social science, the science of
social developm ent. T o fig h t religion by m eans o f n a tu ra l science has no
si^ tifican ce fo r th e w orkers; they know, m oreover, that its roots will be cut
off anyhow first by capitalist developm ent, th e n by their o ^ class struggle.
N or have they any use for th e obvious fact th a t thoughts are p roduced by the
b ra in . T hey have to u n d erstan d how ideas are produced by society. T his is the
co n ten t o f M arxism as it grows am ong the workers as a living a n d stirring
pow er, as th e theory expressing th eir grow ing power of organization an d
knowledge. W h en in th e second h alf o f th e 19th century capitalism gained
com plete m astery in W estern an d C en tral E urope as well as in Am erica,
bourgeois m aterialism disappeared. M arxism was th e only m aterialist
class-view rem aining.
“In Russia, however, m atters w ere d ifferent. H ere the fight against czarism
was analogous to the f o ^ e r fig h t against absolutism in Europe. In Ru&ia,
too, chu rch a n d religion w ere the strongest supports of the system of
governm ent; they h eld th e ru ra l masses, engaged in prim itive ag rarian
production, in com plete ignorance and superstition. T h e struggle against
religion was h ere a p rim e social necessity. Since in Russia th ere was no
significant bourgeoisie th a t could take u p th e fig h t as a fu tu re ru ling class, the
task fell to the intelligentsia; d u rin g scores o f years it w aged a stren u o u s fight
for en lightenm ent of th e masses against czarism . A m ong th e W estern
250 / PANNEKOEK AND THE W ORKERS CO UNCILS
bourgeoisie, now reactionary an d anti-m aterialist, it could find no support

whatever in this struggle. It h a d to appeal to the socialist workers, who alone
sympathized with it, an d it took over th eir acknowledged theory, M arxism.
T hus it came ab o u t that even intellectuals who were spokesmen of the first
rudim ents o f a Russian bourgeoisie, such as Peter Struve and T u g a n
Baranovski, presented themselves as M arxists. T hey had nothing in com m on
with the p ro letarian M arxism of the W e st; w hat they learned from M arx was
the d octrine of social developm ent w ith capitalism as the next phase. A
revolutionary force em erged in Ru&ia for the first tim e w hen the workers took
u p the fight, first by strikes alone, th en in com bination w ith political
dem ands. Now the intellectuals found a revolutionary class to join up w ith, in
order to become its spokesmen in a socialist party.
“T h u s the p ro letarian class struggle in R ussia was at the sam e tim e a
struggle against czarist absolutism , u n d er the banner of socialism. So
M arxism in Russia, developing as the theory o f those engaged in the social
conflict, n eceârily assum ed a different ch aracter th a n it h ad in W estern
Europe. It was still the theory of a fighting w orking c l a s ; b u t this class h ad to
fight first an d forem ost for w hat in W estern Europe had been th e function
and work of th e bourgeoisie, w ith th e help o f th e intellectuals. So the Russian
intellectuals, in adapting the theory to this local task, had to find a form of
Marxism in which criticism of religion stood in the forefront. They found it in
an ap proach to earlier f o ^ s o f m aterialism , and in the first writings o f M arx
from the tim e w hen in G erm any the fight of the bourgeoisie and the workers
against absolutism was stiU u n d iv id ed .” 13
Plekhanov, Pannekoek recalls, was the first to adopt this approach, and to
establish a close relationship between the m aterialism of M arx and the
theories b o th of the m ajor French m aterialists an d of F euerbach. In th e ranks
of G erm an socialism, “Plekhanov was know n as the h erald of the R u ^ ia n
working-class struggle, w hich he p redicted theoretically at a tim e w hen
practically th ere was hardly any tra c e .” N earer as he was to the W estern
socialists, Plekhanov “was d e t e ^ i n e d by Russian conditions lew th a n was
L enin .”
13. Ibid.. pp. 67-68. An expert Sovietologist, the Dominican priest Bochenski. citing this
pa&age, approves of its content in so far as it pertains to the importance attached to the struggle
against religion by the Russian revolutionaries. But he reproaches Pannekoek, on the one hand,
for not seeing in Lenin a “classic” materialist, rarely “original” but “rather lew crude then
Engels; ” and on the other, for confining to "religious values” only the hate that Lenin had for all
“values.” Finally, he says Pannekoek focuses too much on the conditioru that deteîned the
personality of Lenin, and not sufficiently on this personality itself. Cf. Bochenski, Der
Sowjetrussische dialektische Materialisme (Bern, 1950), pp. 41-44. Thus, Pannekoek, too
“existentialist” for Naville, is not sufficiently so for this priest.
Above aU else, Pannekoek writes, Lenin an d th e Bolshevik Party saw as the

first task "th e an n ih ilatio n of czarism a n d o f the backw ard, b arb aro u s social
system o f Russia. C h u rch a n d religion w ere th e theoretical foundations o f th a t
system” - h e n c e th e n e e d for “a relendeK fig h t against th e m .” “T h e struggle
against religion stood in th e center o f Lenin's theoretical th o u g h t; any
concession, however sm all, to ‘fideism' was an a tta ck on the life-nerve o f the
m ovem ent.’’T h is fig h t “was very sim ilar to th e f o ^ e r fig h t o f the bourgeoisie
an d intellectuals in W estern E urope . . . . In Russia, however, it was the
w orking class that had to w age th e fig h t; so the fig hting organization h ad to
be a socialist party, proclaim ing M arxism as its creed, an d taking from
M arxism w hat was necessary for th e R ussian R evolution: th e doctrine of
social developm ent from capitalism to socialism, an d th e doctrine o f claK w ar
as its m oving force. H ence L enin gave to his m aterialism the nam e a n d g arb
o f M arxism , a n d assumed it to be th e real M arxism .
"T his identification was supported b y still another circum stance. In Russia
capitalism h a d n o t grow n u p g rad u ally from small-scale pro d u ctio n in the
hands o f a m iddle cla», as it h a d in W estern Europe. Big industry was
im ported from outside as a foreign elem ent by W estern capitalism , exploiting
the R ussian workers. M oreover, W estern financial capital, by its loans to the
czar, exploited th e en tire ag ra ria n R ussian people, who w ere heavily taxed to
pay th e in terest. W estern capital h e re assum ed the c h a ra c te r o f colonial
capital, w ith th e czar a n d his officials as its agents. In countries exploited as
colonies all th e classes have a com m on in terest in throw ing off th e yoke o f the
usurious foreign cap ital, to establish th e ir own free economic developm ent,
leading as a ru le to hom e capitalism . T h is fight is waged against
w orld-capital, hence often u n d e r th e n am e of socialism ; and the workers of
the W estern countries, w ho stan d ag ain st th e sam e foe, are the n a tu ra l allies.
T hus in C hina, Sun-Y at-sen was a socialist; since, however, the Chinese
bourgeoisie, for w hom he was a spokesm an, was a large an d pow erful class,
his socialism was ‘n a tio n a l’ an d he opposed the 'errors' o f M arxism .
“Lenin, on th e contrary, had to rely on the w orking class, an d because his
fight h ad to be im placable a n d radical, h e espoused the radical ideology of
the W estern p ro le ta ria t fig h tin g w o rld -c a p ita lism -M a rx ism , in o ther words.
Since, however, th e R u » ia n Revolution showed a m ixture o f two characters
(bourgeois revolution in its im m ediate aim s, p ro letarian revolution in its
active forces), th e a p p ro p ria te bolshevist theory likewise h a d to present two
characters, bourgeois m aterialism in its basic philosophy, pro letarian
evolutionism in its d o c trin e of class struggle. T his m ix tu re was t e ^ e d
M arxism . B ut it is clear th at L enin’s M arxism , as d e t e ^ i n e d by the special
Russian a ttitu d e tow ard capitalism , h a d to be fundam entally different from
252 I PÂNIEKOEKAND THE WORKERS’ COUNCILS
th e real M arxism grow ing as th e basic view o f th e worker in th e countries of

big cap ital. Marxism in W estern E urope is th e worldview o f a working class
confronting th e task of converting a m ost highly developed capitalism , its o'wn
world of life a n d action, in to com m unism . T h e R ussian workers an d
intellectuals could n o t m ak e this th e ir o b je c t: th ey h a d first to open th e way
for a free developm ent o f a m o d ern industrial society. T o th e Russian
M arxists th e nucleus o f M arxism is n o t co n tain ed in M arx's thesis th a t social
reality d eterm ines consciousness, b u t in th e sentence o f young M arx,
inscribed in big letters in th e Moscow People's H ouse, th a t religion is the
opi^m o f th e people.
“It m ay h a p p e n th a t in a theoretical work th ere ap p ear, not th e im m ediate
surroundings a n d tasks o f th e au th o r, b u t m ore general a n d rem ote influences
an d w ider tasks. In L enin's book, however, n o th in g of the sort is perceptible.
It is a m anifest a n d exclusive reflection o f th e R ussian Revolution at which h e
was aim ing. Its c h aracter so entirely corresponds to bourgeois m aterialism
th a t, h a d it been kno'wn at th e tim e in W estern E urope (only confused rum ors
on th e in tern al strifes o f Russian socialism p e n e tra ted here) a n d h a d it been
properly in terp reted , one could have p redicted th a t th e R u » ia n Revolution
m ust somehow result in a k in d of capitalism based on a workers' struggle.
“T h e re is a w idespread opinion th a t th e Bolshevist Party was M arxist, an d
th a t it was only for p ractical reasons th a t L enin, th e g rea t scholar a n d leader
o f M arxism , gave to th e revolution a direction other th a n w hat W estern
workers called c o m m u n is m -th e re b y showing his realistic M arxian insight.
T h e critical opposition to th e R ussian a n d Com m unist P arty politics tries
indeed to oppose th e despotic practice o f th e present Russian govern-
m e n t - t e ^ e d S ta lin is m - to th e ‘tru e ' M arxist principles of L enin and
old Bolshevism. W rongly so. N ot only because in practice these politics were
in au g u rated already by L enin. B ut also because th e alleged M arxism o f Lenin
a n d th e Bolshevist Party is n o th in g b u t a legend. Lenin never knew real
M arxism . W hence should he have ta k e n it? C apitalism h e knew only as
colonial capitalism ; social revolution h e knew only as th e annihilation of big
land ow nership a n d czarist despotism . R ^ i a n Bolshevism cannot be
repro ach ed for having a b an d o n ed th e way of M arxism , fo r it was never on
that way. Every page of L enin’s philosophical work is there to prove i t ; and
M arxism itself, by its thesis th a t theoretical opinions are d e t e ^ i n e d by social
relations a n d necessities, m akes it clear th a t it could not b e otherwise.
M arxism , however, a t th e sam e tim e shows th e necewity of th e legend; every
bourgeois revolution, requiring working class and peasant support, needs the
illusion th a t it is som ething different, larger, m ore universal. H ere it was the
ilu sio n th a t th e R u » ia n Revolution was th e first step of world revolution
liberatin g the en tire p ro letarian c la ^ from capitalism ; its theoretical

expression was th e legend of M arxism .
"O f course Lenin was a pupil of M arx; from M arx he learned w hat was
most essential for th e Ru& ian Revolution, th e uncom prom ising pro letarian
c la s struggle. Ju st as for sim ilar reasons, th e social dem ocrats were pupils of
M arx. A nd surely th e fight of the R u& ian workers, in their mass actions an d
th e ir soviets, was th e m ost im p o rtan t practical exam ple of m odern
p ro letarian w arfare. T h a t, however, L enin did not u n d erstan d Marxism as
the theory of p ro letarian revolution, th a t he did not un d erstan d capitalism ,
bourgeoisie, p ro letariat in their highest m odern developm ent, was s h o ^
strikingly w hen from Ru&ia, by means of th e T h ird In tern atio n al, the world
revolution was to be begun, an d th e advice an d w arnings of W estern Marxists
were entirely disregarded. A n u n b ro k en series of blunders, failures and
defeats th a t resulted in th e present weakness o f the w orkers’ m ovem ent
showed the unavoidable shortcom ing o f th e Russian leadership. ” 14
T h u s, Pannekoek links Russian conditions to Lenin’s fragm entary
developm ent of M arxism . B ut, according to Pannekoek,. Lenin regarded
ideas as tru th s having an existence in d ep en d en t of society, w ithout seeing in
th em “generalizations o f form er experiences and necessities;” h e thus a lig n s
to them “an u n lim ited validity” and, u n d e r the guise of restoring M arxism in
view o f idealist tendencies, he h ard en s th e m into the d o ^ ^ a s of bourgeois
m aterialism —divinized abstractions: m a tte r, energy and causality in n atu re;
freedom an d progress in social lif e - r e p la c e d in our day by th e cult "of the
state and of the n a tio n .”
T h e sphere of influence of Leninism is not lim ited to Russia, Pannekoek
w rote in 1938: “T h e aim of the C om m unist P a n y 15- w h ic h is called world
re v o lu tio n -is to b rin g to power, by m eans of the fighting force of the
workers, a stra tu m of leaders who institu te p lan n ed production by m eans of
state pow er; in its essence it coincides w ith the aims of social dem ocracy. T h e
social ideals of w ell-ordered organization of p ro duction for use under the
direction o f technical and scientific experts inspire “d arin g radicalism of
m aterialist th o u g h t. T h u s the C om m unist P arty sees in this class a n a tu ra l
ally, an d seeks to draw it into its cam p. By m eans o f a suitable p ro p ag an d a, it
tries therefore to w ithdraw the intelligentsia from the spiritual influences of
the bourgeoisie an d o f private capitalism in decline, and to win them over to a
revolution destined to give them their tru e place as a new do m in an t c la ^ . At
the philosophical level, this means w inning them over to m aterialism . A
14. Pannekoek, op. c i t pp. 65-72.

15. The reference is, of course, to the Communist Party in the generic sense.
254 / PjANEKOEK AND THE W ORKERS CO UNCILS
revolution is incom patible w ith th e soft-centered an d conciliatory ideology of

an idealist system; it needs th e exciting an d audacious radicalism of
m aterialism .
“T h e re is, of course, the difficulty that the intellectual class is too lim ited in
n u m b er, too heterogeneous in social i-'osition, an d hence too feeble to be able
single-handedly to seriously th re a te n capitalist dom ination. N eith er are the
leaders of th e Second an d the T h ird Intern atio n als a m atch for the pow er of
the bourgeoisie, even if they could im pose themselves by strong an d clear
politics in stead of b ein g ro tte n th ro u g h opportunism . W hen, however,
capitalism is tum bling into a heavy econom ic o r political crisis th a t rouses the
masses, w hen the w orking claw has taken up the fight an d succeeds in
shatterin g capitalism in an initial v ic to r y - th e n their time will come. T h en
they will intervene an d slide them selves in as leaders of the revolution,
nom inally to give their aid by tak in g p a rt in th e fight, in reality to deflect the
action in th e direction o f their p arty aims. W hether or not the defeated
bourgeoisie will then rally with them to save what can be saved of capitalism ,
their intervention in any case comes d o ^ to ch eating the workers, leading
them off the ro ad to freed o m .” 16
In his m ajor work, W orkers' Councils, Pannekoek deals with th e Russian
Revolution as follows:
“T h e Russian Revolution was a n im p o rtan t episode in the developm ent of
the w orking c la ^ m o v e m e n t-firs t, as already m entioned, by the display of
new form s of political strike, instrum ents of revolution. Moreover, in a higher
degree, by the first ap p earan ce o f new f o ^ s of self-organization of the
fighting workers, k n o ^ as soviets, i.e ., councils. In 1905 they were hardly
noticed as a special phenom enon an d they d isappeared w ith the revolutionary
activity itself. In 1917 they reap p e a re d with greater pow er; now their
im portance was grasped by th e workers of W estern Europe, and they played a
role here in the class struggles after W orld W a r I.
“T h e soviets, eêntially, were sim ply th e strike com m ittees, such as always
arise in wide strikes. Since the strikes in R u ^ ia broke out in large factories an d
16. Pannekoek, op. cit., pp. 78-79. Karl KoTSCh, in a laudatory account of Pannekoek’s
work, clarifies the “sliding” of historical material^m into di alectical materialism, under the aegis
of Lenin, who fitted the Hegelian dialectic to the old bourgeois materialism and pointed out the
close link existing between the latter and the Jacobin political form (state, party dictatorship) of
Russian and international Bolshevism. Cf. Korsch, “Lenin’s Philosophy,” Living Marxi.sm, IV: 5
(November 1938), pp. 138-44. Cf. also Mousso and Philippe, “Politique et philosophie de Unine
a Harper," Intemationali.sme, 30 (January 1948). pp. 28-36; Philippe, ibid., pp. 31-33. Both
reproach Pannekoek for seeing the October Revolution as a purely bourgeois movement, and for
reducing the whole works of Lenin to a philosophic expo^ “of more than doubtful quality/’ and
consequently neglecting the “political positions” of the Bolsheviks, the most advanced positions of
that time, we are told.
THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION / 255
rapidly exp an d ed over t o ^ s a n d districts, the workers h a d to keep in

continual touch. In th e shops the w orkers assembled and talked regularly
after th e close o f work, o r in tim es of tension even continually, the en tire day.
T hey sent th eir delegates to o th er factories an d to the central com m ittees,
where i n f o ^ a t i o n was interch an g ed , difficulties discussed, decisions taken,
a n d new tasks considered.
“B u t h ere th e tasks proved m ore encom passing th a n in ord in ary strikes.
T h e workers h a d to throw off th e heavy oppression o f czarism ; th e y fe lt th a t
th e ir action was ch an g in g Russian society a t its foundations. T h ey h a d to
consider n o t only wages a n d la b o r conditions in their shops, but all questions
related to society a t large. T hey h ad to find th e ir o'wn way in these realm s and
to take decisions o n political m atters. W h en th e strike flared u p , extended
over th e entire country, stopped all in d u stry a n d traffic a n d paralyzed
governm ental functions, th e soviets were co nfronted w ith new problem s.
T hey h a d to reg u late public life, they h a d to take care o f public security an d
order, they h a d to provide the indispensable public utilities a n d services.
T hey h ad to p e r f o ^ gove^rnmental functions; what they decided was
executed by th e workers, w hereas th e gove^rnment an d police stood aloof,
conscious o f their im potence against th e rebellious masses. T h en the delegates
o f other groups, of intellectuals, o f peasants, o f soldiers, who cam e to join the
central soviets, took p a rt in th e discussions a n d decisions. B ut all this power
was like a flash o f lightning, like a passing m eteor. W hen at last th e czarist
governm ent m ustered its m ilitary forces an d beat down th e m ovem ent, the
soviets disappeared.
“T h u s it was in 1905. In 1917 the w ar h a d w eakened governm ent through
the defeats a t th e fro n t a n d the h u n g er in th e towns, an d now th e soldiers,
mostly peasants, took p a rt in th e action. Besides the workers’ councils in the
towns, soldiers' councils w ere f o ^ e d in the a:rmy; the officers w ere shot when
they d id n o t acquiesce to the soviets tak in g all power into their hands to
prevent entire an archy. A fter h a lf a year o f vain attem pts on the p a rt of
politicians a n d m ilitary com m anders to impose new governm ents, th e soviets,
su p p o rted by the socialist parties, were m a ste r o f society.
“N ow th e soviets stood before a new task. F rom organs o f revolution they
had to becom e organs o f reconstruction. T h e masses were their o'wn m aster
and of course b e g an to build u p p roduction according to th eir needs a n d life
interest. W h a t they w anted a n d did was n o t d e t e ^ i n e d , as always in such
cases, by inculcated doctrines, but by th e ir own class ch aracter, by th e ir
conditions of life. W h a t w ere these conditions? Russia was a prim itive
ag rarian country w ith only th e beginnings o f in dustrial developm ent. T h e
masses o f the people were uncivilized a n d ig n o ran t peasants, spiritually
256 I PJANEKOEK AND THE WORKERS' CO UNCILS
dom inated by a gold, g littering church, an d even the industrial workers were
strongly connected with th eir old villages. T he village soviets arising
everywhere were self-governing peasan t com m ittees. T hey seized the large
estates of the form er large l a n d o ^ e r s an d divided them up. T h e
developm ent went in the direction of small holders w ith private property, an d
displayed already the distinctions betw een larg er an d sm aller properties,
between influential w ealthy an d m ore hum ble poor f a c e r s .
“In the t o ^ s , on the other h a n d , there could be no developm ent to private
capitalist industry because th e re was no bourgeoisie of any significance. T h e
workers w an ted som e form of socialist production, the only one possible under
these conditions. But their m inds and ch aracter, only superficially touched by
the beginnings of capitalism , were hard ly a d eq u ate to the task of themselves
regulatin g pro d u ctio n . So th eir forem ost an d leading elem ents, the socialists
of the Bolshevist P a rty -o rg a n iz e d an d h a rd e n e d by years of devoted fight,
their leaders in th e re v o lu tio n -b e c a m e th e leaders in the reconstruction.
Moreover, were these working class tendencies n o t to be d r o n e d by the flood
of aspirations for private prop erty com ing from the lan d , a strong central
gove^rnment h a d to be form ed, able to restrain the peasants’ tendencies. In
this heavy task of organizing industry, of organizing the defensive w ar against
counterrevolutionary attacks, of su bduing the resistance of capitalist
tendencies am o n g the peasants, a n d of educatin g them to m odern scientific
ideas instead of th e ir old beliefs, all th e cap ab le elem ents am ong the workers
and intellectuals, supplem ented by such of the f o ^ e r officials and officers as
were willing to cooperate, had to com bine in the Bolshevist P arty as the
leading body. It form ed the new gove^rnment. T h e soviets gradually were
elim inated as organs of self-rule, an d reduced to subordinate organs of the
governm ent ap p aratu s. T h e nam e of Soviet R epublic, however, was preserved
as a cam ouflage, and the ruling p a rty retain ed the nam e o f C om m unist
P arty .” 17
Pannekoek th en goes o n to describe the m a n n e r in w hich a system o f state
capitalist p ro d u ctio n developed in Russia, b u t we cannot do m o re th a n
m ention it here. His acco u n t concludes with the following, which is highly
characteristic of his m e th o d : “F or th e w orking class, the significance of the
Russian R evolution m ust be looked for in quite different directions. Russia
showed to the E uropean and A m erican workers, confined w ithin reform ist
ideas an d practice, first how an in d u strial w orking class by a gigantic mass
action of wild strikes is able to u n d e ^ i n e a n d destroy an obsolete state
pow er; and second, how in such actions th e strike com m ittees develop into
17. Pannekoek, Workers' Councils, op. c p p . 83-85.
THE RUSS/AN REVOLUTION / 257
workers’ councils, organs of fight and of self-m anagem ent, acquiring political
tasks an d functio n s.” 18
It is on the sam e basis th a t, in L en in as Philosopher, Pannekoek defines
w hat he m eans by revolutionary M arxism . H ere again, he is not at all
concerned with restoring a body of ideas, still less w ith polem ics, but he
reasons in accordance w ith the real conditions and the final purpose of an
all-out working class struggle in the developed capitalist countries: "In
reality, for the w orking c la ^ in the countries of developed capitalism , in
W estern E urope an d A m erica, m atters are entirely different. Its task is not
the overthrow of a backw ard absolutist m onarchy. Its task is to vanquish a
ruling class com m an d in g the mightiest m a te ria l and spiritual forces the w orld
ever knew. Its object cannot be to replace the dom ination of stockbrokers and
m onopolists over a disorderly p ro d u ctio n by th e dom ination of state officials
over a p roduction regulated from above. Its o bject is to be itself m aster of
produ ctio n an d itself to regulate lab o r, the basis of life. Only th en is
capitalism really destroyed. Such a n aim can n o t be attain ed by an ignorant
mass, the confident disciples o f a p arty th a t presents itself as expert
leadership. It can be attain ed only if the workers themselves, the entire class,
un d erstan d th e conditions, ways a n d m eans o f their fig h t; w hen every m an
knows from his own ju d ^ n e n t w hat to do. T h e y m ust, every one of them , act
themselves, decide themselves, hence th in k o u t a n d know for themselves. Only
in this way will a real class organization be built up from below, having the
f o ^ of som ething like workers' councils. It is of no avail th a t they have been
convinced th a t th eir leaders know w hat is afoot and have gained the point in
theoretical d is c u s s io n -a n easy th in g w hen each is acq uainted w ith the
writings of his own p a rty only. O u t of the contest of argum ents they have to
f o ^ a clear opinion themselves. T h e re is not tru th lying ready at h a n d th at
has only to be im b ib e d ; in every new case tru th m ust be co n trib ed by exertion
of one's own b ra in .
“This does not m ean , of course, th a t every worker should judge on scientific
argum ents in fields th at can be m astered only by professional study. It m eans
first, th a t aU workers should give atten tio n n o t only to their direct working
and living conditions b u t also to the great social issues connected with their
class struggle an d the organization of lab o r an d w hould know how to take
decisions here. B ut it implies, secondly, a certain sta n d a rd o f argum ent in
p ro p a g a n d a an d political strife. W h en the views o f the opponent are distorted
because the willingness or the capacity to u n d erstan d them is lacking, th en in
the eyes of the believing adherents you m ay score a success; b u t the only
re su lt—w hich in p a rty strife is even i n te n d e d - is to bind them with stronger
18. Ibid., p. 86.
258 I PANNEKOEK THE W ORKERS CO UNCILS
fanaticism to th e party. F or the workers, however, w hat is of im portance is

not the increase o f party power but th e increase of th eir o ^ capacity to seize
power a n d to establish th eir m astery over society. Only when, in arguing and
discussing, th e o p ponent is given his full p o und, w hen in w eighing argum ents
against one an o th er each solid opinion is understood out of social claM
relations, will the p articip an t h earers gain such w ell-founded insight as is
necessary for a working class to a& ure its freedom .
“T h e working c la ^ needs M arxism for its liberation. Just as the results of
n atu ra l science are necessary for the technical construction of capitalism , so
the results of social science are n eceâry for th e organizational construction
of com m unism . W h at was needed first was political economy, th at p a rt of
Marxism that expounds the structure of capitalism , the n a tu re of
exploitation, th e class-antagonism , th e tendencies of economic developm ent.
It gave, directly, a solid basis to the spontaneously arising fight of th e workers
against the capitalist m asters. T h en , in th e further struggle, by its theory of
the developm ent o f society from prim itive econom y th ro u g h capitalism to
com m unism , it gave confidence a n enthusiasm th ro u g h the prospect of
victory a n d freedom . W hen the not yet num erous workers took up th eir first
difficult fight, an d the hopeless indifferent masses h ad to be roused, this
insight was the first th in g needed.
“W h en the working claw h a s grown m ore num erous, m ore powerful, an d
society is fuU of the p ro le ta ria n c la ^ struggle, a n o th e r p a rt of M arxism has to
come to the forefront. T h a t they should know th a t they are exploited a n d
have to fig h t is not the m ain poin t any m o re ; they m ust know how to fight,
how to overcom e their weakness, how to b u ild u p their unity a n d strength.
T heir econom ic position is so easy to u n d erstand, th eir exploitation so
m anifest th a t th eir unity in struggle, th eir com m on will to seize pow er over
production should presum ably result at once. W h at ham pers them is chiefly
the power of the inherited an d infused ideas, th e form idable spiritual power
of the m iddle-class w orld, enveloping th eir m inds into a thick cloud of beliefs
and ideologies, dividing them , an d m aking them u n certain an d confused.
T h e process of enlightenm ent, of clearing up a n d vanquishing this w orld of
old ideas a n d ideologies is the essential procew of building the w orking class
power, is th e progress of revolution. H ere th a t p art o f M arxism is needed th a t
we call its philosophy, the relation of ideas to reality.” 19
Pannekoek applied to anarchism this evolutionary conception of M arxism
linked w ith the new ch aracter o f the c la ^ struggle. In the earlier sections of
the present collection, 20 we have seen that he reproached anarchism for
19. Lenin as Philosopher, op. c i t pp. 75-76.
20. Although the answer to Mohsam says nothing specific, its author is clearly against the
THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION / 259
slowing dow n events. A fter W orld W ar II, h e retu rn ed to this, but this tim e
he ascribed a different m otivation to it. T his is sho'wn by a le tte r to the
A ustralian p u blisher o f “W orkers’ C ouncils: " 21
“In th e present tim es o f increasing submission by th e workers to powerful
state tyranny, it is n a tu ra l th a t m o re sym pathy is directed tow ard anarchism ,
w ith its p ro p a g a n d a o f freedom . Ju st as social dem ocracy, its opponents, it
h a d its roots in 19th-century capitalism . O ne took its necessity from
exploitation a n d capitalist com petition, th e oth er fro m th e entire enslaving
and suppression of personality; one fo u n d its force in th e need for an d
p ro p a g a n d a of organization, th e o th e r in th e need for an d p ro p a g a n d a of
freedom . Since th e f o ^ e r was felt m ost im m ediately an d overwhelmingly by
the workers, social dem ocracy won th e masses an anarchism co u ld n o t
com pete w ith it. Now u n d e r rising state capitalism it seems to have a b e tter
chance. B ut we have to b e a r in m in d th a t b o th in th e sam e way carry th e
m ark of th e ir origin o u t of th e prim itive conditions of th e 19 th century. T h e
p rin cip le of freedom , o rig in atin g from bourgeois conditions of early
capitalism , freedom of tra d e an d enterprise, is n o t adequate to th e w orking
class. T h e problem s or goals for th e w orkers are to com bine freedom and
organization. A narchism , by setting u p freedom as its goal, forgets th a t the
free society of workers can only exist by a strong feeling o f com m unity as the
prom inent c h a ra c ter of th e collaborating producers. T his new character,
com ing fo rth as stro n g solidarity in th e w orkers' fights already, is th e basis of
o rg a n iz a tio n -w ith o u t com pulsion from above. T h e self-m ade organization
by free collaborating workers is th e basis at th e sam e tim e of th e ir personal
freedom , i.e ., of their feeling as free m asters of th eir o,w n work. Freedom as
the chief content of anarchist teaching m ay awake strong s^ n p a th ie s now,
b u t it is only a p a rt, n o t even th e basic p a rt, of th e goal of th e w orking cla&,
w hich is expressed by self-rule, self-determ ination, by m eans o f council
organization. It seems, th en , th a t in th e p resent tim es th e re is in anarchism a
certain ap p ro ach tow ard th e idea of workers' councils, especially w here it
involves groups of workers. B ut th e old p u re anarchist doctrine is too narrow
to be of value for th e workers’ class struggle now .”
idea ofcomnon action with the anarchists. A year later, when a section of the KAPD proposed to
create a new anti-Moscow International, it was Gorter who drew up its manifesto, Die
kommuni.stische Arbeiter Inte^rnationale (Berlin, 1921). The attempt had little impact, except in
Holland, of course, and in Bulgaria, where a ÂP of a thousand members was set up after the
sabotage by the Leninist Communist Party of a rail workers’ strike in 1919-1920. Cf. Joseph
Rothschild, The Communist Party of Bulgaria (New York, 1959), pp. 99, 155, 296.
21. “Anarchism Not Suitable," Southern Advocate for Workers’ Councils, 42 (February
1948). The title isJ. A. Dawson’s, editor of the paper, who also published studies by other council
co^mmunists (Mattick, Korsch) and by non-confoîst anarchists (Lain Diez, translator of Lenin
as Philosopher into Spanish, and Kennafick).
CHAPTER TWELVE
P A R T Y AND W O R K IN G CLASS
N e e d le s to say, th e GIC 1 h a m m e re d out its ideas by criticizing o th er

political organizations, including th e ^ A P . I n its view, th e basic condition for
a new world was “control over the n a tu ra l course of pro d u ctio n and
d istrib u tio n ” by the workers’ councils. T his d em an d ed a definitive b reak with
the classical party form , since the la tte r was regarded as a de facto leadership
organ representing the c o u n c ils - a role th at the ^ A P D (and its various
factions) effectively sought to co m er for itself. However, th e GIC in no way
questioned the need for an autonom ous co m m unist body of id e a s; in fact, it
envisioned political organization in the form of a federation of “work
gi-oups.” 2 These gi-oups, functioning as “organs of collective th o u g h t,” lived
and m ultiplied by th e ir o ^ activity: theoretical elaboration. B ut this activity
was possible only w hen linked w ith mass actions, w ith actions arising
spontaneously from the contradictions of m o d em society and not at anyone’s
beck and c a l P - a s , for instance, in the A m sterdam disturbances o f 1934.
O f course, this viewpoint was criticized. O n e criticism was concerned
particularly w ith the need for a m ore intensive, m ore concrete p articip atio n
in the conflicts, an d th erefo re w ith th e need for a political gi-oup endowed
with a coherence gi-eater th a n th a t of a simple federation. 4 Pannekoek
intervened in the discu&ion a little later, w ith an article entitled “P artei u n d
A rb e ite rk la ^ e ” (“T h e P arty an d th e W o rk in g C la ^ ”), s which follows.
“W e are only at the very earliest stages of a new w orkers’ m ovem ent. T h e
old m ovem ent was em bodied in parties, a n d today belief in the party
constitutes th e m ost pow erful check on the w orking class* capacity for action.
T h a t is why we are n o t trying to create a new p arty . T his is so, not because our
num bers are s m a l l - a party of any k in d begins w ith a few p e o p le - b u t
1. On the history of this group. cf. “Aper!;u sur l’histoire communistes de co^nseils en
Hollande,” Inform ations et liaisons ouvneres, 30, May 6, 1959.
2. “Ueber die Notwendigkeit einer Partei, ” Der Kampfwf (organ of the AAU - Berlin), 3-4,
January 1930.
3. “Das Werden einer neuen Arbeiterbewe^mg,” Raetekorrespondenz, 8-9, April-May 1935,
pp. 1-28.
4. I b i d 10-11, July-August 1935, pp. 22-26.
5. Anton Pannekoek, “Partei und Arbeiterklase,” ibid., 15, March 1936, pp. l-6. All
articles in R aetekorrespondû were published anonymously.
262 / P A N N E K O E K T H E WORKERS COUNCILS
because, in o u r day, a party can n o t be other th an an organization aim ed at

directing an d d om inating th e p ro letariat. T o this type o f organization we
oppose th e principle th a t th e w orking claw can effectively com e into its own
and prevail only by tak in g its destiny in to its own hands. T h e workers are not
to ad o p t th e slogans o f any gro u p whatsoever, n o t even our o-wn groups; they
are to think, decide a n d act for themselves. T herefore, in this transitional
period, th e n a tu ra l o rgans o f ed ucation a n d enlig htenm ent are, in o u r view,
work groups, study an d discussion circles, which have f o ^ e d o f th eir own
accord and a re seeking their o ^ way.
“T h is view directly contradicts th e trad itio n al id eas ab o u t th e role o f th e
party as an essential educational org an o f th e p ro letariat. H ence it is resisted
in m any q u arters where, however, th ere is no fu rth e r desire to have dealings
either w ith th e Socialist P arty or th e C om m unist Party. T his, no doubt, is to
be p artly explained by the stren g th o f tra d itio n : when one has always
regarded th e class w ar as a p a rty w ar an d a w ar between parties, it is very
difficult to adopt th e exclusive view point o f class and o f the claw w ar. But
partly, too, one is faced w ith th e clear idea th a t, after all, it is incum bent on
the p a rty to play a role of th e first im p o rtan ce in the pro letarian struggle for
freedom . It is this idea we shall now exam ine m o re closely.
“T h e w hole question pivots, in short, on th e following d istin ctio n : a party
is a group based on certain ideas held in com m on, w hereas a class is a group
united on th e basis of com m on interests. M em bership in a class is d e t e ^ i n e d
by function in the p ro d u ctio n procew, a function th a t creates definite
interests. M em bership in a p a rty m eans being one o f a group having identical
views ab o u t th e m a jo r social questions.
“In recent tim es, it was supposed for theoretical and p ractical reasons th at
this fu n d a m e n ta l difference w ould d isappear w ithin a class party, the
‘w orkers’ p a rty .' D uring th e period w hen Social D em ocracy was in full
growth, th e cu rren t im pression was th a t this p arty would gradually unite all
the workers, som e as m ilitants, others as sym pathizers. A n d since th e theory
was th a t identical interests would necessarily engender identical ideas an d
aims, th e d istinction betw een claw a n d p a rty was bound, it was believed, to
disappear. Social D em ocracy rem ain ed a m in o rity group, a n d m oreover
becam e th e targ et of attack by new w orkers’ groups. Splits occurred w ithin it,
while its own c h aracter underw ent rad ical change and certain articles o f its
program w ere eith er revised or in terp reted in a totally different sense. Society
does n o t develop in a continuous way, free from setbacks, but through
conflicts and antagonism s. W hile th e w orking claw b attle is w idening in
scope, th e enem y’s strength is increasing. U ncertainty about th e way to be
foUowed constantly an d repeatedly troubles th e m inds o f th e com batants;
THE PARTY AND THE WORKING CLASS / 263
and d o u b t is a factor in division, of in tern al q u arrels and conflicts w ithin the

w orkers’ m ovem ent.
“It is useless to d ep lo re these conflicts as creatin g a pernicious situation th a t
should not exist a n d w hich is m aking th e workers powerlew. As has often been
pointed out, th e w orking class is n o t w eak because it is divided; on the
contrary, it is divided because it is weak. A nd th e reason why th e pro letariat
o u g h t to seek new ways is th a t th e enem y has stren g th of such a kind th a t the
old m ethods a re ineffectual. T h e w orking class will n o t secure these ways by
m agic, but through a great effort, deep reflection, through the clash of
divergent opinions an d the conflict o f im passioned ideas. It is incum bent
upon it to find its o'wn way, an d precisely th e re in is the raison d ’etre of the
in tern al differences a n d conflicts. It is forced to renounce outm oded ideas
an d old chim eras, a n d it is indeed th e difficulty o f this task th a t engenders
such big divisions.
“N or should th e illusion be nursed th a t such im passioned party conflicts
an d opinion clashes belong only to a transitional period such as th e present
one, a n d th a t they will in d u e course disap p ear, leaving a unity stronger th a n
ever. C ertainly, in th e evolution of th e class struggle, it sometimes happens
th a t all th e various elem ents of strength are m erged in order to snatch some
great victory, an d th at revolution is th e fruit of this unity. B ut in this case, as
after every victory, divergences appear im m ediately when it comes to deciding
on new objectives. T h e proletariat th e n finds itself faced w ith the m ost
arduo u s tasks: to crush the enemy, a n d m ore, to organize production, to
create a new order. It is out o f the question th a t all the workers, all categories
a n d all groups, whose interests are still fa r from being hom ogeneous, should
th ink an d feel in th e sam e way, an d should reach spontaneous a n d im m ediate
agreem ent ab o u t w hat should be done next. It is precisely because they are
com m itted to finding for themselves th e ir own way ahead th a t the liveliest
differences occur, th a t th ere are clashes am o n g them , an d th a t finally,
th ro u g h such conflict, they succeed in clarifying their ideas.
“No d o u b t, if certain people holding th e sam e ideas get together to discuss
the prospects for action, to h a m m e r o u t ideas by discussion, to indulge in
p ro p a g a n d a for these attitudes, th e n it is possible to describe such groups as
parties. T h e nam e m atters little, provided th a t these parties adopt a role
distinct from th a t w hich existing parties seek to fulfill. Practical action, th a t
is, concrete claw struggle, is a m a tte r for the masses themselves, acting as a
whole, within th e ir n a tu ra l groups, notably th e work gangs, which constitute
the units of effective com bat. It w ould be w rong to find the m ilitants o f one
tendency going on strike, while those o f an o th e r tendency continued to work.
In th a t case, th e m ilitants of each tendency should present th e ir viewpoints to
264 I P A N N E K O E K T H E WORKERS’ COUNCILS
the factory floor, so th a t th e workers as a whole are able to reach a decision

based on knowledge a n d facts. Since the w ar is im m ense an d the enem y’s
strength e n o ^ o u s , victory m ust be attain ed by m erging all the forces a t the
masses' disposal - n o t only m aterial and m oral force w ith a view to action,
unity a n d enthusiasm , b u t also th e spiritual force bo rn of m en tal clarity. T h e
im portance of these parties or g roups resides in the fact th a t th ey help to
secure this m ental clarity th ro u g h their m u tu al conflicts, th eir discu»ions,
th eir p ro p ag an d a. It is by m eans o f these organs of self-clarification th a t the
working claw can succeed in tracing for itself the road to freedom .
“T h a t is why parties in this sense (an d also th eir ideas) do not need f i ^ and
fixed structures. Faced w ith any c h an g e of situation, w ith new tasks, people
becom e divided in their views, b u t only to reu n ite in new ag ree m en t; while
others come u p w ith oth er program s. Given th eir flu ctu atin g quality, they are
always ready to adapt themselves to the new.
“T h e present workers’ parties are of an absolutely different character.
Besides, th ey have a different objective: to seize power an d to exercise it for
their sole benefit. Far from a ttem p tin g to con trib ute to th e em ancipation of
the w orking class, they m ean to govern for themselves, an d they cover this
intention u n d er the pretence o f freeing th e p ro letariat. Social Democracy,
whose ascendent period goes back to the g reat p a rliam en tary epoch, sees this
power as gove^rnment based on a p arliam en tary m ajority. For its p a rt, the
C om m unist P arty carries its power politics to its extrem e consequences: party
dictatorship.
“Unlike th e parties described above, these p arties are b o und to have
f o ^ a t i o n s w ith rigid structures, whose cohesion is assured by means of
statutes, disciplinary m easures, admission an d dismissal procedures. Designed
to dom inate, they fight for power by orienting the m ilitants toward the
instrum ents of power th a t they possess an d by striving constantly to increase
their sphere of influence. T h ey do n o t see th eir task as th a t of educating the
workers to think for themselves; on the contrary, they aim at drilling them , at
tu rn in g th em into faithful an d devoted ad herents of th eir doctrines. W hile
the w orking class needs unlim ited freedom o f spiritual developm ent to
increase its stre n g th an d to conquer, the basis of p arty pow er is the repression
of aU opinions that do n o t c o n f o ^ to th e party line. In ‘dem ocratic’ parties,
this result is secured by m ethods th a t pay lip service to freedom ; in the
dictatorial parties, by b ru ta l and avowed repression.
"A num b er of workers are already aw are th a t dom ination by the Socialist
Party or the C om m unist P arty w ould simply be a cam ouflaged suprem acy of
the bourgeois class, a n d would thus p erp etu ate exploitation and servitude.
But, according to these workers, w hat should take its place is a ‘revolutionary
THEPARTYÂND THE WORKING CLASS I 265
party' that would really aim a t creating p ro letarian power a n d com m unist
society. T h e re is no question h ere of a p a rty in the sense we defined above,
i.e ., o f a group whose sole objective is to ed u cate a n d enlighten, b u t of a party
in th e cu rren t sense, i.e ., a p a rty fig h tin g to secure power an d to exercise it
w ith a view to th e lib eration of th e working class, a n d aU this as a vanguard,
as an organization of the enlightened revolutionary m inority.
"T h e very expression ‘revolutionary p a rty ’ is a contradiction in t e ^ s , for a
p arty o f this kin d could not be revolutionary. If it were, it could only be so in
the sense in w hich we describe revolutionary as a change o f gove^rnment
resulting from somewhat violent p reûres, e .g ., th e b irth of th e T h ird Reich.
W hen we use th e w ord ‘revolution,’ we clearly m ean th e proletarian
revolution, th e conquest of power by th e w orking class.
“T h e basic theoretical idea of th e ‘revolutionary p arty ’ is th a t the working
class could not do w ithout a group o f leaders capable o f defeating the
bourgeoisie for th em an d of f o x i n g a new gove^rnment, in o th er words, the
conviction th a t the w orking class is itself in cap ab le of creating the revolution.
A ccording to th is theory, th e leaders will c re a te th e com m unist society by
m eans of decrees; in o th e r w ords, th e w orking class is still incapable of
adm inistering a n d organizing for itself its w ork and production.
“Is there n o t a certain justification for this thesis, a t least provisionally?
Given th a t a t th e present tim e th e w orking class as a m a s is showing itself to
be un ab le to create a revolution, is it not n eceâry th a t the revolutionary
vanguard, the party, should m ake the revolution on the working claw’ behalf?
A nd is not this valid so long as th e ma&es passively subm it to capitalism ?
“T h is a ttitu d e im m ediately raises two questions. W h at t ^ ^ of pow er will
such a p arty establish th ro u g h th e revolution? W h a t will occur to conquer the
capitalist cla»? T h e answ er is self-evident: an uprising of th e masses. In
effect, only m ass attacks and mass strikes lead to the overthrow of the old
d o m in atio n . T herefore, the ‘revolutionary p a rty ’ will get now here w ithout the
intervention of th e masses. H ence, o n e of two things m ust occur.
“T h e first is that the masses persist in action. Far from abandoning the
fight in o rd er to allow th e new p arty to govern, they organize th eir power in
the factories a n d workshops an d p rep are for new battles, this tim e with a view
to th e final defeat of capitalism . By m eans of workers’ councils, they f o ^ a
com m unity th at is increasingly close-knit, an d therefore capable of taking on
the adm inistration of society as a whole. In a w ord, the ma&es prove that they
are not as in capable of creating th e revolution as was supposed. From this
m om ent, conflict inevitably arises between th e masses and the new party, the
latte r seeking to b e th e only body to exercise power and convinced th a t the
party should lead th e working claw, th a t self-activity am ong the masses is only
a facto r of d isorder an d anarchy. At this point, either the class m ovem ent has
becom e strong enough to ignore th e p a rty o r th e party, allied w ith bourgeois
elem ents, crushes th e workers. In eith er case, th e p arty is s h o ^ to be an
obstacle to th e revolution, because th e p arty seeks to be som ething o th e r th a n
an o rg a n o f p ro p a g a n d a a n d of en lightenm ent, a n d because it adopts as its
specific mission th e leadership an d g overnm ent of the masses.
"T h e second possibility is th a t th e w orking m a ^ e s conform to the doctrine
o f th e p arty an d tu m over to it control o f affairs. T hey follow directives from
above an d , p ersu ad ed (as in G e ^ a n y in 1918) th a t th e new gove^rnment will
establish socialism o r com m unism , they g e t o n w ith th eir day-to-day work.
Im m ediately, th e bourgeoisie mobilizes all its fo rces: its financial power, its
e n o ^ o u s spiritu al power, its econom ic suprem acy in the factories a n d the
large enterprises. T h e reigning party, too weak to w ithstand such an
offensive, can m a in ta in itself in power only by m ultiplying concessions and
w ithdraw als as p ro o f o f its m oderation. T h e n th e idea becom es c u rre n t th at
for th e m o m en t this is all th a t c a n be done, a n d th a t it w ould be foolish for
th e workers to attem p t a violent im position o f uto p ian dem ands. In this way,
the p arty , deprived o f th e m a y pow er of a revolutionary clara, is tr a n s f o ^ e d
into an instru m en t for th e conservation o f bourgeois power.
“W e have just said th a t, in relatio n to th e pro letarian revolution, a
‘revolutionary party' is a co n trad ictio n in t e ^ s . T his could also be expressed
by saying th at the term ‘revolutionary' in th e expression ‘revolutionary party'
necessarily designates a bourgeois revolution. O n every occasion, indeed, th a t
th e masses hav e intervened to overthrow a gove^rnment an d have th e n handed
pow er to a new party, it was a bourgeois revolution th a t took p l a c e - a
substitution o f a new d o m in an t category for an old one. So it was in Paris
when, in 1830, th e com m ercial bourgeoisie took over from the b ig landed
proprietors; an d again, in 1848, w hen th e in d u strial bourgeoisie succeeded
the financial bourgeoisie; and again in 1871 w hen the whole body o f the
bourgeoisie cam e to power. So it was d u rin g the R u s ia n R evolution, w hen
the p arty bureau cracy m onopolized pow er in its capacity as a governm ental
category. B ut in o u r day, b o th in W estern E urope and in Am erica, the
bourgeoisie is too deeply a n d too solidly rooted in the factories and the banks
to be rem oved by a party bureaucracy. Now as always, the only m eans of
conquering th e bourgeoisie is to ap peal to th e masses, the la tte r tak in g over
the factories a n d f o x i n g th eir o ^ com plex of councils. In this case,
however, it seems that th e real strength is in th e masses who destroy the
d om in atio n o f cap ital in p ro p o rtio n as their o ^ action widens an d deepens.
“T herefo re, those who co n tem p late a ‘revolutionary party' are learning
only a p a rt o f th e lemons o f th e past. N ot unaw are th a t th e workers'
THE PAR TYA N D THE WORKING CLASS I 267
p a rtie s —th e Socialist Party an d C om m unist P a r ty - h a v e becom e organs of

d om in atio n serving to p erp etu ate exploitation, they merely conclude from
this that it is only n eceâry to im prove the situation. T his is to ignore the fact
th a t th e failure of the different parties is traceab le to a m uch m ore general
cause - n a m e ly , th e basic contrad ictio n betw een the em ancipation of the
cla« , as a body an d by th eir own efforts, a n d th e reduction of the activity of
th e m a ^ e s to powerlessness by a new pro-w orkers’ power. Faced with the
passivity an d indifference of the masses, they com e to re g a rd themselves as a
revolutionary van g u ard . But, if th e masses rem ain inactive, it is because,
while instinctively sensing b o th the colo&al pow er of the enemy a n d the sheer
m agn itu d e o f the task to be undertaken, they have not yet discerned the m ode
of com bat, the way o f class unity. However, w hen circum stances have pushed
th em into action, they m ust u n d ertak e this task by organizing themselves
autonom ously, by taking into th eir own hands the means of production, and
by in itiatin g the attack against the econom ic power of capital. A nd once
again, every self-styled van g u ard seeking to direct an d to dom inate th e masses
by m eans of a ‘revolutionary p a rty ’ will stand revealed as a reactionary factor
by reason of this very concep tio n .”
In W orkers' Councils, Pannekoek does not d is c u s the need for a party w ith
an extremely flexible structure. Perhaps this was because he saw this book as
itself a party work, an instrum ent “of p ro p a g a n d a an d of enlig h ten m en t.”
However, while. he was not concerned w ith coining a new word to e x p re ^ the
idea o f party as a loose body of 'work g ro u p s,’ the idea itself is present in all
his political writings.
In 1947, for exam ple, in “Five Theses on the Fight of the W orking Class.
against C ap italism ,” a work th a t is rem arkably concise, he writes th a t the
function of parties is “to spread in sight an d know ledge, to study, discuss an d
f o ^ u l a t e social ideas, an d by th eir p ro p a g a n d a to enlighten the m inds of the
masses. T h e workers’ councils are th e organs for practical action a n d fight of
the w orking c l a ^ ; to th e parties falls th e task o f the building up o f its spiritual
pow er. T h eir work f o ^ s an indispensable p a rt in the self-liberation of the
w orking claw .” 6
A few years later, Pannekoek wrote a letter to a Paris group w hich, pursuing
its own p a th o f developm ent, h ad com e u p o n th e idea of workers’ councils. In
this letter, he em phasized yet again th a t th e theoretical activity “of a party or
g roup ” by m eans “o f study and discussion” is linked w ith one “prim ordial
task: to go out a n d speak to th e w orkers.” 7
6. Anton Pannekoek, ”Five Theses on the Fight of the Working Cla» against Capitalism,"
SouthemAdvocate for Workers' Councils, May 1947; recently published as an appendix to: The
Mas Strike in France May-June 1968, Root and Branch Pamphlet 3 (1970), pp. 55-58.
7. Social^rne ou Barbarie, IV: 14, April-June 1954, pp. 39-43.
CHAPTER TH IRTEEN
PR IN C IPL E S O F O R G A N IZ A T IO N
Besides th e D utch “work gro u p s,” th ere were sim ilar groups in the U nited
States, e s^ x ia lly in areas o f G erm an em igration. In the review LUvinng
M arxism 1 Pannekoek published various articles, m any of w hich were excerpts
from W orkers' Councils, 2 the only one o f his books that he considered to be
definitively political. U nfortunately, the lim its o f the present book do not
aUow us to rep ro d u ce long extracts, m u ch lew w hole chapters. However, their
substance is contained in the following articles: 3
“O rganization is the chief principle in the w o r^ n g class fight for
em ancipation. Hence the fo^rms o f this organization constitute the most
im po rtan t problem in the practice of th e w orking claw m ovem ent. It is clear
th at these form s d epend on the conditions o f society an d the aims of the fight.
They cannot be the invention of theory, but have to be built u p spontaneously
by th e w orking claw itself, guided by its im m ediate necesities.
“W ith expanding capitalism the workers first built their tra d e unions. T h e
isolated w orker was powerless against the capitalist; so he h a d to unite w ith
his fellows in b arg ain in g an d fighting over th e price of his labor-pow er a n d
the hours o f la b o r. C apitalists an d workers have opposite interests in
capitalistic p ro d u ctio n ; th e ir class struggle is over the division of th e total
p ro d u c t betw een them . In norm al capitalism , th e workers’ share is th e value
of their labor power, i.e ., w hat is necessary to sustain an d restore con
tinually their capacities to work. T h e rem ain in g p a n o f the p ro d u ct is the
surplus value, th e share of the capitalist class. T h e capitalists, in order to
increase their profit, try to lower wages a n d increase the hours of labor.
W here the workers were po w erles, wages were depressed below the existence
m in im u m ; th e hours o f labor were lengthened until the bodily an d m ental
health o f the working claw d eterio rated so as to endanger the fu tu re o f society.
T h e f o ^ a t i o n of unions an d o f laws reg u latin g w orking c o n d itio n s-fe a tu re s
rising o u t of the b itte r fight of workers for th eir very liv e s-w e re necessary to
1. Review "for theory and dis^cusion,” first published under the title Inte^rnational Council
Correspondence, and later became New Esays. At the center of this review was the ex-ÂPist,
Paul Mattick.
2. Anton Pannekoek, Workers’ Councils (Melbourne, 1950).
3. J. Harper, “General Remarks on the Question of Organization,” Marxism, IV: 5,
November 1938, pp. 144-55.
270 / PANNEKOEK AN D THE W ORKERS COUNCILS
restore n o ^ a l conditions of w ork in capitalism . T h e capitalist class itself

recognized th a t tra d e unions a re necessary to direct th e revolt o f the workers
into re g u la r channels to prevent th em from b reaking o u t in sudden
explosions.
“Sim ilarly, political organizations have grow n up, th o u g h n o t e v e ^ ^ h e re
in exactly th e sam e way, because th e political conditions a re different in
different countries. In A m erica, w here a p o pulation o f f a c e r s , artisans an d
m erch an ts free from feudal bonds could ex p an d over a c o n tin en t w ith endless
possibilities, co nquering th e n a tu ra l resources, th e workers d id n o t feel
themselves a separate class. T h ey w ere im bued, as were th e whole o f the
people, w ith th e bourgeois spirit o f individual an d collective fight for personal
welfare, a n d th e conditions m a d e it possible to succeed to a certain extent.
Except a t rare m om ents or am ong recent im m ig rant groups, no need was seen
for a separate w orking class p arty . In th e E uro p ean countries, on th e other
h an d , th e workers were dragged in to th e political struggle by the fight o f the
rising bourgeoisie against feudalism . T hey soon h a d to f o ^ w orking class
parties an d , together w ith p a rt o f th e bourgeoisie, h a d to fight for political
rig h ts: fo r th e rig h t to f o ^ unions, for free press a n d speech, for universal
suffrage, for dem ocratic institutions. A political p arty needs general
principles for its p ro p a g a n d a ; fo r its fight w ith o th e r parties it w ants a theory
having definite views ab o u t th e fu tu re o f society. T h e E uropean working
class, in w hich com m unistic ideas h a d already developed, found its theory in
th e scientific w ork o f M arx a n d Engels, explaining th e developm ent o f society
th ro u g h capitalism tow ard com m unism by m eans of th e class struggle. T his
theory was accepted in th e program s o f th e Social D em ocratic Parties o f m ost
E uropean countries; in E ngland, th e L ab o r P arty f o ^ e d by the trad e
unions, professed analogous b u t vaguer ideas about a k in d o f socialist
com m onw ealth as th e aim o f th e workers.
“In th e ir p ro g ra m a n d p ro p a g a n d a , th e p ro le ta rian revolution was th e final
result o f th e class struggle; th e victory o f th e w orking class over its oppressors
was to b e th e b eg in n in g o f a com m unistic o r socialist system o f production.
B ut so long as capitalism lasted, th e p ractical fight h a d to center on
im m ediate needs a n d th e preservation o f stan d ard s in capitalism . U nder
p arlia m e n ta ry governm ent p a rlia m e n t is th e b attlefield w here th e interests of
the different classes o f society m e e t; big a n d small capitalists, lan d owners,
f a c e r s , artisans, m erchants, industrialists, workers, all have th e ir special
interests th a t a re defended by th e ir spokesm en in parliam en t, all particip ate
in th e struggle for pow er a n d for th e ir p a rt in th e to tal pro d u ct. T h e workers
have to take p art in this struggle. Socialist o r labor parties have th e special
task o f fig h tin g by political m eans for th e im m ediate needs a n d interests of
PRINCIPLES OF ORGANIZATION I 271
the workers w ithin capitalism . In this way they get the votes o f the workers
and grow in political influence.
“W ith th e m od ern developm ent o f capitalism , conditions have changed.
T he small workshops have been superseded by large factories and plants w ith
thousands an d tens o f thousands o f workers. W ith this grow th o f capitalism
and o f th e w orking class, its organizations also h a d to expand. From local
groups th e tra d e u n io n s grew to n atio n al federations with hundreds o f
thousands o f m em bers. T h ey h a d to collect la rg e funds for su p p o rt in big
strikes, an d still la rg e r ones for social insurance. A larg e staff o f m anagers,
adm inistrators, presidents, secretaries, editors o f th eir papers, an entire
bureaucracy o f organization leaders developed. T hey h ad to haggle and
bargain w ith th e bosses; they becam e th e specialists acquainted with m ethods
and circum stances. Eventually they becam e th e real leaders, th e m asters of
the organizations, m asters o f the m oney as well as o f th e press, while the
m em bers themselves lost m uch o f their pow er. This developm ent o f the
organizations o f the workers into instrum ents o f pow er over th em has m any
exam ples in history; w hen organizations grow too large, the masses lose
control o f them .
"T h e sam e change takes place in th e political organizations, w hen from
small p ro p ag an d a groups they grow in to big political parties. T h e
parliam en tary representatives are th e leading politicians o f the p arty. T hey
have to do th e real fig h tin g in th e representative bodies; they are the
specialists in th a t field; they m ake u p th e ed ito rial, p ro p ag an d a, and
executive p erso n n el; th e ir influence d e t e ^ i n e s the politics and tactical line
o f the party. T h e m em bers m ay send delegates to debate at p a rty congresses,
b u t their pow er is nom inal an d illusory. T h e c h a ra cter o f the organization
resembles th a t o f th e o th e r political p a rtie s—organizations o f politicians who
try to w in votes for th e ir slogans an d pow er for themselves. O nce a socialist
p arty has a large nu m b er o f delegates in p arliam en t it allies with others
against reactionary p arties to f o ^ a w orking m ajority. Soon socialists becom e
ministers, state officials, m ayors a n d a l d e ^ e n . O f course, in this position
they can n o t act as delegates o f th e w orking class, governing for the workers
against th e capitalist class. T h e real political power and even the
parliam en tary m ajority rem ain in th e h an d s o f th e capitalist clara. Socialist
m inisters have to represent th e interests o f th e p resent capitalist society, i.e.,
o f th e capitalist class. T hey can a tte m p t to initiate measures for the
im m ediate interests o f th e workers an d try to induce the capitalist parties to
acquiesce. T h ey becom e m iddlem en, m ed iato rs pleading w ith th e capitalist
class to consent to sm all r e f o ^ s in th e interests o f the workers, a n d th e n try to
convince the w orkers th a t these are im p o rta n t r e f o ^ s th at they should
272 / P A N N E K O E K T H E WORKERS' COUNCILS
accept. A nd then th e Socialist Party, as an instrum ent in the hands of these

leaders, has to su p p o rt th em an d also, instead o f calling upon th e workers to
fight for th e ir interests, seeks to pacify them , deflect them from th e class
struggle.
“In d eed , fighting conditions have grow n worse fo r the workers. T h e pow er
of th e capitalist class has increased enorm ously w ith its capital. T h e
concen tratio n of capital in the h an d s o f a few captains o f finance and
industry, the coalition of th e bosses themselves, confronts the tra d e unions
w ith a m u ch stronger a n d o fte n nearly u n a v a ila b le pow er. T h e fierce
com petition of the capitalists o f all countries over m arkets, raw m aterials and
w orld pow er, the n e c e sity o f u sin g increasing p arts o f the surplus value for
this com petition, fo r arm am en ts an d w elfare, the falling ra te o f profit,
com pel th e capitalists to increase th e ra te o f exploitation, i.e ., to lower the
working conditions for th e workers. T h u s th e tra d e unions m eet increasing
resistance, th e old m ethods of struggle grow useless. In th eir b argaining with
the bosses th e leaders of th e organization have le » success; because they know
the pow er o f th e capitalists, an d because they themselves do n o t w ant to
fig h t- s in c e in such fights th e fu n d s an d th e whole existence of the
organization m ight be lo s t- th e y m ust accep t w h at th e bosses offer. So their
chief task is to a& uage the w orkers’ discontent a n d to defend the proposals of
the bosses as im p o rta n t gains. H ere also the leaders o f the workers’
organizations become m ediators betw een the opposing classes. A nd w hen the
workers d o not accept th e conditions an d strike, the leaders either m ust
oppose th em or allow a sham fight, to be b roken off as soon as possible.
"T h e fight itself, however, cannot be stopped o r m inim ized; the c la s
antagonism an d th e depressing forces o f capitalism are increasing, so that the
class struggle m ust go on, th e workers m ust fight. T im e an d again they break
loose spontaneously w ith o u t asking th e union and often against their
decisions. Sometimes th e u n io n leaders succeed in regaining control of these
actions. T his m eans th a t th e fight will be g radually sm othered in some new
arangem ent betw een the capitalists an d labor leaders. T his does n o t m ean
that w ithout this interference such wildcat strikes would be won. T hey are too
restricted. Only indirectly does th e fear of such explosions ten d to foster
caution by th e capitalists. B ut these strikes prove th a t th e class fight between
capital an d labor cannot cease, an d th a t w hen the old form s are not
practicab le any more, th e w orkers spontaneously try out an d develop new
forms of action. In these actions revolt against cap ital is also revolt agains the
old organizational forms.
“T h e aim an d task o f th e w orking class is th e abolition of capitalism .
C apitalism in its highest developm ent, w ith its ever d e ep e r econom ic crises, its
im perialism , its arm am ents, its world wars, threatens the workers w ith misery
and destruction. T h e p ro letarian c l a s fight, th e resistance an d revolt against
these conditions, m u st go on until cap italist dom ination is overthrown and
capitalism is destroyed.
“C apitalism m eans th a t th e productive app aratus is in th e hands of the
capitalists. Because th e y are th e m asters of the m eans of production, and
hence of th e p roducts, they can seize th e surplus value a n d exploit the
w orking class. O nly w hen the w o r^ n g class itself is m aster of the m eans of
produ ctio n does ex p lo itatio n cease. T h e n th e workers co ntrol en tirely their
conditions o f life. T h e produ ctio n of everything necessary for life is the com
m on task o f th e co m m unity o f workers, w hich is then the com m unity of m a n
k in d . T his p ro d u ctio n is a collective process. First each factory, each large
p lan t, is a collective o f workers, com bining th e ir efforts in an organized way.
Moreover, th e totality o f world p ro d u ctio n is a collective proceM; all the
separate factories have to be com bined into a totality o f production. H ence,
w hen th e w orking cla& takes p o s e » io n o f th e m eans of p ro d uction, it has at
the sam e tim e to create an organization o f pro duction.
“T h e re are m any who think of th e p ro le ta ria n revolution in term s of the
f o ^ e r revolutions of th e m iddle class, as a series of co ^ ^ c u tiv e p h a se s: first,
conquest of gove^rnment an d installm ent of a new g o v ^ ^ m e n t, then
expropriation of th e cap italist class by law, and then a new organization of
the process o f p ro d u ctio n . But such events could lead only to some kind of
state capitalism . As the p ro le ta ria t rises to dom inance it develops
sim ultaneously its own organization an d th e f o ^ s of the new economic order.
These two developments are inseparable an d form the process o f social
revolution. W o rk in g class organization into a stro ng body capable o f united
m a s aptions already m eans revolution, because capitalism can rule only
unorganized individuals. W h en these organized masses stand u p in m ass fights
and revolutionary actions, an d the existing pow ers are paralyzed and
disintegrated, th e n sim ultaneously th e lead in g a n d regulating functions o f
f o ^ e r governm ents fall to the w orkers' organizations. A nd the im m ediate
task is to carry on pro d u ctio n , to co ntinue th e basic process o f social life.
Since th e revolutionary class fight against th e bourgeoisie and its organs is
inseparable from th e seizure o f the p roductive ap p aratu s by the workers and
its application to p ro d u ctio n , the sam e organization th a t unites the cla& for
its fight also acts as th e organization of th e new productive process.
“It is clear th at th e organizational fo ^n s o f trade union and political party,
inherited from th e p eriod of e x p a n d in g capitalism , are usele» here. T hey
developed into instrum ents in th e hands o f leaders unable an d unw illing to
engage in revolutionary fight. L eaders can n o t m ake revolutions: labor
274 I PANNEKOEK AND THE W O ^ ^ R S COUNCILS
leaders ab h o r a p ro letarian revolution. F or th e revolutionary fights the

w orkers need new f o ^ s o f organization in w hich they keep the powers of
action in th eir own hands. It is pointless to try to construct or to im agine these
new f o ^ s ; they can originate only in th e practical fight o f th e workers
themselves. T hey have already originated th e re ; we have only to look into
practice to fin d its beginnings everywhere th a t the workers are rebelling
against th e old powers.
“In a w ildcat strike, th e workers decide all m atters themselves through
regular m eetings. T hey choose strike com m ittees as cen tral bodies, b u t the
m em bers of these com m ittees ca n be recalled an d replaced a t any m om ent. If
the strike extends over a large n u m b e r o f shops, they achieve unity o f action
by larg er com m ittees consisting o f delegates o f all th e sep arate shops. Such
com m ittees are n o t bodies to m ake decisions according to th e ir o ^ opinion,
and over th e workers; they are sim ply m e»engers, com m unicating the
opinions a n d wishes o f the groups they represent, an d conversely, brin g in g to
th e sh o p m eetings, for discussion an d decision, th e o p in io n an d argum ents of
the o th e r groups. T hey can n o t play th e roles of leaders, because they can
be m om entarily replaced by others. T h e workers themselves m ust choose th eir
way, decide th e ir actions; they keep th e e n tire action, with all its difficulties,
its risks, its responsibilities, in th e ir o ^ hands. A nd w hen the strike is over,
the com m ittees disappear.
"T h e only exam ples of a m o d ern industrial w orking class as th e m oving
force of a political revolution w ere th e Russian Revolutions o f 1905 an d 1917.
H ere th e workers of each factory chose delegates, an d th e delegates of all the
factories to g e th e r f o ^ e d the ‘soviet,' th e council where th e political situation
and n e c e a ary actions w ere discussed. H ere th e opinions o f the factories were
collected, their desires h a ^ o n i z e d , their decisions f o ^ u l a t e d . But the
councils, though a strong directing influence for revolutionary education
through action, w ere n o t com m an d in g bodies. Som etim es a w hole council
was ■arrested an d reorganized w ith new delegates; at times, w hen the
authorities w ere paralyzed by a general strike, the soviets acted as a local
governm ent, an d delegates o f free professions jo in ed them to represent their
field of work. H ere we have th e o rganization o f the workers in revolutionary
action, though o f course only im perfectly, groping and trying for new
m ethods. T his is posnble only w hen all th e workers with all their forces
particip ate in th e action, w hen th e ir very existence is a t stake, w hen they
actually take p a rt in th e decisions an d are entirely devoted to the
revolutionary fight.
“A fte r the revolution this council organization disappeared. T h e
p ro letarian centers o f big industry w ere sm all islands in an ocean o f prim itive
PRJNCIPLES OF ORGANIZATION / 275
agricultural society w here capitalist developm ent had not yet begun. T he task
of in itia tin g capitalism fell to the C om m unist Party. Sim ultaneously, political
pow er centered in its hands an d th e soviets w ere reduced to subordinate
organs w ith only nom inal powers.
“T h e old f o ^ s o f organization, th e trad e u n io n an d political party an d the
new f o ^ o f councils (soviets), belong to different phases in the developm ent
of society a n d have d ifferen t functions. T h e first has to secure th e position of
the w orking class am ong th e o th e r classes w ith in capitalism an d belongs to the
period of expanding capitalism . T h e latter has to secure com plete do^minance
for th e workers, to destroy capitalism an d its claw divisions, a n d belongs to
the period of declining capitalism . In a rising and prosperous capitalism ,
council organization is impossible because th e workers are entirely occupied in
am eliorating their conditions, which is po&ible at that tim e th ro u g h trade
unions an d political action. In a decaying crisis-ridden capitalism , these
efforts are uselett an d faith in th em c a n only h am p er th e increase of
self-action by the masses. In such times o f heavy tension and grow ing revolt
against misery, w hen strike m ovem ents spread over whole countries a n d hit at
the roots of capitalist power, or when, following w ars o r political catastrophes,
the gove^rnment au th o rity crum bles an d th e ma&es act, the old organizational
f o ^ s fail against th e new f o ^ s o f self-activity o f th e masses.
"Spokesm en for socialist or co m m unist p arties o fte n ad m it th a t, in
revolution, o rg an s o f self-action by th e m asses are useful in destroying the old
do m in atio n ; b u t th e n they say these have to yield to parliam entary
democracy to organize th e new society. Let us com pare the basic principles of
both f o ^ s o f political o rganization o f society.
“O riginal dem ocracy in small towns an d districts was exercised by the
awembly of all the citizens. W ith th e big p o p u lation o f m odem towns and
countries this is im po& ible. T h e people can express their will only by choosing
delegates to some cen tral body th at represents them all. T h e delegates for
p arliam en tary bodies are free to act, to decide, to vote, to govern after th eir
o ^ opinion by ‘h o n o r an d conscience,’ as it is often called in solem n term s.
“T h e council delegates, however, are b o u n d by m a n d ate ; they are sent
simply to express th e opinions o f th e w orkers’ groups who sent them . They
m ay be called b ack an d replaced a t any m om ent. T hus th e workers w ho gave
them th e m an d ate keep the pow er in th e ir ow n hands.
“O n the o th er h an d , m em bers o f p arliam en t are chosen for a fixed n u m ber
of years; only at the polls are th e citizens m a s te r s - o n this one day w hen they
choose th eir delegates. Once this day has passed, their power has gone and the
delegates are ind ep en d en t, free to act for a t e ^ of years according to their
own ‘conscience,' restricted only by th e know ledge th a t a fte r this period they
have to face th e voters an ew ; b u t th en they co u n t on catching th eir votes in a

noisy election cam paign, b om bing th e confused voters w ith slogans and
dem agogic phrases. T h u s n o t th e voters b u t the p arliam en tarian s are the real
masters who decide politics. A nd the voters do n o t even send persons o f their
own choice as delegates; they are presen ted to th em by the political parties.
A nd th en , if we suppose th at people could select an d send persons o f their
o'wn choice, these persons would not f o ^ th e g o v ern m en t; in parliam en tary
dem ocracy th e legislative a n d the executive pow ers are separated. T h e real
governm ent d o m in atin g the people is f o ^ e d by a bureaucracy o f officials so
far rem oved from the people's vote as to be practically independent. T h a t is
how it is possible th a t capitalistic dom inance is m a in ta in ed through general
suffrage a n d p arliam en tary dem ocracy. T his is why in capitalistic countries,
where th e m ajority o f th e people belongs to th e w orking class, this dem ocracy
cann o t lead to a conquest o f political pow er. For the working class,
parliam en tary dem ocracy is a sham dem ocracy, whereas council re p re
sentation is real dem ocracy: th e direct rule o f the workers over th e ir o-wn
affairs.
“P arliam en tary dem ocracy is th e political f o ^ in which th e different
im p o rta n t interests in a capitalist society exert th e ir influence upon
governm ent. T h e delegates represent c e rta in classes: f a c e r s , m erchants,
industrialists, workers; b u t they do not represent the com m on will o f th eir
voters. Indeed, th e voters o f a district have no com m on wiU; they are an
assembly o f individuals, capitalists, workers, shopkeepers, by chance living at
the sam e place, having partly opposing interests.
“Council delegates, o n th e other h an d , are sent out by a hom ogeneous
g ro u p to express its com m on will. Councils are n o t only m ade u p o f workers,
having com m on class interests; they are a n a tu ra l group, working together as
the personnel o f one factory o r section o f a large p la n t, a n d are in close daily
co n tact w ith each other, having th e sam e adversary, having to decide th eir
com m on actions as fellow workers in which they have to act in u n ited fash io n ;
no t only on th e questions o f strike a n d fight, b u t also in th e new organization
of p ro d u ctio n . Council represen tatio n is n o t founded upon the meaningless
grouping o f adjacent villages or districts, but u p o n the n a tu ra l groupings of
workers in the process o f p ro d u ctio n , th e real basis of society.
"However, councils m ust n o t b e confused w ith th e so-called corporative
representation p ro p ag ated in fascist countries. T his is a representation o f the
different professions o r trad es (m asters a n d workers com bined), considered as
fixed constituents of society. T h is f o ^ belongs to a m edieval society with
fixed c la v e s a n d ^ a ld s , a n d in its tendency to p etrify interest groups it is even
worse th a n p arliam entarism , w here new groups a n d new interests rising u p in
PRINCIPLES OFORGANIZATION I 277
th e developm ent o f capitalism soon find th e ir expression in p arliam en t an d

governm ent.
"C ouncil represen tatio n is entirely different because it is the representation
of a class en gaged in revolutionary struggle. I t represents w orking class
interests only, a n d p revents capitalist delegates an d capitalist interests from
particip atio n . It denies the rig h t o f existence to the capitalist class in society
and tries to elim inate capitalists by taking th e m eans o f production away from
them . W h en in th e progress o f revolution th e w orkers m ust take u p the
functions o f organizing society, th e sam e council organization is th eir
instru m en t. T h is m eans th a t th e workers’ councils th en are th e organs o f the
dictatorship o f th e p ro letariat. T h is d ictato rsh ip o f th e p ro le ta ria t is n o t a
shrewdly devised voting system artificially excluding capitalists an d the
bourgeoisie from the polls. I t is the exercise o f pow er in society by th e n a tu ra l
o rgans o f th e workers, building u p th e productive a p p a ra tu s as the basis o f
society. In these o rgans o f th e w orkers, consisting o f delegates o f th e ir various
branches in th e process o f p ro d u ctio n , th ere is no place fo r robbers or
exploiters stan d in g outside productive work. T h u s th e dictatorship of th e
w orking class is at th e sam e tim e th e m o st perfect dem ocracy, the real
workers' dem ocracy, excluding the vanishing class o f exploiters.
“T h e ad h eren ts o f th e o ld f o ^ s o f o rganization exalt dem ocracy as the
only right an d ju st political f o ^ , as against dictatorship, an unjust f o ^ .
M arxism knows n o th in g o f ab stract rig h t o r justice; it explains th e political
f o ^ s in w hich m a n k in d expresses , its feelings o f political right, as
consequences o f th e econom ic stru c tu re o f society. In M arxian theory we can
fin d also th e basis o f th e difference betw een p arliam en tary dem ocracy an d
council organization. As bourgeois dem ocracy a n d pro letarian dem ocracy
respectively they reflect th e different c h a ra c ter o f these two c l ^ e s an d th eir
econom ic systems.
"B ourgeois dem ocracy is fo u n d ed u p o n a society consisting o f a large
n u m b e r o f in d ep en d en t sm all producers. T h e y w ant a governm ent to take
care o f th e ir com m on interests: public security a n d ord er, protection o f
com m erce, u n i f o ^ systems o f weight a n d m oney, adm inistering o f law and
justice. All these things are necessary in o rd e r th a t everybody can do his
business in his own way. Private business takes th e whole a tten tio n , f o ^ s the
life interests o f everybody, an d those p o litical factors are, th o u g h neceâry,
only secondary a n d d em an d only a sm all p a rt o f th eir atten tio n . T h e chief
content o f social life, th e basis o f existence o f society, th e p ro d u ctio n o f all the
goods n e c e ^ a ry for life, is divided u p in to private business o f th e separate
citizens, hence it is n a tu ra l th a t it takes nearly all th eir tim e, a n d th a t politics,
th e ir coUective affair, is a su b o rd in ate m a tte r, providing only for auxiliary
conditions. O nly in bourgeois revolutionary m ovem ents do people take to the

streets. B ut in o rd in ary tim es politics are le ft to a small g ro u p o f specialists,
politicians, whose w ork consists ju st o f tak in g care o f these general, political
conditions of bourgeois business.
“T h e sam e holds tru e fo r th e w orkers, as long as they th in k only of th eir
direct interests. In capitalism they w ork long hours, all th e ir energy is
exhausted in th e procew o f exploitation, an d little m e n ta l pow er a n d fresh
th o u g h t is left th em . E arn in g th e ir w age is th e most im m ediate neceîty of
life; th eir political interests, th eir com m on interest in safeguarding their
interests as wage earners m ay be im p o rtan t, b u t are still secondary. So they
leave this p a rt of th e ir interests also to specialists, to their p a rty politicians
and th e ir tra d e unio n leaders. By voting as citizens or m em bers th e workers
m ay give some general directions, ju st as m iddle-class voters m ay influence
their politicians, b u t only partially, because th e ir chief attention m ust rem ain
concen trated upon th eir work.
"P ro letarian dem ocracy u n d e r com m unism depends upon just the opposite
econom ic conditions. It is foun d ed n o t o n private b u t on collective
p ro d u ctio n . P roduction o f th e necessities of life is no longer a personal
b usine^, b u t a collective affair. T h e collective affairs, fo:rmerly called
political affairs, are no lo n g er secondary, b u t th e chief object o f th o ught an d
action for everybody. W h a t was called politics in th e fo:rmer s o c ie ty -a
dom ain for specialists - h a s becom e th e vital interest of every worker. It is not
the securing of some necessary conditions o f pro d uction, it is th e process an d
the reg u latio n o f p roduction itself. T h e separation o f private and collective
affairs a n d interests has ceased. A separate group o r claK o f specialists taking
care o f th e collective affairs is no longer necessary. T h ro u g h th eir council
delegates, which link th em together, th e producers themselves are m anaging
their own. productive work.
“T h e two fo:rms o f organization a re not distinguished in th a t th e one is
founded u p o n a trad itio n al an d ideological basis, and th e o ther on the
m aterial productive basis of society. Both are fo u n d ed upon th e m aterial basis
of the system of production, one on th e declin in g system of th e past, th e other
on th e grow ing system of th e fu tu re . R ig h t now we are in th e period of
transition, th e tim e o f big capitalism an d th e beginnings of th e proletarian
revolution. In big capitalism th e old system o f p ro d u ctio n has already been
destroyed in its foundations; th e larg e class o f in d ep en d en t producers has
disappeared. T h e m ain p a rt o f p roduction is collective work of la rg e groups
of workers; b u t th e control a n d o-wnership have rem ained in a few private
hands. T h is contradictory state is m ain tain ed by th e strong power factors of
th e capitalists, especially th e state pow er exerted by th e governm ents. T h e
task o f the p ro letarian revolution is to destroy this state pow er; its real content
is the seizure o f th e m eans of p roduction by th e workers. T h e procew of
revolution is an altern atio n of actions an d defeats th a t builds up the
organization of th e p ro letarian dictatorship, which at the sam e tim e is the
dissolution, step by step, of th e capitalist state power. H ence it is the process
of the replacem ent of th e organization system o f the past by the organization
system of th e future.
“W e are only in th e beginnings o f this revolution. T h e century of class
struggle behind us can n o t be considered a beginning as such, b u t only a
pream ble. It developed invaluable theoretical knowledge, it found gallant
revolutionary words in defiance o f th e capitalist claim of being a final social
system; it aw akened th e w orkers from th e hopelessness of misery. B ut its
actual fig h t rem ain ed b o u n d w ithin th e confines of capitalism , it was action
throu g h th e m edium o f leaders an d sought only to set easy m asters in the
place of h a rd ones. Only a sudden flickering of revolt, such as political or
mass strikes b reaking out against th e will of the politicians, now a n d then
announced the future o f s e lf - d e te ^ in e d m a s action. Every w ildcat strike,
not tak in g its leaders an d catchw ords from th e offices of parties an d unions, is
an indication of this developm ent, a n d at th e sam e tim e a small step in its
direction. All th e existing powers in th e p roletarian m ovem ent, the socialist
an d com m unist parties, the tra d e unions, all th e leaders whose activity is
b o u n d to th e bourgeois dem ocracy o f th e past, denounce these m a » actions as
anarchistic disturbances. Because their field of vision is lim ited to th eir old
f o ^ s of organization, they can n o t see th a t the spontaneous actions of the
workers b ear in th em th e g e ^ s o f h ig h er f o ^ s of organization. In fascist
countries, w here bourgeois democracy has b een destroyed, such spontaneous
mass actions will be th e only f o ^ of fu tu re p ro le ta ria n revolt. T h eir tendency
will not be a restoration of the f o ^ e r m iddle claw democracy but an advance
in the direction of the p roletarian dem ocracy, i.e ., the dictatorship of the
working class.”
Pannekoek repeats here th e essential argum ents of his “Social Dem ocracy
and C om m unism ," som etim es alm ost verbatim . T h e difference, it should also
be noted, consists in the inevitable alteration of perspective. T h e first article
was linked w ith im m ediate problem s; th e second takes a l o n g - t e ^ view of
them . T h e L iving M arxism article ap p eared at a tim e when one could no
longer doubt th at W orld W ar II was im m inent. W hen, after th e war,
Pannekoek retu rn ed , in W orkers' Councils, to th e whole body o f questions
dealt w ith in th e above article, his a ttitu d e h ad scarcely changed. T his is
understandable, in a sense, since, while th e war h ad tr a n s f o ^ e d capitalism ,
these tr a n s f o ^ a tio n s were only g e ^ i n a l l y perceptible at the end of the
280 I PANNEKOEK AND THE WO^RKERS’ COUNCILS
preced in g period (the consequences, however, being th en m ore or less

discernible). A nd this was also tru e o f the cla& struggle.
N ev erth ele^, it m ight be useful to supplem ent this article w ith extracts
concerning dem ocratic ideology a n d its historic role, first d u rin g th e Spanish
Civil W a r - o f w hich Pannekoek does n o t seem to have seen all the
aspects - an d th e n d u rin g the p erio d th a t followed an d in w hich we are still
living, a t least at the ideological level.
“Som ething analogous, o n a m inor scale, was what h ap p en ed in the civil
war in Spain, 1935-1936. In the industrial to'wn of B arcelona th e workers,
having a t the revolt o f th e generals s t o r e d the barracks and dra'wn the
soldiers to th eir side, were m aster of th e to'wn. T h e ir a ^ e d groups dom inated
the street, m ain tain ed order, took care of th e food provision, and, while the
chief factories w ere k ept at w ork u n d e r the d irectio n o f th e ir syndicalist
unions, w aged w ar u p o n the fascist troops in adjoining provinces. T h en their
leaders entered into the d em ocratic gove^rnment o f the C atalan republic,
consisting of m id d le -c la s republicans allied with socialist a n d com m unist
politicians. T his m ean t th a t instead o f fighting for th eir class, the workers had
to join in a n d adap t to the com m on cause. W eakened by dem ocratic illusions
and in n e r dissension, th eir resistance was crushed by a ^ e d troops of the
C atalan governm ent. A nd soon, as a symbol of restored bourgeois order, you
could see as in olden times w orkers’ wom en, w aiting before the bakers' shops,
brutalized by m o u n ted police. T h e w orking class once m ore was down, the
first step in the dow nfall o f th e republic th a t finally led to th e dictatorship of
the m ilitary leaders.
“In social crisis an d political revolution, w hen a governm ent breaks do'wn,
pow er falls into the hands of th e w orking m a& es; an d for the propertied class,
for capitalism arises the p ro b lem of how to w rest it o u t of th e ir hands. So it
was in th e past, so it m ay h ap p en in the fu tu re. D em ocracy is the m eans, th e
ap p ro p riate instru m en t of persuasion. T h e argum ents o f f o ^ a l a n d legal
quality have to induce the workers to give u p th e ir power a n d to let their
organization be i^rerted as a su b o rd in ate p a rt into the state structure.
“A gainst this the workers have to carry in them a strong conviction th a t
council organization is a h igher a n d m ore p erfect f o ^ of equality . . . . T he
equal rig h t in deciding needs n o t to be secured b y any f o ^ a l regulating
p a r a g r a p h ; it is realized in th a t th e work, in every p a rt, is regulated by those
who do the work . . . .
“It is often said th a t in th e m odern w orld th e p o int of dispute is between
dem ocracy an d d ic ta to rsh ip ; an d th a t th e w orking cla» has to throw in its
full w eight for dem ocracy. T h e real m e an in g of this statem ent of contrast is
th a t cap italist opinion is divided as to w hether capitalism should m aintain its
PRJNCIPLES OF ORGANIZA TION J 28!
sway w ith soft, deceitful dem ocracy or w ith h ard dictatorial constraint. It is
the old problem o f w hether rebellious slaves are kept d o ^ b etter by kindne&
or by terro r. If asked, the slaves of course p refer kind treatm ent to terro r; but
if they let themselves be fooled so as to m istake soft slavery for freedom , it is
pernicious to th e cause of their freedom . For th e w orking class in th e present
tim e th e real issue is between council organization, the tru e dem ocracy of
labor, an d th e ap p a re n t, deceitful bourgeois dem ocracy of f o ^ a l rights. In
proclaim ing council dem ocracy, the workers transfer the fight from political
f o ^ to economic contents. O r r a th e r - s in c e politics is only f o ^ an d m eans
for e c o n o m y -fo r th e sounding political slogan they substitute the
revolutionizing political deed, th e seizure of th e m eans of production. T h e
slogan of political dem ocracy serves to d e tra c t the atte n tio n of th e workers
from th eir tru e goal. It m ust be th e concern o f the workers, by p u ttin g u p the
principle of council organization, of actual dem ocracy of labor, to give true
ex p reîo n to the great issue now moving society.” 4
4. Anton Pannekoek, Workers‘ Councils, op. cit., pp. 152-53.

C H A P T E R FO U R T E E N
D IR E C T A C T IO N IN C O N T E M PO R A R Y SO CIETIES
For a long tim e, capitalism has d o m in a te d at every level. A fte r the w ar, it
was already clim bing tow ard its triu m p h a n t restoration. U nder these
conditions, com m unism could be represented only by a h andful of
theoreticians. H ere an d there, however, intellectuals w ith advanced ideas
were posing questions, and it was only to be expected th a t they should come
u p w ith th e idea of th e workers c o u n c ils - a n d equally inevitable th a t they
should finally ju d g e it to be im practical. In effect, this was an idea directed
tow ard the fu tu re, tow ard an o th er phase of the struggle; in a phase of
d e c lin e - th a t is, a phase of relative h a ^ o n y am ong the c la ^ e s - th is idea
could m ore or le » explain th e past, a n d b e used especially to indicate some
advance s i^ u of a very slow reversal of th e situation. B ut, in such a period,
this body of theory can scarcely open u p perspectives of im m ediate action to
writers, sociologists a n d philosophers eag er to fight for th e still-threatened
cause of dem ocracy an d freedom . Far from doing so, it concerned itself only
w ith details, w ith w ildcat strikes, for exam ple, with actions th a t generally
have no fu tu re. A fter having aroused a vague interest, followed by
disillusionm ent, it was quickly pa&ed over. Such was the case w ith th e editors
of Politics, a N ew York review th a t provided a platform for post-M arxists,
post-Freudians, post-anarchists, an d m an y others, an d in whose colum ns the
nam es K arl Korsch a n d Paul M attick were to ap p ear several times.
Pannekoek published an article in this review, “T h e Failure of the W orking
class.” 1 H ere is th e full text:
“In f o ^ e r i&ues of Politics th e problem has been posed: why did the
w orking c la « fail its historical task? W hy did it not offer resistance to
N ational Socialism in G e ^ a n y ? W hy is th ere no trace of any revolutionary
m ovem ent am ong th e w orkers of America? W h a t has hap p en ed to the social
vitality of th e w orld w orking cla&? W hy do th e masses all over th e globe no
longer seem capable of in itiatin g any th in g new aim ed a t their o ^
self-liberation? Som e light m ay be thro'wn u p o n this problem by th e following
considerations.
“It is easy to ask: why d id th e workers n o t rise against threatening fascism?
1. "The Failure of the Working Cla«," Politics, III, 8, Sept. 1946, pp. 270-72.
284 / P A N N E K O E K T H E W ORKERS COUNCILS
T o fight you m ust have a positive aim . O pposed to fascism there were two
alternatives: eith er to m a in ta in o r to re tu rn to th e old capitalism , with its
unem ploym ent, its crises, its corru p tio n , its m ise ry -w h e re a s N ational
Socialism presented itself as an anti-capitalist re ig n o f labor, w ithout
unem ploym ent, a reign o f n atio n al greatness, o f com m unity politics th a t
could lead to a socialist revolution. T h u s, ind eed , th e d ee p e r question is: why
did th e G e ^ a n workers n o t m ake th e ir revolution?
"W ell, they h a d experienced a revolution: 1918. B ut it h a d ta u g h t them
the lesson th at n eith er the Social D em ocratic Party, n o r th e trad e unions was
the in stru m en t o f their lib eratio n ; b o th tu rn e d o u t to be instrum ents o f
restoring capitalism . So w hat w ere they to do? T h e C om m unist P arty d id not
show a way eith e r; it p ro p ag ated th e R u ^ ia n system o f state-capitalism , with
its still worse lack o f freedom .
“C ould it have been o th e^rise? T h e avowed aim of th e Socialist P arty in
G e ^ a n y - a n d th e n in all c o u n trie s -w a s sta te socialism. A ccording to
prog ram th e w orking c la s h a d to conquer political dom inance, an d th en by
its pow er over th e state, h a d to organize p ro d u ctio n in to a state-directed
plann ed econom ic system. Its in stru m en t was to be the Socialist Party,
developed already into a h u g e body o f 300,000 m em bers, w ith a m illion
trad e-u n io n m em bers a n d th re e m illion voters b eh in d them , led by a big
app aratu s o f politicians, agitators, editors, eag er to take the place of the
f o ^ e r rulers. 2 A ccording to program , then, they should expropriate by law
the capitalist claw an d organize p ro d u ctio n in a centrally directed p lan n ed
system.
“It is clear th a t in such a system the workers, th o u g h th e ir daily bread m ay
^ m to b e secured, are only im perfectly lib erated. T h e upper echelons of
society have been changed, but the foundations bearing th e entire building
rem ain the old ones: factories w ith w age-earning workers u n d e r the
com m and o f directors an d m anagers. So we fin d it described in th e English
socialist G. D. H. Cole, who after W orld W ar I strongly influenced th e trad e
unions by his studies o f guild socialism a n d o th e r r e f o ^ s o f the industrial
system. H e says: ‘T h e whole people would be n o m ore able th a n the whole
body of shareholders in a g reat enterprise to m an ag e an industry. . . . It
would be necessary, u n d e r socialism as m u ch as u n d e r large scale capitalism ,
to entrust th e actu al m an ag em en t of industrial enterprise to salaried experts,
chosen for th e ir specialized know ledge and ability in p a rtic u la r branches o f
w ork . . . . T h e re is no reason to suppose th a t the m ethods o f appointing the
actual m anagers in socialized industries would differ widely from those
already in force in large scale capitalist enterprise . . . . T h e re is no reason to
2. By and large, the period in question is around 1903.
ACTION IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY I 285
suppose th a t th e socialization o f any industry w ould m ean a g reat change in

its m an ag erial personnel.'
“T h u s the workers will have new m asters instead o f the old ones. Good,
hu m an e m asters instead o f the b ad , rapacious m asters o f today. A ppointed by
a socialist governm ent o r at best chosen by themselves. B ut, once chosen, they
m ust be obeyed. T h e w orkers are n o t m aster over th e ir shops, they are not
m aster of th e m eans o f p roduction. Above th e m stands th e com m anding
pow er o f a state b u reau cracy o f leaders an d m anagers. Such a state o f affairs
can a ttra c t th e workers as long as they feel powerless over against th e power of
the capitalists; so in their first rise d u rin g th e 19th century this was p u t u p as
the goal. T h ey wer n o t stro n g e n o u g h to drive the capitalists out o f the
com m and over th e production installations ; so th eir way o u t was state
socialism, a gove^rnment o f socialists ex p ro p riatin g the capitalists.
“Now th a t the workers begin to realize th at state socialism m eans new
fetters, they face th e difficult task o f finding an d opening new roads. T his is
n o t possible w ithout a deep revolution o f ideas, accom panied by m uch
intern al strife. N o w onder th a t th e vigor o f th e fight slackens, th a t they
hesitate, divided an d u n certain , an d seem to have lost th eir energy.
“C a p i t a l i ^ , indeed, can n o t be an n ih ilated by a change in the
com m anding persons; b u t only by th e abolition of com m anding. T h e real
freedom of th e workers consists in th e ir direct m astery over th e m eans of
production. T h e essence of th e fu tu re free w orld com m unity is n o t th a t the
w orking masses g et e n o u g h food, b u t that they direct th eir work themselves,
collectively. For th e real content of th eir life is th e ir productive work; the
fun d am en tal change is no t a change in th e passive realm o f consum ption, b u t
in the active re a lm o f p ro d u ctio n . Before th e m now th e problem arises o f how
to unite freedom an d organization; how to com bine m astery of th e workers
over the work w ith th e b in d in g u p o f all this w ork into a w ell-planned social
entirety. H ow to organize p ro d u ctio n , in every shop as well as over th e whole
o f world economy, in such a way th a t they them selves as p a rts o f a
collaborating com m unity regulate th eir w ork. Mastery over production
m eans th a t the personnel, th e bodies o f workers, technicians a n d experts th a t
by th e ir collective effort ru n th e shop an d p u t in to action th e technical
ap p aratu s are a t th e sam e tim e th e m an ag ers themselves. T h e organization
into a social entity is th e n p e r f o ^ e d by delegates o f the separate plants, by
so-called workers councils, discu&ing an d deciding on th e com m on affairs.
T h e developm ent o f such a council organizatio n will afford th e solution of the
p roblem ; b u t this developm ent is a historical procew, tak in g tim e and
d em an d in g a d eep tran sfo rm atio n o f outlook a n d character.
“T h is new vision of a free com m unism is only beginning to ta k e h o ld o f the
m inds o f the workers. A nd so now we begin to u n d ersta n d why f o ^ e r

prom ising workers' m ovem ents could not succeed. W hen the aim s are too
narrow th ere can b e n o real liberatio n . W h en th e aim is a semi- or
m ock-liberation, th e in n e r forces aroused a re insufficient to b rin g ab o u t the
fund am en tal results. So th e G e ^ a n socialist m ovem ent, unable to provide
the w orkers with a ^ s pow erful enough to fig h t successfully m onopolistic
capital, h a d to succum b. T h e w orking class h a d to search for new roads. But
th e difficulty o f disentangling itself from th e n et o f socialist teachings im posed
by old parties a n d old slogans m ad e it powerlew against aggrewive capitalism ,
an d b ro u g h t a b o u t a period of continuous decline, in d icatin g the need for a
new o rientation.
“T hus w hat is called th e failu re of th e w orking class is the failure of its
narrow socialist aims. T h e real fight for lib eratio n has yet to b e g in ; w hat is
known as th e workers' m ovem ent in th e century behind us, seen in this way,
was only a series of skirmishes of advance guards. Intellectuals, w ho a re w ont
to reduce th e social struggle to th e m ost abstract an d sim ple f o ^ u la s , are
inclined to u n d e rra te th e trem endous scope of th e social tr a n s f o r a tio n
before us. T hey th in k how easy it w ould b e to p u t the rig h t nam e into the
ballot box. T hey fo rg et w hat deep inner revolution m ust take place in the
w orking m a s e s ; w hat am o u n t o f clear insight, of solidarity, of perseverance
and courage, of p roud fighting spirit is needed to vanquish the im m ense
physical and spiritual power o f capitalism .
“T h e w orkers of th e w orld now adays have two m ighty foes, two hostile an d
suppressing capitalist powers against th e m : th e m onopolistic capitalism of
A m erica a n d E ngland, an d R ussian state capitalism . T h e f o ^ e r is drifting
tow ard social dictatorship cam ouflaged in d em ocratic f o ^ s ; the la tte r
proclaim s dictatorship openly, f o ^ e r l y with the ad d itio n ’of the p ro le ta ria t,’
although nobody believes th a t any m ore. T hey b o th try to keep the workers in
a state of o bedient w ell-drilled followers, acting only at the co m m and of the
party leaders, th e f o ^ e r by th e aid o f th e socialist program of socialist
parties, th e la tte r by th e slogans a n d wily tricks of th e C om m unist party. T h e
trad itio n o f glorious struggle helps th em keep spiritually dependent on
obsolete ideas. In th e com petition for world d om ination, each tries to keep
the w orkers in its fold, by shouting against capitalism here, against
dictatorship there.
"In th e aw akening resistance to b o th , th e w orkers are b e ^ n n in g to perceive
th a t they can fight successfully only by a d h e rin g to an d proclaim ing exactly
th e opposite p r in c ip le - th e principle of devoted collaboration of free and
eq u al personalities. T heirs is th e task o f fin d in g o u t th e way in w hich the
principle can be carried out in th e ir p ractical actio n .”
ACTION IN C O N TE M P O Â Y SOCIETY / 287
"T h e p aram o u n t question here is w hether there are indications o f an

existing or aw akening fighting spirit in th e w orking class. So we m ust leave the
field o f political p arty strife, now chiefly in ten d ed to f o l the masses, and tu rn
to th e field of econom ic interests, where th e workers intuitively fight th eir
bitter struggle for living conditions. H ere we see th a t w ith the developm ent o f
sm all b u sin e ^ into big b u sin e^, th e tra d e unions cease to be instrum ents of
the workers' struggle. In m odern tim es these organizations ever m ore tu rn
into th e organs by which m onopoly capital dictates its terms to th e w orking
cla&.
“W hen the workers begin to realize th a t the tra d e unions cannot direct
th eir fight against cap ital they face th e task o f finding an d practicing new
forms o f struggle. T hese new form s are th e w ildcat strikes. H ere they shake off
direction by th e old leaders an d the old organizations; here they take the
initiative in th eir o ^ h a n d s ; here they have to think out tim e an d ways, to
take th e decisions, to do all th e w ork o f p ro p ag an d a, of extension, o f directing
their action themselves. W ildcat strikes are spontaneous outbursts, the
genuine practical ex p reîo n o f class struggle against capitalism , though
without w ider aims as y e t; b u t they em body a new c h arac ter already in the
rebellious masses: self-determ ination instead o f determ ination by leaders,
self-reliance instead o f obedience, fig h tin g spirit instead o f accepting the
dictates from above, unbreak ab le solidarity an d unity w ith th e com rades
instead of duty im posed by m em bership. T h e u n it in action a n d strike is, of
course, th e s ^ e as th e unit of daily productive work, the personnel o f the
shop, th e p la n t, th e docks; it is th e com m on work, th e com m on interest
against th e com m on capitalist m aster th a t compels them to act as one. In
these d iscuîons an d decisions all th e individual capabilities, all th e forces of
character and m ind o f all th e workers, exalted an d strained to the utm ost, are
cooperating tow ard th e com m on goal.
“In the w ildcat strikes we can see th e beginnings o f a new practical
o rien tatio n of the w orking class, a new tactic, th e m ethod o f d irec t action.
T hey represent th e only actual rebellion of m a n against the deadening weight
of w orld-dom inating capital. Surely, on a small scale such strikes mostly have
to be broken o ff w ithout s u c c e ss-w a rn in g signs only. T h eir efficiency
depends on th eir extension over larger m asses; only fear for such indefinite
extension can com pel cap ital to m ake concessions. If the pressure by capitalist
exploitation grows heav ier—an d we can be sure it w iU -resistan c e will be
aroused ever anew an d will involve ever larg er masses. W hen the strikes take
on such dim ensions as to disturb seriously th e social order, w hen they assail
capitalism in its inn er essence, th e m astery o f th e shops, th en th e workers will
have to confront state power w ith all its resources. T h en their strikes m ust
288 / PjÂNEKOEKAND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
assume a political c h a ra c te r; they have to b ro ad en their social ou tlo o k ; their

strike committees, em bodying their class com m unity, a ^ u m e w ider social
^ ^ c tio n s , ta k in g the ch a ra c ter of workers’ councils. T h e n the social
revolution, the breakdown. of capitalism , comes into view.
“Is there any reason to expect such a revolutionary developm ent in com ing
times, thro u g h conditions that were lacking u n til now? It seems that we can,
with some probability, indicate such conditions. In M arx’s writings we find
the sentence: a production system does n o t perish before all its innate
poîbilities have developed. In the persistence o f capitalism , we now begin to
detect some deeper tr u th in this sentence th a n was suspected before. As long
as the capitalist system can keep the masses alive, they feel no stringent
necessity to do away with it. A nd it is able to do so as long as it can grow and
expand its realm over w ider p arts of the w orld. H ence, so long as h alf the
w orld’s pop u latio n stands outside capitalism , its task is not finished. T h e
many h u n d re d s of m illions thro n g ed in the fertile plains of Eastern an d
Southern Asia are still living in pre-capitalistic conditions. As long as they can
afford a m ark et to be provided with rails an d locomotives, with trucks,
m achines an d factories, capitalist enteprise, especially in A m erica, m ay
prosper an d expand. A nd h enceforth it is on th e w orking clara of A m erica
th a t world revolution depends.
“T h is m eans th a t th e n e c e ^ ity of revolutionary struggle wiU im pose itself
once capitalism engulfs the bulk o f m ankind, once a fu rth er significant
expansion is ham pered. T h e threat o f wholesale destruction in this last phase
of capitalism m akes this fight a necessity for all the producing cla&es of
society, the farm ers an d intellectuals as well as the workers. W hat is
condensed here in these sh o rt sentences is an extrem ely com plicated historical
process covering a p erio d of revolution, p re p a re d and accom panied by
spiritual fights a n d fu n d am en tal changes in basic ideas. These developm ents
should be carefully studied by all those to w hom com m unism w ithout
dictatorship, social organization on the b a a s of com m unity-m inded freedom ,
represents the fu tu re o f m a n k in d .”
W ith the exception o f one im p o rtan t aspect, to which we shall re tu rn
shortly, the m ajor outlines o f the council idea are now clear. O f course,
certain essential aspects of this idea have been, are being an d will be
highlighted both by historical evolution an d by o ther m ilitant theoreticians.
But, as fa r as Pannekoek is concerned, his writings, from W orkers' Councils
to his d eath , deal consistently with the sam e m ajor them es. However, to stre ^
yet again the absence of all conceptual m etaphysics in his thought, here is an
extract from one of his letters to the editor of a sm all leftist socialist review .3
S. “Ueber Arbeiterate," Funken, III:l, June 1952, pp. 14-15.
ACTIONINCONTEMPORARYSOCIETY I 289
“W orkers’ councils does not design ate a f o ^ o f organization whose tines

are fixed once a n d for all, an d which req u ires only th e subsequent elaboration
of the d etails. It is concerned w ith a p rin c ip le —the principle o f the workers'
self-m anagem ent of enterprises a n d o f p ro d u c tio n . T his principle can in no
way be im plem ented by a theoretical discussion about the best practical f o ^ s
it should take. It c o n c e ^ a p ractical struggle against the ap p aratu s of
capitalist d om ination. In o u r day, ‘workers’ councils,’ certainly does not
m ean a b rotherhood that is its o-wn en d a n d purpose; ‘workers’ councils' is
synonymous w ith the class struggle (where b ro th erhood plays its p a n ) , with
revolutionary action against state pow er. Revolutions cannot, o f course, be
sum m oned at will; they arise spontaneously in m om ents o f crisis, when the
situation becom es intolerable. T h e y occur only on two conditions: first, if a
feeling of intolerability exercises greater an d g reater pressures on the m asses;
second, if sim ultaneously a certain generally accepted awareness of w hat
o u g h t to be done grows u p am ong them . I t is at this level th a t p ro p ag an d a
a n d pub lic discussion play their p a rt. A n d these actions cannot secure a
lasting succeK unless large sections o f th e working class have a clear
understan d in g o f th e n a tu re a n d purposes o f th eir w arfare; hence the
necessity for m ak in g the workers councils a them e for discuîon.
“So, therefore, the id ea o f workers councils does not involve a program of
p ractical objectives to be realized tom orrow o r next year. It ^serves solely as a
guide for the long a n d severe fight for freedom , which still lies ah e ad for the
working class. M arx, it wiU be rem em bered, said th a t the hour of capitalism
has sounded; b u t he was careful to a d d th a t, in his view, this h o u r would
cover a whole historical p e rio d .”
C H A P T E R F IF fE E N
PR O D U C T IO N A N D D IS T R IB U T IO N IN T H E N EW W O R L D
O ne criticism th a t th e D utch "work groups” leveled at th e different

tendencies in the G e ^ a n council m ovem ent stands out as essential. W hile
not denying the im po rtan ce of the fight against the “form er workers'
movem ent" (the Second an d T h ird Internationals, trad e unions), the GIC
accentuated th e council f o ^ , an d saw the study of “th e econom ic form of
com m unism ” as a prim ary theoretical task. In 1929, th e com m unist council
press published a circular w ith the following conclusions: “T h e program and
the principles o f the various closed groups th a t p ro fe^ allegiance to the idea
of the councils base themselves on analyses, satisfactory or otherw ise, of the
p resent course of capitalist society. It is obvious, however, th a t, if a new world
is to be constructed, its foundations m ust first be clearly d e t e ^ i n e d .
Suppression of the capitalist m erch an t economy does not .autom atically reveal
the laws of m ovem ent of the com m unist s o c ie ty -th e society destined to
succeed it. W hat will be th e bases of this new society? T h e council m ovem ent
m ust be able to answer this question if it intends to contribute to a conscious
transfo rm atio n o f th e econom ic process.”1
T h e result o f these reflections was published shortly afterw ard. 2 It
contained prim arily a critique of the anarchist viewpoint (S tbastien F au re),
that of the Social D em ocratic (Kautsky, O tto Leichter) and th a t o f th e radical
(Lenin, Eugene V arga), as well as a critique of Bolshevik practice du rin g the
first years of the Soviet regim e. T h e point at issue was th a t all these h anded
the m an ag em en t of the new society over to a central body, w ith no thought
for any active intervention by the workers. A second volum e of this work
proposed a u n it o f calculation serving to organize the circulation of use values
produced w ithin the new world. T his unit of calculation is none other than
tim e, th e average social working hour, as M arx and Engels several times
pointed out.3
T o carry o u t this principle, based on th e redu ction of the various cat egories
of work to one category o f labor pure and sim ple, means to abolish the salary
1. Cf. Proletarischer Zeitgeist (published by the AAUE of Zwickqu), VII :2, January 1929.
2. Kollektivarbeit der GIK (HoUand), (G ru.,ndfonzipien kommujnistischer Produktion und
Verteilung (Berlin, 1930).
3. Cf. especiaUy Karl Marx, Critique o f the Gotha Program and Engels, Anti-DUhring.
292 / PJANEKOEK AND THE WORKERS' CO UNCILS
f o ^ , w hich embodies the sep aratio n o f the p ro d u cer from the m eans of
produ ctio n . This abolition is conceivable only if the various enterprises are
linked by a system of living re la tio n s h ip s -th e workers c o u n c ils -s o th at, by
m eans of this working tim e com m on to all, “the social relationships of m en in
their various works and their relationship w ith th e en d products of th eir labor
rem ain sim ple an d tran sp aren t b o th in p roduction an d in distrib u tio n .” 4
Clearly, th e functioning of this principle dem ands th a t th e workers be directly
responsible for social activities. It is on this latter point th at th e contribution
of the GIC was to prove p articu larly original and fruitful, an d was to go
beyond the fram ework o f a m ere restoration of principles.
W e can n o t exam ine here the objections that this idea m ay raise from the
viewpoint of radical M arxism L eninism ,5 nor, still lew, can we deal with the
developm ent both of attitudes an d techniques an d of the theory itself, in the
second h a lf o f the tw entieth centu ry . Before discussing the -term s of a problem
these term s themselves should be clearly set out. T his is precisely w hat
Pannekoek has attem pted in W orkers' Councils,6 an d w hat he has to say will
serve as a conclusion to the p resen t book.
W ith in th e organization o f councils, h e writes, all the workers, whatever
their ra n k in production, have their say b o th in the m anagem ent of the
enterprise and in the control of the jobs. “All w orking personnel, m en and
women, young and old, take their p a rt as equal com panions in this shop
organization, in the actual work as well as in the general regulation. O f
course, there will be m any differences in the personal tasks, easier or m ore
difficult according to strengths an d talents, different in ch a ra cter according
to in clination an d ability. A nd, of course, th e differences in general insight
will give a p reponderance to the advice of the most intelligent. Initially, as an
inheritance of capitalism , th ere are large differences in education and
training, an d the lack of good technical an d general knowledge in the masses
will be felt as a heavy deficiency. T h e n the sm all nu m b er of highly trained
professional technicians an d scientists m ust act as technical leaders, w ithout
thereby acquiring a com m anding or socially leading position, w ithout gaining
privileges other th a n the esteem o f th eir com panions and the m oral authority
th a t always accom panies skill an d knowledge.
"T he organization of a shop is th e conscious arrangem ent an d connection
o f all the separate procedures into one whole. AU these interconnections of
m u tu a lly ad ap ted operations m ay be represented in a w ell-ordered schem e, a
m ental im age o f the actual p rocess. . . . In num erical form this is done by
4. Karl Marx, Kafttal, Vol. 1.
5. Mitchel, “Problfcmes de la ^riode de transition,” Bilan, especially nos. 34-36, 1936.
6. Anton Pannekoek, Workers’ Councils, op. cit., p. 29.
PRODUCTION IN THE NEW WORLD I 293
bookkeeping. Bookkeeping registers an d fixes all th a t happens in the procew

o f p ro d u c tio n . . . . In com prehensive accounts, it allows continually to
com pare th e results w ith th e previous estim ates in planning, so th at
produ ctio n in th e shop is m ade into a m entally controlled process.
“C apitalist m anagem ent of enterprises also controls pro d u ctio n m entally.
H ere, to o , th e process involves calcu latio n an d bookkeeping. B ut th ere is the
fu n d am en tal diference th at capitalist calculation is a d a p ted entirely to the
viewpoint o f th e p ro d u ctio n of pro fit. Prices an d costs are its fun d am en tal
d a ta ; w ork an d wages are only factors in calculating the resulting profit on
the yearly b a la n c e on account. In th e new system of production, on the o ther
h an d , th e w ork h o u r is th e fund am en tal d atu m , w hether it is still expressed,
in th e beginning, in m oney units, o r in its o ^ tru e f o ^ . In capitalist
p ro d u c tio n calculation a n d bookkeeping is a m anagem ent secret. It is no
concern o f th e w orkers; they are objects of exploitation, they are only factors
in th e calculation o f cost an d p ro d u ctio n , accessories to th e m achines. In the
pro d u ctio n u n d e r com m on o ^ e r s h ip th e bookkeeping is a public m a tte r ; it
lies open to all. T h e workers always have a com plete view of th e course o f the
whole process. O nly in this way are they able to discuss m atters in the
sectional aêm blies an d in th e shop com m ittees, an d to decide on w hat has to
be done. T h e n um erical results are m ad e visible, m oreover, by statistical
tables, by g ra p h s a n d pictures th a t display th e situation at a glance. T his
i n f o ^ a t i o n is n o t restricted to th e shop personnel; it is a public m atter, open
to all outsiders. Every shop is only a m em b er in th e social production, and the
connection o f its doings with th e w ork outside is expressed in the
bookkeeping. T h u s insight in th e p ro d u ctio n going on in every enterprise is
com m on know ledge for all th e producers.
“L a b o r is a social process. E ach en terp rise is p a rt of th e productive body of
society. T h e total social production is f o ^ e d by th eir connection and
co llab o ratio n . L ike th e cells th a t constitute a living organism , they cannot
exist isolated an d c u t off from th e body. So th e organization of th e work inside
the shop is only h a lf o f th e task of th e workers. O ver it, a still m ore im p o rta n t
task, stands th e jo inin g of th e sep arate enterprises, th eir com bination into a
social organization.
"W hereas organization w ithin th e shop already existed u n d er capitalism
an d h a d only to be rep laced by an o th er form o f organization based o n a new
foundation, social organizations of all th e shops in to one whole is, o r was until
recen t years, som ething entirely new, w ithout precedent. So u tterly new , th a t
d u rin g th e entire 19th century th e establishm ent o f this o rg an izatio n , u n d e r
th e n am e of ‘socialism’ was considered th e m ain task of th e w orking cla&.
C apitalism consisted of an unorganized mass of independent enterprises—‘a
jostling crow d o f separate private em ployers,' as th e program o f th e L abor

Party exprewes it -c o n n e c te d only by th e chance relations o f m ark et an d
com petion, resulting in bankruptcies, overproduction and crisis, unem ploy
m ent a n d an e n o ^ o u s waste o f m aterials an d lab or power. T o abolish it, the
w orking c la » should co nquer th e political pow er an d it to organize
industry an d p roduction. This state-socialism was considered, then, as th e
first step into a new developm ent.
“In th e last years th e situation has changed insofar th a t capitalism itself
h a d m ad e a beginning with state-ru n organizations . . . . T h e political power
of th e state officials is greatly strengthened by th e ir economic power, by th eir
com m an d over th e m eans of p ro d u ctio n , th e fo u n d atio n o f society.
“T h e principle o f the w orking class is in every respect the exact opposite.
T he o rganization o f p ro d u ctio n by th e workers is founded on free
co lla b o ra tio n : no m asters, no servants. T h e com bination o f all the enterprises
into one social organization takes place according to th e same principle. T he
m echanism for this purpose m ust be built u p by the workers.
"Given th e impo&ibility o f calling all the w orkers into one m eeting, they
can only e x p re ^ their will by m eans of delegates. Lately, such bodies of
delegates have b een called workers councils. Every co llab o ratin g g ro u p
designates th e m em bers who have to express its o p inion and its wishes in th e
council assemblies. These took an active p a rt themselves in the deliberations
of this group, they cam e to th e front as able defenders of th e views th a t
carrie d th e m ajority. Now they a re sent as th e spokesmen o f th e g ro u p to
confront these views w ith those o f o th e r groups in o rd e r to com e to a collective
decision. T h o u g h th eir personal abilities play a role in persuading th eir
colleagues an d in clearin g problem s, th eir w eight does not lie in th eir
individual strength, b u t in th e stren g th o f th e com m unity th a t delegated
them . W hat carries weight are not simple opinions, b u t still m ore th e will and
th e readiness o f th e g ro u p to act accordingly. D ifferent persons will act as
delegates according to the different questions raised a n d th e forthcom ing
problem s.
"T h e chief problem , th e basis o f all th e rest, is production itself. Its
organization has tw o sides, th e establishm ent o f general ru les and norm s and
the practical work itself. N o ^ s an d rules m ust be established for the m utual
relations in the work, for th e rights an d duties. U nder capitalism the norm
consisted in th e com m and of th e m aster, th e director. U nder sta te capitalism
it consisted in th e m ightier com m and of th e leader, the central gove^rnment.
Now, however, all producers are free an d equal. Now in the economic field o f
labor th e sam e change takes place as occurred in f o ^ e r centuries in the
political field, w ith th e rise o f th e bourgeoisie. W hen th e rule o f the citizens
PRODUCTIOMN THE NEW WORLD I 295
cam e in place of the rule o f th e absolute m onarch, this could n o t m ean th a t

for his arb itra ry will th e arb itra ry will o f everybody was substituted. It m eant
th at, henceforth, laws established by th e com m on will should reg u late the
public rights a n d duties. So now, in th e realm o f labor, the com m and o f the
m aster gives way to rules fixed in com m on, to regulate the social rights and
duties, in production an d consum ption. T o form ulate them will be the first
task o f the workers councils. This is n o t a difficult task, n o t a m atter of
p ro fo u n d study or serious discord. For every worker these rules will
im m ediately spring u p in his consciousne& as th e natural basis o f the new
society: everyone's d u ty to take p a rt in th e p ro d u ction in accordance with his
forces a n d capacities, everyone's rig h t to enjoy his a d eq u ate p a rt o f the
collective p ro d u ct.
“How will th e quantities o f lab o r spent a n d the quantities o f product to
which he is entitled be m easured? In a society where th e goods are produced
directly for consum ption there is no m arket to exchange th e m ; and no value
as exprewion o f th e lab o r contained in them establishes itself autom atically
out o f th e processes of buying a n d selling. H ere the labor spent m ust be
expressed in a direct way by th e n u m b e r o f hours. T h e ad m in istratio n keeps
records o f th e hours o f lab o r co ntained in every piece or unit qu an tity of
pro d u ct, as well as o f th e hours spent by each o f the workers. In the averages
of all workers o f a factory a n d finally, of all th e factories o f th e same category,
the personal differences a re sm oothed out an d results a re com pared.
“In th e first tim es o f tran sitio n w hen th e re is m uch devastation to be
repaired , th e first problem is to build u p th e p ro d u ctio n a p p a ra tu s a n d to
keep people alive. It is quite possible th a t th e h ab it, im posed by w ar and
fam ine, o f having th e indispensable foodstuffs distributed w ithout distinction
is simply continued. It is m ost pro b ab le th a t, in those tim es o f reconstruction,
when all th e forces m u st be exerted to th e utm ost, w hen, m oreover, th e new
m oral principles o f com m on labor are only g radually form ing, th e right of
consum ption will be tied to the perfo rm an ce o f work. T h e old p o p u lar saying
th at whoever does n o t work shall n o t eat expreaes an instinctive feeling of
justice. H ere is not only th e recognition th a t lab o r is the basis o f all hum an
life, b u t also th e pro clam atio n th a t now th ere is an end to capitalist
exploitation a n d to ap p ro p riatin g th e frnits o f foreign labor by pro p erty titles
of a n idle c la s .
"This does n o t m ean, o f course, that now the total p ro d u ct is distributed
am o n g the producers, according to th e tim e given by each. O r, expressed in
an o th er way, th a t every worker receives p ro d u cts equivalent to the q u antity of
hours of labor spent in working. A considerable p a r t of the work m ust be
spent on the com m on property, on th e perfection a n d enlargem ent of the
296 I P /^ m K O E K A N D THE WORKERS'COUNCILS
productive ap p aratu s. U nder capitalism p art of th e surplus value served this

purpose; th e capitalist h a d to use p a rt of his profit, accum ulated into new
capital, to innovate, expand an d m odernize his technical equipm ent, in his
case driven by th e need to keep u p w ith his com petitors. So the progress in
techniques took place in f o ^ s o f exploitation. Now, in the new f o ^ of
prod u ctio n , this progress is th e com m on co n cern o f th e workers. K eeping
themselves alive is th e m ost im m ediate, b u t b uilding th e basis o f fu tu re
p ro d u ctio n is th e m ost glorious p a rt of th eir task. T hey will have to settle w hat
p a rt o f th e ir to tal lab o r shall b e spent o n th e m ak ing of b e tte r m achines and
m ore efficient tools, on research a n d experim ent, for facilitating th e work
a n d im proving th e p roduction.
"M oreover, p a rt o f th e total tim e an d la b o r o f society m ust be spent on
activities th at are productive b u t a re still n e c e ^ a r y - i.e ., general a d m in
istration, education, m edical services. C hildren a n d old people will re
ceive their share of th e p ro d u ct w ithout corresponding achievem ents.
People in cap ab le of work m ust b e sustained; an d especially in the initial
phase th ere will b e a larg e n u m b e r o f h u m an wrecks left by th e f o ^ e r
capitalist w orld. Probably th e ru le will prevail th a t the productive w ork is th e
task of th e younger ad ults; or, in other words, is th e task o f everybody d u rin g
th at p e rio d of his life w hen b o th th e tendency a n d th e capacity for vigorous
activity are greatest. By th e rap id increase o f th e productivity of labor this
p a rt, th e tim e need ed to p ro d u ce all th e necessities o f life will continually
decrease, a n d an increasing p art of life will be available for other purposes
an d activities.
‘‘T h e basis of th e social o rganization o f p ro duction consists in careful
adm inistration, in the form o f statistics an d bookkeeping.
“ . . .T h e function an d th e place n ^ n e ric a l adm inistration occupies in
society depends o n th e character o f th is society. Financial adm inistration of
states was always necessary as p a rt of th e central gove^rnment, an d th e
co m p u tin g officials were su b o rd in a te servants o f th e kings o r o th e r rulers.
W here in m o d ern capitalism p ro d u ctio n is subjected to a n encom passing
central organization, those who have th e central adm inistration in th eir
hands will be th e leading directors of econom y a n d develop into a ruling
b ureaucracy. W hen in Russia th e revolution of 1917 led to a ra p id expansion
of industry, an d hosts o f w orkers still pe:rmeated by the barb aro u s ignorance
of th e villages crow ded in to th e new factories, they lacked th e pow er to check
the rising dom inance of th e bureau cracy th e n organizing into a new ruling
class. W h en in 1933 in G erm any, a sternly organized p arty conquered the
state pow er, it took control of th e organization o f all the forces o f capitalism
as its m eans of central adm inistration.
PRODUCTION IN THE NEW WORLD / 297
“C onditions are entirely different w hen th e workers are m asters of th eir

lab o r a n d organize pro d u ctio n as free producers. A dm inistration by m eans of
bookkeeping a n d com puting is a special task o f certain persons, just as
ham m erin g steel or b aking bread is a special task o f other persons, all equally
useful a n d necessary. T h e workers in th e co m p u tin g offices are neither
servants n o r rulers. T hey are not officials in th e service o f the workers
councils, obediently having to p e r f o ^ their orders. T hey a re groups of
workers, like o th e r groups collectively reg u lating their work them selves,
disposing o f their im plem ents, p e r f u m in g their duties, as does every group,
in con tin u al connection w ith th e nêeds o f th e whole. T hey are th e experts who
have to provide th e basic d ata o f th e discuîons and decisions in the
aêm b lies of workers and o f councils. T hey have to collect th e d ata, to
present it in an easily intelligible f o ^ o f tables, o f graphs, o f pictures, so th a t
every w orker a t every m om ent has a clear im age o f the state of things. T h e ir
know ledge is n o t a private p ro p erty giving th em pow er; they are n o t a body
w ith exclusive adm inistrative know ledge th a t th ereby som ehow could exert a
deciding influence. T h e p ro d u ct o f their labor, th e num erical insight needed
for th e w ork’s progress, is available to all. T his general knowledge is the
found atio n o f all th e discu&ions an d decisions o f the workers a n d their
councils by w hich th e organization o f labor is p e r f o ^ e d .
“For th e first tim e in history th e econom ic life, in general and in detail, lies
as a n open book b efore th e eyes o f m a ^ tin d . T h e foundations o f society,
u n d er capitalism a h uge m ass hidden in th e d a rk depths, dimly lighted here
and th ere by statistics on com m erce an d pro d u ctio n, now has entered into the
full daylight an d shows its detailed stru ctu re. H ere we dispose o f a science of
society consisting of a w ell-ordered know ledge of facts, out o f w hich leading
causal relations are readily grasped. It f o ^ s th e basis o f the social
organization of la b o r ju st as th e know ledge of the facts of n a tu re , also
condensed into causal relations, f o ^ s th e basis o f th e technical organization
of lab o r. As a know ledge o f th e com m on sim ple facts o f daily life it is
available to everyone a n d enables h im to survey an d grasp th e necessities o f
th e whole as well as his o ^ p a rt in it. It f o ^ s the spiritual equipm ent
th ro u g h which th e producers are able to d ire c t th e production and to control
th e ir w orld . . . . ”
But this f o ^ o f organization is not destined to continue in force
th ro u g h o u t th e ages. It contains w ithin itself, the elem ents o f its o ^
dissolution. W ith o u t, of course, dw elling on th e question, Pannekoek
nevertheless has this to say:
“T h e workers' councils are th e form o f self-government w hich in the times
to come will replace th e f o ^ s o f governm ent o f th e old w orld. O f course not
298 I P ^ ^ E K O E K AND THE WORKERS' COUNCILS
for all time; no such form is for eternity. ^fa en life and work in community
are natural habit, when ma^nkind entirely controls its o,wn life, necessity gives
way to freedom and the strict rules of justice established before dissolve into
spontaneous behavior. Workers’ councils are the f o ^ of organization during
the transition period in which the working class is fighting for dominance, is
destroying capitalism and is organizing social production." 7
An anthology must of necessity contain more or leM arbitrary cuts and

om isions. But perhaps this defect is lew im portant in an anthology such as
this one than is the inevitable distortion of historical realities—a distortion
occasioned by the ascription to a particular theoretician of a body of ideas
that is primarily a product of the claM struggle and therefore only secondarily
ascribable to any individual.
Council communism belongs to the past. To raise the banner of a
disinherited name is, quite frankly, a futile occupation; to attem pt to revive
certain outm oded ideas, to passively seek a signpost to present conduct in
a history forever past and gone, can only feed do^m a (or h a p le s s dreams).
But this having been said, it is proper to point to one i d e a - “the failure of the
working class” —which, for specific reasons, has disappeared from con
temporary societies, and which reappears, in diverse aspects, as soon as
new conditions establish themselves. The idea of councils is the fruit of an
i^mmense, but already remote, effort at emancipation. As such, it is
something with both a positive and a negative legacy, and the critical
discussion of this can in itself have value for action. Pannekoek himself has
expressed this idea very clearly: “T he importance of the past lies in the fact
that it enables lessons to be drawn of a kind that can throw light on the
future.” 8
The anthology f o ^ offers precisely the advantage of showing by a
cross-section of history what is no longer valid in yesterday’s ideas, even
though they might have been the most advanced of their o ^ day. The
anthology f o ^ also highlights the fact that we cannot easily shake off the old
forms of thought and organization—certainly not by seeking to reinstate them
exactly as they were. Still more, this f o ^ stresses the fundamental fact that
only the development of new organizational forms makes it possible to pass
beyond the old f o ^ s , provided there was a decisive break with the existing
institutional world, with all its organs of dialogue (political parties, trade
unions) .
. Consider the situation in which the producers are led to fight against
7. Ibid., p. 47.
8. Anton Pannekoek, “Priiuip und Taktik," op. cit., p. 178.
PR O D U C TIO N S THE NEW WORLD I 299
capital, b u t to do so outside their traditional organizations a n d ultim ately

against th e m ; a lull occurs, b u t th e n this fight is resum ed m ore intensively
an d finally becom es one o f u n p aralleled bitterness. T h e outcom e o f such a
great historical b a ttle depends in larg e m easure o n how deeply the producers
are aw are o f th e m eaning an d th e purposes o f th e ir action. From this
perspective, th e transm ission o f teachings from th e p a st-e sse n tia lly as
positive ideas, as general principles - can furnish, in conjunction with other
elem ents o f know ledge, a m eans o f discerning m o re clearly a n d m ore quickly,
in th e autonom ous b attles o f th e p resent, th e traits o f m ass actions an d o f a
new world still in gestation; in other words, it can be an elem ent of
orientation. In this sense, pages from a long history o f conflicts can serve,
first, as m a tte r for reflection an d d iscu îo n , an d then as weapons of
p ro p ag an d a.
If one can speak o f th e personal genius o f A n ton Pannekoek, this is not
because o f any accurate predictions he m ade (for, in th at case, one would
have to overlook certain serious errors or gaps in his thinking ab o u t the
evolution o f capitalism ). R ather, his genius consists in having set out clearly
and boldly tow ard th e en d o f a p a rtic u la r phase o f the struggle for freedom
w hat h ad been atta in e d by th a t p a rtic u la r pahse. P ^ m ek o ek sum m arized this
them e in th e final p a ra g ra p h s o f his W orkers’ Councils;
"Socialism, as inherited from th e 19th century, was th e creed o f a social
m ission for th e leaders an d p o litician s: to t r a n s f o ^ capitalism into a system
of a state-d irected economy w ithout exploitation, producing abu n d an ce for
a l . It was th e creed o f class struggle for th e workers, the belief th at by
transferring governm ent in to the h an d s o f these socialists they w ould assure
their freedom . W hy d id it n o t h appen? Because the casting o f a secret vote
was too insignificant a n effort to count as real class struggle. Because the
socialist politicians, alone in the en tire capitalist fabric of society, stood
against the im m ense pow er o f th e cap italist m astery o f th e production
apparatu s, w ith th e w orkers' m a ^ e s only looking on, expecting them , little
squad, to u pset th e world. W h a t could th e y do o th er th a n ru n the affair in the
usual "lay, an d , by r e f o ^ i n g th e worst abuses, save their conscience? Now it
is seen th a t socialism in th e sense o f state-directed p lan n ed econom y m eans
state capitalism , a n d th a t socialism in th e sense o f workers' em ancipation is
only possible as a new orientation. T h e new orientation o f socialism is
self-direction o f p roduction, self-direction of th e claw-struggle, by m eans of
w orkers' councils.
"W hat is called the failu re o f th e w orking claw an d w hat a l a ^ s m any
so c ia lis ts -L e ., th e contradiction betw een th e econom ic breakdo-wn of
capitalism a n d th e inability o f th e workers to seize pow er a n d establish the
new o rd e r—is no real contrad ictio n , Econom ic changes only gradually

produce changes in the m in d . T h e w orkers educated in th e belief in socialism
stand bew ildered now th a t they see th a t its very opposite, heavier slavery, is
th e outcom e. T o grasp th at socialism a n d com m unism now b o th m e an
doctrines o f enslavem ent is a h a rd job. New o rientation needs tim e; m aybe
only a new generation wiU com p reh en d its full scope.
"A t th e e n d of W orld W a r I revolution seem ed n ea r; th e working class
arose full o f hope a n d expectation th a t now its old dream s w ould com e true.
B ut they w ere dreâms of im perfect freedom , they could not be realized. Now
a t th e e n d o f W orld W ar II only slavery a n d d estruction seem n e a r ; hope is
fa r d ista n t; b u t th e re still loom s a task, th e g reater aim of real freedom .
M ore pow erful th a n before, th e w orking c la » has to rise in its fight for
m astery over th e world. C apitalism has fo u n d m ore pow erful forms of
suppression . . . .
"A cen tu ry ago, when th e workers were a sm all class of do'wntrodden,
helpless individuals, the call was h e a rd : w orkers of the w orld unitel You have
n o th in g to lose b u t your chains; you have a world to win. Since then they have
becom e th e largest class; a n d they have u n ite d ; b u t only im perfectly. Only in
groups, smaUer o r larger, n o t yet as one c la » unity. O nly superficially, in
outer form s, n o t yet in deep e se n c e . A nd still they have n o th in g to lose b u t
th eir chain s; w h at else they have they cannot lose by fighting, only by tim idly
subm itting. A nd th e w orld to be won begins to be perceived dimly. A t th a t
tim e n o c le a r goal c o u ld b e d epicted aro u n d w hich to u n ite ; so their
organizations in th e en d becam e tools of capitalism . Now th e goal becomes
distinct; against th e stro n g er d om ination of th e state-directed p lan n ed
econom y o f th e new capitalism stands w hat M arx caUed th e aô cia tio n of free
an d eq u al producers. So th e call for unity m ust b e supplem ented by an
indicatio n o f th e goal: take th e factories a n d m achines; assert your m astery
over th e productive a p p a ra tu s; organize production by m eans of workers'
councils.”9
9. Anton Pannekoek, Workers' Councils, op. cit., pp. 230-31.
Aartsz, P., In Buick, Adam, 3n
Adler, Max, 51, l 96n Bukharin ,. N. I., 70n
Adler, Vicior, 62, 70n
Aigte, Gerhard, 8ln Cachin, M., 208n
Anders, 33n Casey, Fred, 3n
Armeson, Robert, 146n Chiapnikov, 126n
Ascher, A., 14ln Colbert, J., 202
Avenarius, Richard, 27, 28, 246 Cole, G. D. H., 284
Avrich, P., 18ln Colm, Gerhard, I 76n
Badia, Gilbert, 147n Daniels, Vincent, 70n

Bahne, Siegfried, 230n, 23ln Darwin, Charles, 14, 15, 38, 203
Bakunin, M., 72n Dawson, J. A., 259n
Bammel, G., 3n Delevsky, J., llOn
Baranovski, Tugan, 250 de Liagre BOhl, Herman, ln, 26n
Barbier, Daniel, 34n d'Encausse, Heltne Carriere, 204n
Bauer, Otto, 113n Denikin, Anton, 201
Bauman, Zy^rnunt, 7ln Dietzgen, Eugen, 4n, 6
Bebel, August, 62 Dietzgen, Joseph, 3, 3n, 4, 4n, 5, 5n,
Becker, J., ll3 n 6, 6n, 7, 7n, 8, 9, 12, 15n, 16n, 17,
Bellamy, Edward, 3 l 7n, 22, 22n, 28, 42, 43, 46, 46n,
Bernstein, Eduard, 40, 45, 60, 60n, 47, 48, 48n, 49, 245, 246
61, 62, 62n, 70, 70n, 72, 74n, 108n, Diez, Lain, 259n
122, 162n Draper, Theodore, ln
Bismarck, Otto von, 60 Dutschke, Rudi, 205n
Blumenberg, W., 68n
Easton, Lloyd, 3n
Bock, Hans Manfred, In, 26n
Ebert, Friedrich, 68, 154
Bogdanov, A. A., 27
Eckstein, G., 142n
Bolzmann, L., 37
Engels, Friedrich, 4, 4n, 6, 8, 9, 9n,
BOmelburg, Theodor, 106n
12. 14, 14n, 16, 16n, 40, 59, 60, 61,
Borchenski, 250n
69, 69n, 70n, 116n, 123, 163, 167,
Bordiga, Amadeo, 157n 233, 245, 247, 249, 270, 291
BOtcher, H., 170n
Brandis, Kurt, 119n, 139n Fanon, Franz, 216n
Brendel, Cajo, ln Faure, Sebastien, 291
Bricianer, Serge, In Feuerbach, Ludwig, 47, 249, 250
Brigl-Matthias, 171n Fischer, Rulh, I 72n
Brissenden, l I 4n Flechtheim, O., 172n, 225n, 244
Brjunin, G.W., 122n, 125n Fraak, J., In
Buechner, 245 Friedberg, Dr., Sin
FrOlich, Paul, 66n, 194n 129, 129n, 130, 131, 133, 133n,
Frossard, L., 20Sn 134, 136, 136n, 137, 139n, 140,
144, 159, 161, 163, 163n, 220, 291
Geyer, Curt, 121n Kennafick, 259n
Goldmann, Lucien, 40n Kerenski, Alexander, 14S
Gompers, Samuel, 114 Klein, Mattaus, 14n
Gorter, H e ^ a n , In, 5n, 6n, 26n, K loosteân, Joop, In
4Sn, 65, 65n, 66, 67, 67n, 6S, 6Sn, Knief, Johann, 120, 120n, 145, 147n,
14S, 207n, 212, 212n, 213, 219, 149n, 153, 153n, 154, 154n, 212
220, 222n, 23ln, 259n Kohnstamm, 37, 37n
Gramsci, Antonio, IS, I Sn, 157, 167n Kolb, Eberhard, 156n, 17Sn
Griek, Gunter, 106n Kolchak, 201
Griffuehles, Victor, 102n Kool, Fritz, In
Grossmann, Henryk, 25n, 235n Korsch, Karl, 30n, 61n, 62n, 139n,
Gruber, Helmut, 1S6n 254n, 259n, 2S3
Guferin, Daniel, 192n Krable, ln
Kropotkin, Peter, 122
Haeckel, 247 Kugelmann, Dr., 4n
Harper, John, In, 10, 192n, 245n, Kun, Bela, 226
269n
Haupt, Georges, 112n, 113n Labriola, Antonio, Sn
Haywood, William, l 14n Lagardelle, H., 166
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 7, S, Langerhaus, Heinz, 103n
46, S4 LaSalle, Ferdinand, 120
Henke, Alfred, 69, 120, 132 Laufenberg, Heinrich, 144n, 153n
Hepner, Adolf, 3n Le Bon, Gustave, 122
Hilferding, Rudolf, 6S, 74n Legien, Karl, 20n, 145n
H6lz, Max, 226n Leichter, Otto, 291
Horner, Karl, In, 2, 157n, 159n, 175, Lenin, Vladmir, In, 9n, 13n, 24, 26,
231n 27, 2S, 2Sn, 29, 30, 30n, 31, 37,
Hulse, James, 207n 4Sn, 54, 67, 69, 69n, 70n, 71, 71n,
Hyndman, Henry, 137 72n, S4n, 120, 122, 125n, 126,
126n, 12Sn, 129, 140, 140n, 144,
Jogisches, Leo, 147 144n, 150, 163n, lS6n, 191, 204n,
205n, 20S, 212, 212n, 213, 213n,
Kampfer, Johannes, 146n 219, 219n, 220n 225n, 245, 245n,
Kant, Immanuel, 7, 7n, S, Sn, 40, 246, 247n, 24S, 24Sn, 250, 250n,
43, 46, 92 252, 253, 254, 254n, 257, 25Sn, 291
Kapteyn, 33, 34 Leroi-Gourhan, M., 40n
Kater, Fritz, Sin Levi, Paul, 170n, 172, 226, 226n, 22S
Kautsky, Karl, 2, 9, 14, 14n, 23, 32, Liebknecht, Karl, 122, 155, 156, 232
40, 40n, 51, 62, 62n, 63, 6Sn, 70, Liebknecht, Wilhelm, 119n
70n, 106n, lOSn, 112n, 119, 121, Losche, Peter, 222n
121n, 122, 122n, 123, 126, 127, Lotsy, 37
Lukacs, George, 16n, 220, 220n, 221, Niewenhuis, Domela, 65, 65n
22ln Noske, Gustav, 152, 153
Lunatcharsky, A. V., 27
Luxemburg, Rosa, In, 2, 23n, 54, 62, Oertzen, P. von, 170n
62n, 63, 64, 64n, 66, 67n, 78, ll3 n , Opel, Fritz, l46n
H9, 121, 122, 128n, 132n, 147,
150, 150n, 155, 156, -169, 169n, Page, Stanley, 204n
170, 212, 220, 221, 231n, 232, 234, Pannekoek, Anna, 68
235 Philippe, 254n
Lyaschchenko, Peter, 204n Pieck, Wilhelm, 69
Piek, William, 172
Mach, Ernst, 6n, 27, 28, 246 Plaetner, Karl, 226n
Machajski, Waclaw, 72n Plekhanov, G. V., 62, 248, 248n, 250
Macintyre, Stuart, 4n Pouget, Emile, 103n
Mao Tse-tung, 221n Pribicevic, Branko, 192n
Marchlewski, J. 145n Pmdhommeaux, Andre, 155n, 156n,
Marx, Karl, 4, 4n, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13n, I8 ln , 2I9n, 22In
14, 14n, 15, 16, 16n, 17, 18, 20n, Pmdhommeaux, Dori, I55n, I8In
29, 30, 38, 40, 44, 44n, 45, 46, 47,
48n, 49, 52, 58, 59, 63, 65, 69, 69n, Radek, K. B., 35n, 7In, 144, I47,
74n, 76n, 78n, 84, ll6 n , 122, 130, l47n, I8I, I8ln, 205n, 207, 207n
134, I37n, 163, 164, 175, 177n, Reberieux, Madeleine, 112n, 113n
190, 191, 220n, 223, 224, 233, 234, Reichenbach, Bernard, I 72n, 226n
235, 236, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, Richter, Werner, I45n
250, 252, 253, 270, 289, 291, 29In, Ritter, Gerhardt, I03n
292n, 300 Rocker, Rudolf, 222n
Mattes, Wilhelm, I94n Roland-Holst, Henriette, 3n, 5n, 6n,
Matthias, Erich, 14n, 139n 65, 67n, I38, 207n
Mattick, Paul, In, I 7n, 3In, 62n, Rosenberg, Arthur, 220, 220n
227n, 230n, 259n, 269n, 283 Rubel, Maximillian, I3n, I7n, 220n
Rudas, Ladislaus, I 85n
Mehring, Franz, I 16n, 137, 137n
Riihle, Otto, 227, 227n, 230n
Mergner, Gottfried, 21n
Riiter, A. C., 66n
Michels, Roberto, 14ln
Rutgers, S. J., I 76, I 76n, 207n
Milhaud, Edgard, I 19n
Miller, Josef, 132n Schapiro, Leonard, I 99n
Millerand, Alexandre, 72 Scheidermann, 228
Mitchel, 292n Schleifstein, Josef, I 37n
Moring, Karl Ernst, 21n Schorske, Carl, 63n, 68n, 79n, I2In
Mousso, 254n Schramm, Stuart, 204n
Miihsam, Erich, 222, 222n, 258n Schroder, Karl, I57n
Murphy, J. T., 157n Schulz, Heinrich, 69, 69n
Schurer, Heinz, In, 69, 69n, 70n,
Naville, Peter, 246n, 250n I2In
Nettl, J. P., 67n Sladden, Thomas, 114n
Neumann, Walter, 185n Smith, Adam, 8
Sorel, Georges, 62n
Spethmann, Hans, 156n
Spiwak, S. I., 155n
Stalin, Josef, 22ln, 230
Stampfer, Friedrich, 145n
Steinberg, Hans Josef, 14n
Struik, Dirk, J., l 69n
Struve, Peter, 250
Tas, S., 219n

Tormin, Walter, 152n
Troelstra, 66, 72
Trotsky, Leon, ln, 150, 220
Tyszko, 147, 155n
Unruh, Peter, 154n

Utechin, S., 72n
Van Albada, Bruun, 3ln, 34, 34n,

35n, 45n, 55
van der Goes, Frank, 3, 2ln, 25, 25n
van Loo, In
van Ravesteyn, William, 24n, 66n,
67n, 148n, 207n
Varain, Heinz, 103n
Varga, Eugene, 7ln, 291
Vollman, 90
Walters, Mary Alice, 65n

Wauters, 33n
Weidemeyer, 65n
Werner, Paul, 194n
Wijnkoop, 207n
Williams, Gwyn, I Sn
Winning, August, 132n
Witt-Hansen, J., 127n
Wolfheim, l 7ln
Zanstra, H., 3ln

Zeisler, Kurt, 152n
Zinoviev, G. E., 70n, 14ln, 147

Serge Bricianer - Pannekoek and The Workers' Councils ABBYY

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Serge Bricianer - Pannekoek and The Workers' Councils ABBYY

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pannekoek

The Form ation ofP a n n eko ek's M arxism , b y Jo h n G erber, 1

A u th o r ’s Introduction, by Serge B ricianer, 31

C h ap ter O ne: G e ^ a n Social D em ocracy, 57

C h ap ter T w o: T actical Differences w ithin th e W orkers’ M ovem ent, 73

C hap ter T h re e : T h e K autsky-Pannekoek Controversy, 119

C h ap ter F our: T h e W orld W ar a n d the W orkers' M ovem ent, 137

C h ap ter Five: Russian Soviets a n d G e ^ a n Riite, 145

C h ap ter Six: Social D em ocracy a n d C om m unism , 159

C h ap ter Seven: T h e Split in E uro p ean Com m unism , 169

C h ap ter E ight: W o rld R evolution a n d C om m unist Tactics, 175

C h ap ter N ine: C om m unism an d N atio n al L iberation, 211

C hap ter T e n : T h e Council State, 219

C h ap ter Eleven: T h e Ru& ian Revolution, 245

C h ap ter Twelve: Party an d W orking Class, 261

C hap ter T h irte e n : Principles o f O rganization, 269

C h ap ter F ourteen: D irect A ction in C ontem porary Societies, 283

C h ap ter Fifteen: P ro d u ctio n a n d D istrib u tio n in the New W orld, 291

T h e D u tc h M arxist theoretician and astronom er, A nton Pannekoek (1873­

P annekoek and D ietzgen

already possess in special fields o f science.” 9

9. Joseph Dietzgen, “The Nature of H^man Brainwork,” in The Positive Outcome of

“De Filosofie van K ant en h et M arxism e” (1901), Pannekoek sought to

D ietzgen’s writings is an im m ediate necessity for anyone desiring to learn the

T h e m aterialist conception of history, as form ulated by M arx, was m eant

27. Anton Pannekoek, “Klassenwi^enschaft und Philosophie,” op. cit.

social developm ent an d one com ponent o f th e worldview of a new ascendant

develop an abstraction o u t of reality ; ' while the goal of spiritual science is to

Darw in was officially f o c a li z e d from a Socialist perspective when Engels,

Geist a n d R e v o lu tio n : T h e Practical Im plications o f P a n nekoek’s Philosophy

consciousness o f the p ro le ta ria t is as m uch a factor affecting historical

an d giving it concrete historical content. 54 W h a t em erges from the

54. Anton Pannekoek, We takti.schen WDif'^en%en in der Arbeiterbewegung (Hamburg:

practical goals, while th e earlier bourgeois goals quietly continue to

62. Ibid., pp. 34-35.

the w orking class, it is not surprising th a t Pannekoek would move to displace

the masses themselves seize the initiative, leading an d pushing their

• 68. Anton Pannekoek, "Die Organisation im Kampfe," “Zeitungskorrespondenz," April 9,

Several variations of this them e of socialism as a process of spiritual struggle

masses, it followed th a t P annekoek w ould criticize w ith p artic u la r force the

speak of a “final crisis" of capitalism apart from the intervention o f a

Pannekoek Agaz'nst L enin

living organism , an elem ent of th e totality of society. H ere in shop

82. Ibid., p. 78.

o f which Lenin's M aterialism and Em piriocriticism arose. F u n d am en tal for

85. Anton Pannekoek, Lenin as Philosopher, op. cit., p. 20.

koek, initially developed as an ideological w eapon o f th e bourgeoisie in

87. Ibid., p. 71.

In a period ■ma.rked by the eclipse o f th e revolutionary m ovem ent in the

2. Anton Pannekoek, “Untersuchungen fiber den Lichtwechset von B Lyrae,” Verhandeligen

“W hile still young, ” writes one o f his biographers,4 “Pannekoek was

4. Van Albada, loc. dt.

8. Van Albada, loc. cit.

Kongress der K.J. (Hamburg, 1921), p. 259.

strengthened each other before em erging fully defined in a systematic,

14. Ibid., p. 305.

16. Cf. below, Chapter Eight.

anim al kingdom are not applicable to h u m an societies, since each society

single great com m unity of u n ited producers. 20

D u tch m an inserts in this connection a m aterialist critique of K antian

24. Ibid., pp. 20ff.

25. Ibid., p. 16.

T h e D u tc h M arxist theoretician and astronom er, A nton Pannekoek (1873

econom ically by th e rap id grow th o f th e tra d e unions to giant o rg an i

party, th e m axim um lib erty o f m o v em en t; nevertheless, the old p arty d em ar