Councils & Assemblies

Formations of the modern conditions and their potential

Council formations, spontaneous organization of the working class, into what is, basically, their own constituency, their own form of organization beyond the limits of the bourgeois State, was a staple of the communist political scenario of the late 19th century and early 20th century. The councils characterize a movement of the proletariat in defense of its own class interests, which was needed in opposition to the many collaborationist tendencies which then existed to “represent the proletariat”, and as such the organization into councils was, at an epoch where class tensions were immense, a historical necessity relating to the fragile state of the world and the reorganization of Capital as the bourgeois class became the de facto dominant economic group (though bourgeois power over the sociopolitical and economic spheres of society was already widespread in such an epoch, the late 19th century to the early 20th century constituted their establishment into a truly dominant class). The councils were a real motion towards the proletarian acquisition and liberation of the means of production, and though not of a perfect structure in their practical organization, they embodied the struggle of the proletarian movement in its attack against the bourgeois, hegemonic ideology and State organization.

Let us turn eyes to the most important proletarian revolution in history: the October Revolution. This revolution in specific was able to find the bases of its power and of its organization, in a sense the basis of the formation of its own State, within the soviets, that being the council formations of workers and soldiers. The thesis that these councils represented the real movement of the proletariat towards its establishment as hegemonic and subsequently its own abolition was proven correct by the event represented by the October Revolution. Not only is a council revolution possible, but an actual concrete historical reality, which impacted the proletarian movement greatly worldwide, causing for even the formation of councils to be called elsewhere (see the Limerick Soviet, or the Hungarian Soviet Republic, though the fact several councils were formed after the October Revolution does not diminish the spontaneous and almost instinctive organization of the proletariat that is the council, as they existed before the October Revolution just as after).

Workers’ councils are mostly extinct in current times, as their formation was mostly an event and a characteristic of the revolutionary wave of the early 20th century. This, however, does not necessarily render the formation of councils an impossibility, as though specific characteristics of production changed (the structure of the workplace, working hours, interpersonal relationships between producers etc.) the general conditions of the Capitalist Mode of Production are still extant, and the organization of the councils is dependent not on the specific characteristics of production as it exists, but on the character and role of the proletarian class. Though certain historical conditions led to the formation of councils, conditions which might not currently exist, the structure of the council is intrinsic to the position of the proletariat in capitalism, as well as its general role. However, this is not a discussion to be elaborated here.

Certain problems may appear with the structure of a council. Amidst them, for instance, is the organization of the councils around the structure of the workplace, which makes it dependent on the workplace for its healthy functioning. The structure of the workplace as-it-is is both a prerequisite for the development of most council structures and inseparable from the structure of Capitalism as-it-exists. Councils are surely autonomous and spontaneous expressions of the proletarian movement against class oppression and in favor of the defense of their own interests, but it is fact that then its structure is purely proletarian, i.e., it can only exist and maintain itself as long as the proletariat exists (an argument could be made that the structure of council organization lasts longer than the abolition of the proletariat, basing itself simply on the echoes of the class system that are still extant in the lower stage of communism. In this case, however, it suggests that councils slowly dissolve themselves along the marks left by class society. In this case, the councils would not serve as the structure of the proletarian State which exists during the phase of the proletarian dictatorship, but rather as the early form of communist organization. A development upon this argument is still needed, and as it rests, it still seems as if the councils cannot form the basis of socialist organization.) The council remains, nonetheless, the structure upon which the basis of the Proletarian State can be built. Perhaps not the basis of the future socialist society, as Gramsci would come to believe in his early years, but the transitional political organization of the popular proletarian mass, as the organ in which the declaration of proletarian hegemony and victory starts, and the temporary system of organization during the dismantling and decay of the organs of Capitalism. A further discussion on this matter is nonetheless necessary. The fact is that the structure of the council often relies far more on the economic side of things, with a focus on production and thus the proletarian character of the proletarian class, which is precisely what makes the council a truly proletarian autonomous formation.

Another historical problem of councils and their structure is the presence of the collaborators, the ones who will actively or unintentionally undermine the autonomy of the workers, those collaborators being reactionary elements within the proletariat composing the council itself, or the meddling of those unions whose only goal is to bureaucratize and bust council power in favor of passive collaboration (as happened with the Torino Factory Councils). One can claim that trade unions are also proletarian formations: historically and currently, however, many unions have worked directly against the needs and interests of the proletariat (although this is not unique to them – even self-proclaimed Communist and Socialist parties historically have done such acts. See the May ’68 events in France, where both unions and communist party sheepishly collaborated with the bourgeois government).

The structure is, unfortunately, in this scope, prone to being, in a sense, attacked. This issue goes hand on hand with the issue of ideology, that is, the members of the council, in their whole diversity, can often be of reactionary persuasions (though this problem evidently does not exist solely within the structures of councils).

The solution of partisans, both the vanguardists and the council communists, is the elaboration of a party to guard the development of council society; the vanguard party for the former, effectively taking the reins of the councils and leading them into revolution, the Party representing the proletariat and the councils being the active force of the proletariat, functioning practically as an organ of unity and cohesion which works to discipline the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat, and the class party for the latter, which instructs the proletariat rather than lead it, synthetizing theory, grouping revolutionaries, polemicizing, and instilling class consciousness in the council structures, exerting influence over them so that the revolutionary organs which the councils are can find in themselves the capacity of self-discipline. Both, in their own elaborations, seek to prevent the dissolution, and (in crude terms) “corruption” of the council movement.

Both these arrangements call for a Communist Party in place which is already known to the proletariat and which is recognized by the revolutionarily conscious elements as the party of the proletariat. The failure of the council movement in Italy was partly due to the lack of such a strong party, a strong party to call to action the revolutionary elements of Italy in solidarity to the workers of Turin, Milan, and other places, to materially support their struggle and to either defend them or lead them.

This arrangement necessitates, as well, for the councils to be structure that do not elaborate any antagonism towards the Party; it is possible, after all, for the councils to perceive their structure as inherently dichotomous to the Party’s structure, which might often lead to rejection within the councils themselves of the various candidates of political and revolutionary parties, be it a vanguard movement or a proletarian class party. Such is why the trust of the proletariat on the party is necessary, a trust that needs to be built and nourished.

These are the characteristics of the councils. The formation of these organs of revolutionary power in the 20th century was a symbol of class struggle and of the revolutionary tide that washed over Europe. Currently, however, workers’ councils are practically unheard of, even in the times of crisis. Again, this does not suggest the impossibility of the formation of councils, but it tells us that the councils are not, for the time being, the formation of the revolutionary class.

Alongside councils, and perhaps even before, there was another kind of potential revolutionary formation that happened, another form of spontaneous self-structuration of those struggling; it was perhaps not given as much attention historically, but it is historically present and forms the basis of several movements of opposition. This form is also, in current times, increasingly common. It is the popular assembly.

The popular assembly is, in contrast with the councils (in several cases), a spontaneous formation of civil society, rather than focused on the milieu of production. It is in its essence a rejection of the hegemonic power of political society over civil society, of bourgeois ideology and traditionally bourgeois form of governance. It exists still in several places (FEJUVE, the Colombian resistance points in 2021, and in a sense, though not wholly, the Zapatista Councils of Good Government), and it is an active movement of defiance against the dominance of the bourgeois State and the empty promises given by bourgeois democracy. Its organization differs from that of a council, in that while councils are normally more centered around the workplace, and thus the economic aspects of the proletarian condition, the popular assemblies take form under a mainly political self-organization, which although normally happening among the members of the proletariat are not restricted to it. In, for example, neighborhood councils the petit-bourgeois element is still active within the political process of the assembly, and its structure, not reduced to the proletarian activity, finds its scope widened to include these classes alien to the proletariat.

There are some clear problems with the popular assembly. It is not a proletarian form of organization, not wholly, because this organization does not depend on class formation but civil formation, i.e., it is not an active movement against the functioning of capitalist economy but an active movement against simple bourgeois governance. This political focus is not damaging, and it does not destroy the potential intrinsic to the assemblies, but it falls to strike at the core of the issue with bourgeois governance, a problem that does not arise simply because of the organization of this governance but the structure upon which it is built (class society, etc.), and the ideology backing this specific governmental form. The assembly can thus not be compared, in the perspective of more general class struggle, to the structure of the councils: though the seeds of the proletarian self-organization exist within the assemblies, in several cases they do not operate as such. This, however, is not a unifying characteristic of all popular assemblies, as the petit bourgeois element is not active in all of them, being actively excluded from political participation in certain cases such as the FEJUVE in Bolivia.

The problem of the assemblies as “purely political” entities also raises another question. How is the popular assembly, which exists primarily in the political sphere rather than the economic one, supposed to exercise the necessary function of interacting with the means of production, effectively creating an opposition to the bourgeois conception of private property? That is, how is the popular assembly, which is an attack not on the class structure per se, but the instrument of class rule (the bourgeois form of governance, and the State formed by it), supposed to represent the hegemony of the proletariat in the economic sphere of activity?

The matter consists in transferring the struggle of the popular assembly, which is primarily an ideological struggle, to the nature of the proletarian class struggle. The underlying problem of this organization is that the structure of the popular assembly only tackles a certain sphere of class struggle, that being the struggle of ideology and class consciousness. The popular assembly serves as the basis of a structure that works towards proletarian hegemony later on, and its structure being class-unspecific does not matter in the sense that the transformation of the bourgeois mode of governance necessarily implies a dismantling of the class structure that maintains this mode of governance, this State in place. The liberation of civil society from the shackles of political society, the expansion of its activity, is necessarily tied to the rejection of the current conditions of production that necessitate the bourgeois mode of governance. It is though a matter of transforming this incomplete struggle waged by the popular assembly into the complete struggle against bourgeois dominance, that is, a matter of rejecting the purely ideological character of this struggle in favor of an active movement against the conditions which exist as reason for this ideological struggle.

Other problems that would exist within the workers’ councils do not exist in the context of the popular assembly. The problem of councils in the Biennio Rosso and other events was its vulnerability to capture by those trade unions that were collaborationist and reactionary, which bureaucratized and negated the revolutionary potential of the councils. The elaboration of the popular assembly, in its initial form, does not allow for this, as its construction is not based on trades; as such, it would acquire this economic character only after its transformation into a revolutionary organ, into an expression of proletarian struggle, and that would be after the self-recognition of the assembly as the organ of proletarian revolutionary power, a self-recognition that necessarily impedes its capture by the collaborationist elements. The structure of the popular assembly, though, is not without flaws, as its internal processes can be deviated from their intents or it can become static after achieving the concessions it seeks for. This is not an issue special to them; even councils can be seeking simple concessions from the governmental structures in place, but the issue here is that while councils supposedly persist for longer, as their struggle is waged in the context of a mode of production and a set of economic conditions that can’t be essentially changed, the popular assembly seeks a change in government that could very well be simulated with the government granting concessions to the fighters.

Another issue of the assemblies is their rejection of parties in certain cases; though they reject the parties in the context of the castrated bourgeois parties of nowadays, this extends to Marxist parties as well, as the modern populace sees in the parties nothing more but the opportunism of ineffective politics. As the popular assemblies are built on the rejection of this mode of governance built on the hegemonic bourgeois ideology, the parties, proletarian or bourgeois, are conflated in the sense of the political party, something that works within political society and as such should not be trusted. Even the party that does not participate in the bourgeois process can be affected by this antagonism towards the structure of a party. Anarchists and all their strands have a myriad of organization they could imagine and construct that could work on influencing the structure of the assemblies. The problem for the partisans, those who see a necessity for the party to exist (either vanguard or a simple class party), is how to tackle the issue of this modern antagonism.

The solution seems to be double: Either will a Communist party build recognition within the assemblies by actively and outspokenly supporting their struggle, by providing them with resources if possible, and by denouncing the institutions of bourgeois ideology and present the assemblies. It is a question of the Party of presenting itself as the force which fights against the bourgeois ideology in place, and thus it must be a party that makes itself be known, rather than rely on being entangled in the bourgeois process of electoralism. The Communist parties of this epoch are often shy, castrated, or else must make of themselves a secret while they wage their struggle in the shadows. This however makes it quite hard to employ this new formation of civil society that is the popular assembly.

The other solution, although perhaps not the most practical or realistic one, is the elaboration of a new form of organization. If the image of the party is ingrained within the mind of the populace as the opportunistic construct which only is made to participate in bourgeois governance, it seems that the creation of a new form of organization, to take the role and place of the party, without functioning like a party in most aspects. This option is though almost offensive to many, as the party is recognized as the organ that leads the transgressive proletariat to victory. The elaboration of a new form of organization can also be a daunting task, whereas the structure of the Party is already existing and historical lessons on its organization have been given. The imagination of a new form of organization, though, might be a worthy task to endeavor – if not for its creation, for the theoretical amelioration of the party structure.

What is now of importance is the elaboration of theories and analyses that tackle the issue of popular assemblies. It seems at this moment that they, alongside other civil unions (such as student’s unions and tenant’s unions, whose spheres of activity do not touch productive economic sections of social existence but rather that which has to do with simple survival and growth), are growing to be the century’s revolutionary organ, or at least their germinal form, an organization that in its conception challenges bourgeois ideology, and thus must eventually necessarily challenge bourgeois production and organization. The attention of those who theorize on the driving force of a possible revolution should be placed on these structures of autonomous organization that seek to challenge bourgeois methods of governance. Even if they are currently expressed in a prototypical, incomplete form, these structures are a staple of the transgressive movements of the century. What is necessary now is the reminder that the current State organization and mode of governance is inherent to the bourgeois ideology, that the empowerment of the petty bourgeoisie will not solve the issue of the the pseudo-democracy, and that the only way to meaningfully change this is a rejection of bourgeois ideology, and thus of the bourgeois socioeconomic system as a whole.

It is necessary to study the form of the assembly more closely and arrive at the conclusion of how this struggle can be waged through the driving force that it embodies. The ease at which it can be established, as well as its prevalence in modern struggles, make it a potent candidate for the organ of the rebellion and transgression necessary for a total rejection of the current conditions. It is a matter of rendering it obvious that the transformation of the mode of organization cannot be done through and within the system of Capitalism, but by reaching beyond it.