PrinterFriendlyVersion

AntonioGramsciAndRosaLuxemburg:
LeadingThinkersOnSocialistDemocracy
ByDr.PeterCusters
21December,2011
Countercurrents.org
1.Introduction
InmybelowessayIwillbrieflydiscusstheviewsoftwoEuropeantheorists,AntonioGramsci
and Rosa Luxemburg. Both were leading thinkers of the European workers movement in the
beginningofthe20thcentury.TheItalianrevolutionaryAntonioGramsciemergedtowardsthe
end of the First World War as organiser and editor of the weekly called lOrdine Nuovo. The
paper propagated the building of workers councils at factory level, as expression of the
autonomouspowerofworkersasproducers.AftertheformationoftheItalianCommunistParty,
Gramsci was elected to Parliament and became the partys de facto leader from 1924. In
November 1926, he was arrested and incarcerated by Mussolinis fascist regime. During his
prolonged stay in jail Gramsci undertook intensive studies on aspects of social theory which in
hisviewhadnotbeenfullytheorizedbyMarxistteachersbeforehim.Theseaspectsallrelatedto
politics and culture, i.e. aspects identified as societys superstructure contrasting with
economic relations being societys base. Seriously weakened physically in consequence of
incarceration,Gramscidiedshortlyafterhewasreleasedin1937(1).
Gramscis writings on workers councils are exceedingly important for any discussion on
Marxism and socialist democracy. So too are Rosa Luxemburgs critique of Lenins
organisational principles, and a part of her critique of the Russian revolution. Luxemburg
gathered firsthand experience as revolutionary in the country of her birth Poland, during the
upheaval of 1905 when she was arrested and detained. Later, after her release, she shifted to
Germany, joined the powerful Social Democratic Party, and became a fierce critic of the
parliamentary leanings of the Partys rightwing leaders, foremost those of the revisionist
Bernstein who opposed militant strike struggles. With foresight, she early started campaigning
againstGermanmilitarismandagainstthethreatofaworldwar,wellbeforeWorldWarOne
actuallyeruptedin1914.LikeLenin,shetheorizedimperialismasanewphaseinthehistoryof
capitalism. But she did so from a position that was clearly differentiated from his. For she
focused largely on questions of international trade instead of on foreign investments of capital
(2). Luxemburgs writings on Marxism and democracy, although they dont have a systematic
character,areexceptional.Forwhereasshefullyendorsedthebuildingofaworkersstatebased
onworkersandsoldierscouncilsastheBolsheviksinRussiaattemptedto,shedisagreedwith
theBolshevikstemptationtosuppressdissent.RosaLuxemburgwasincarceratedduringWorld
War One, and within months after her release towards the end of 1918, she was brutally
murderedforsupportingtheuprisingoftheSpartacusLeagueinBerlin(3).
BelowIwillonlyfocusonaspectsoftheEuropeanworkingclassmovementimmediatelyafter
theBolshevikRevolutiontookplace(1917).Atthetimethecentreoftheinternationalworking
class movement did, of course, lie in Europe. Inevitably therefore, the thematic of this essay is
Eurocentric. Nevertheless, the experiences gathered in that period of history have more than
ordinary significance for debates today. For it was probably during this historical period that
workersdemocracywasexperimentedwithonthewidestgeographicalscale,notablyinRussia,
Germany, Hungary and Italy (4). Moreover, even if many of the views expressed by Gramsci
andLuxemburgwerenofinalviewsonthethemeofMarxismanddemocracy,itisstillcrucial
torecognizethatpartofworkingclasshistoryhasbeensidelinedbytheprolongeddominanceof
Leninism.Ihavedividedmydiscussionintotwoparts:*thequestionoffactorycouncils,and*
thequestionofpeoplescivilandpoliticalrightsundersocialism.Iamawareofthefactthiswill
notbethefinalwordonthesethemes.
2.WorkersCouncils
Thefirstpointtobescored,isthatthemovementforthebuildingofworkerscouncilsemerged
from the experience gathered by Russian workers in the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. The
Russian proletariat did not just succeed in building political power in Russia on the basis of its
factory councils and territorial soviets. It inspired industrial workers through other parts of
Europe to do the same. In Hungary a Soviet state briefly functioned immediately after World
WarI.InGermanythecountrywidemovementtoconstructworkerscouncilswassopowerful
that in 1918 it led to the fall of the imperial government. And in Italy, about which I will say
more below, factory councils dominated life in the countrys industrial heartland, i.e. the
Northern city of Turin and its surroundings, up until the factory occupations of 1920. To my
knowledge, a comparative evaluation of the experience of factory councils in Europe during
1918/1919 is overdue. Yet there is no doubt that the experience was very rich that it
demonstratedthecapacityofindustrialworkerstorunsocietyandthatitshowedthepossibility
ofaradicalanddemocraticalternativetobourgeoisparliamentarydemocracy.
HereIwillfocusononlyoneofthesevariedexperimentswithworkerscouncils,namelythose
built by Italias industrial workers. This experience was summed up by Antonio Gramsci in a
reporthedispatchedtotheCommunistInternationalinJulyof1920(5).Thecouncilmovement
in Turin arose in the wake of two workers insurrections staged during the war years. These
indeed were armed confrontations with the forces of state. According to Gramsci, during the
second insurrection of August of 1917 alone some 500 people were killed (6). Though beaten
back,theworkersinnotimereorganizedandlaunchednewstrikestruggles.Theseculminated
inthehistoricAprilmovementof1920,whenallmetalworkersofTurincitystruckforawhole
month,whileothercategoriesofworkersdownedtheirtoolsfortendays.AccordingtoGramsci,
in its last ten days this general strike encompassed the whole region surrounding Turin, i.e.
Piedmont. About half a million industrial and agricultural workers were mobilised, signifying
some 4 million people were involved. Whereas other strikes, such as the strike wave that had
brokenoutinthefirstpartof1919,hadbeenovertheeighthourworkingday,theAprilstrike
in Turin was centred on the recognition of factory councils. It was followed by factory
occupationswhichunfortunatelycouldnotbesustained(7).
Inordertounderstandthecontextinwhichfactorycouncilscouldemerge,somefactsneedtobe
statedonthecompositionoftheworkingclassinTurinatthetime.Here,accordingtoGramsci,
nearlythreequartersinapopulationofhalfamillionconsistedofworkingclassfamilies.Further,
the process of production was perfectly centralized, in particular in the automobile and
engineering industry which employed 50 thousand shopfloor workers and 10 thousand clerks
and technicians. The greater part of the workforce was made up of skilled workers and
technicians. Moreover, both the engineering workers and the technicians were well organized.
According to Gramsci, Turin possessed a single trade union organisation, which at the time he
wrote his report had 90 thousand affiliated workers. What is also crucial to note, so as to
understandthereasonsforthesuccessofthecouncilmovement,isthattheclerksandtechnicians
inthefactories solidlystoodbytheworkers intheir strikes.Moreover,workers inother sectors
such as in woodworking and in rubber, generally were willing to follow the lead of the metal
workers(8).
Before elaborating on the methodology of workers democracy built at factory level, I should
briefly outline the organisational structure of the factory councils. The basic approach is
explained well in a crucial document entitled The Programme of the Workshop Delegates,
writtenbyastudygroupofthecouncilmovementsoonafterthefirstcouncilshadbeenformed.
Thegroupcomprisedmainlyworkers,butitincludedAntonioGramscianditsdocumentclearly
bore the influence of Gramscis thinking. According to this program, memberdelegates of the
factorycouncilswereappointedonafactoryworkshopbasis.Theyrepresentedallworkersina
given workshop, and held both trade union and council responsibilities at the same time. The
factory council, consisting of all workshop delegates, was in principle convened once every
week. In between, factory level responsibilities were carried out by the councils executive
commissariat which consisted of workers excused from work for their term of duty. This
committeemeteveryeveningtoassesstheworkofthedelegates,anditwasalsoentrustedwith
bringing out a fortnightly factory bulletin. The powers and duties of the delegates, the councils
andtheexecutivecommissariat,allwerespelledoutclearlyintheabovementionedProgramme
(9).
With regard to the functioning of the council system the most important point to be noted I
believeisthatthedelegatesneededtoenjoyfullconfidenceoftheirelectorate.Theyweresubject
toinstantrecall!ThisprovisionechoestheexperienceoftheParisCommuneof1870,thefirst
and shortlived West European experiment in the building of a workers state. Both Marx and
Engels had praised the tremendous courage of the Paris workers in staging an insurrection
against heavy odds. They had also stressed the uniqueness of the rules the Communards had
devisedforthefunctioningoftheirmunicipalgovernmentelectedafterthetakeoverofpowerin
the city. Thus, in his befamed writing The Civil War in France, Marx argued that universal
suffrage under the Commune system served the people: The Commune was formed of the
municipalcouncillors,chosenbyuniversalsuffrageinthevariouswardsofthetown,responsible
and revocable at short term. In this latter respect, as well as with respect to payment (bare
workers wages for politicians!), the rules of the Commune were differentiated from the formal
democracyofthebourgeoisparliamentarysystem(10).
UndertheItalianfactorycouncilsystemthatemergedinTurnsubsequenttoWorldWarOne,
theworkshopdelegateselectedasmembersofthecouncilstooweresubjecttoinstantrecall.If
any were repudiated by a half plus one of his electorate, or by the majority of the factory
assembly, the delegate was obliged to seek renewal of his mandate (11). As to voting, the
Programme stated it would take place by secret ballot. Further, it is important to stress that no
limitswereplacedontherightofordinaryworkerstoparticipateinelectionstofactorycouncils.
Whether any person were organized in a trade union did not matter it did not impact on his
votingright.Candidateswhostoodfortheelectionsofworkshopdelegateshadtobetradeunion
members here there was a sensible restriction indeed. But this restriction did not exist with
regardtovotingrights.Giventhiselectoralsystem,itisclearthatthefactorycouncilsrepresented
the entire proletariat in factories where they functioned. The councils became the expression of
the unity of the working class at the level of production. They not only represented all manual
workers, i.e. workers physically engaged in production, but other categories of waged
employees,suchasengineers,technicalsupervisorsandclericalstaffaswell(12).
A brief comment is in place regarding the relations between factory councils and the trade
unions. Gramsci, in writings for lOrdine Nuovo, insisted that the factory councils were a
historically new phenomenon, and that they should be differentiated conceptually from trade
unions(13).Thelatter,heargued,wereinstitutionsformedwithintheframeworkofcapitalism.
Unionsservedtorepresenttheworkersaswagedslavesinnegotiationswiththerepresentatives
of the employers class. Their historical mission was to strive for improvements in wages and
other working conditions under the rule of capital. Factory councils instead were defined by
Gramsciasembodimentoftheworkingclassasproducers.Theirhistoricalmissionwastogive
guidance to production itself, and to function as the antithesis of the employers authority.
Ultimately their aim was to conquer public power and eliminate private property. Nevertheless,
the above mentioned programmatic regulations drafted by the council study group, were not
concerned with production control alone, but also with trade unionwork at factory level. The
Programme warned against any repetition of the fatal error of conflict which had tragically
shapedrelationsbetweenunionsandcouncilsinHungary(14).Infact,factorydelegatesinTurin
wereentrustedwithdoublefunctions,includingtherepresentationoftradeunionmembers.The
modalities for discussions on negotiations towards agreements between unions and employer
organisationstoowereelaboratedinthecouncilregulationsreferredto!(15).
BeforeconcludingthisbriefsummaryonGramcisviewsregardingtheItalianfactorycouncils,
let me refer to what appears to have been their principal limitation in practice. The council
movement in 1919 and 1920 helped the industrial working class in the North of Italy develop
enormous power. Yet contrary to the proletarian movements built in Russia and Hungary, the
Italian movement on the whole did not result in the formation of soviets, of territorial bodies
representingworkerspower,atleastnotthroughoutItaly.InTurinassembliesbringingtogether
factorydelegateswereheld,butthegeographicparameterofworkerspowerwascircumscribed.
Moreover,thoughthefactorycouncilsinthecityanditssurroundingsstrovetotakeoverpower
fromcapitalistowners,inrealityfullconsolidationofworkerspoweroverfactoryproduction
didnottakeplace,andthepoweroftheindustrialistsoverproductionwasreestablishedaftera
temporary occupation of Turin factories in 1920. Nevertheless, the experience of the Italian
workers councils, and of Gramscis weekly lOrdine Nuovo, is of extraordinary importance
today. For in course of this movement, workers democracy took a very concrete shape.
Moreover, the structure of workers democracy was embodied in very precise regulations,
regulationswhichcontinuetoserveasanaptreferencepointfordebatesonworkersdemocracy
today!
3.CivilRightsunderSocialism
Iwillnowproceedtodiscussthequestionofpeoplescivilrightsundersocialism.Allopponents
of the bourgeois form of democracy participating in the debates of the international workers
movement in the beginning of the 20th century, including Lenin, Gramsci and Luxemburg,
arguedtheworldproletarianrevolutiontheydreamtofwouldbringahigherformofdemocracy.
There was agreement, following Marx, that the new state would be a class state, just like the
bourgeois states to be replaced by the workers republics. Like the bourgeoisie which used
dictatorial methods whenever its class interests were threatened, the working class too would
have to defend its class rule and suppress counterrevolutionary groups and sections of the
population. Nevertheless, the new socialist republic representing the interests of the oppressed
would be more democratic in content than any of the bourgeois republics to be replaced. The
commonpositionofMarxisttheoreticianswas:socialismwouldmeannotthatdemocraticrights
would be restricted but that in fact these would be extended far beyond the rights bourgeois
stateshadgrantedtheircitizens.
QuitesoonaftertheBolsheviksstagedtheirrevolutioninRussia(1917)however,acontroversy
aroseoversomeofthemeasurestakenbyLeninsnewgovernmenttoconsolidateitsstaterule.
Surely, the Bolshevik revolution was hailed as the very most radical rupture with capitalist
exploitation ever attempted. Surely, and for this reason, there were sustained attempts by
imperialistpowerstosubvertthenewrevolutionarygovernment.Surely,inordertoconsolidate
revolutionary rule, some measures of repression, such as against members of the former
autocratic(tsarist)governmentwereinevitable.Nevertheless,doubtsdidariserathersoonover
measurestakenagainstarangeofpoliticalforces,includingagainstLeftSocialistandanarchist
forces, that held programmatic differences with Lenins Party but were Leftleaning. These
measuresofsuppressionamongstothersincluded:*thedismantlingoftheConstituentAssembly
where the Bolsheviks were in a minority and were up against the party of Socialist
Revolutionaries and * stern measures restraining others civil rights, such as the banning of
publicationsofrivalpoliticalorganisations,andultimatelyprohibitionoftheseorganisations.
An articulate critic of Bolshevik measures was the Marxist thinker Rosa Luxemburg whose
positionsonmanytheoreticalquestionswereratherclosetothoseofLenin.Tobeclearfromthe
start: like Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, when participating in the debates of the German Social
DemocraticParty,hadoutspokenlyopposedthetendencyofRightwingleaderstoneglectextra
parliamentary mass actions, i.e. the tendency to overwhelmingly rely on participation in
Parliament(16).Inherwritingsonbourgeoisparliaments,Luxemburgadmittedthatthesecan
be an arena of class struggles that at crucial moments the mood of the masses penetrates the
bourgeoisparliamentandthattheextensionofvotingrightstowardsallsectionsoftheworking
class was a historical achievement that should be valued by Marxists without hesitance.
Nevertheless,Luxemburgwasawareofthefactthatparliamentarydemocracyisformalinkind,
and that through revolutionary struggle it needs to be replaced by a new, more comprehensive
typeofdemocracy(17).
YetLuxemburgearlyraisedpointedquestionsabouttheorganisationalmethodsusedbyLenins
Bolsheviks. Thus, in a text published as early as in 1904, she critically commented on Lenins
bookOneStepForward,TwoStepsBack.Heresheargued,thatLeninspropositionsonparty
structureamountedtoultracentralism.ShespecificallytookissuewithLeninspropositionthat
thepartyscentralcommitteewouldhaveadeterminingpowertointerveneinallactivitiesofthe
localchaptersoftheparty.Thusshequestionedtheomnipotentcentralpowerwithitsunlimited
rightofinterventionandcontrol(!).WhereassheagreedwithLeninsprincipleofcentralisation,
she argued that centralisation should be of a coordinating, synthetic character, and not a
regulative and exclusive one. Whereas she understood that Lenins policies were aimed at
countering opportunism within the Russian labour movement, Luxemburg was afraid his
organisationalapproachwouldtendtoweakenthepartyscapacitytorelyonthespontaneityof
themasses.Itwouldweakenthepartyscapacitytodrawsyntheticlessonsfromtheexperience
oftheRussianworkingclassgatheredinthecourseofthelabourersownindependentcombats
(18).
InthecontextofthisbriefessaythereisnoscopetoreflectindetailonLuxemburgscritiqueof
Leninspartyprinciples,andonthedifferentialexperienceofChinaunderMaoZeDung.What
is important to note though, is that her doubts concerning Bolshevik Party policies were not
restrictedtoorganisationalprinciplesalone.AftertheBolshevikrevolutiontookplace,theywere
broadened and came to comprise a whole series of issues relating to civil rights and political
democracy. While imprisoned in Germany because of her opposition against militarism and
World War One, she wrote a long pamphlet, entitled The Russian Revolution (September,
1918).Thepamphletwaspublishedposthumouslyin1922,i.e.aftershehadbeenbrutallykilled
by the German police (19). In this pamphlet she praised the Bolsheviks for their extraordinary
courage expressed understanding for the complications they faced in the immediate post
revolutionary period. Still, Luxemburg stated strong reservations with regard to Bolshevik
policies.BelowIwillskiphercritiqueofthedissolutionoftheConstituentAssembly(inviewof
an apparent contradiction in her own stance (20)), but will highlight two issues relating to
peoplescivilrights.
Thefirstoneisthatofvotingrights.Luxemburgnotedthattherightofsuffrageelaboratedbythe
new Soviet government was very restricted, too restricted in her view. According to Lenins
andTrotskysinterpretationofproletariandictatorship,Luxemburgstated,therighttovotewould
be granted only to those who live by their own labour and is denied to everybody else. She
notedthatunderRussiasrevolutionaryconditionsthelivesofmanypeoplehadbeendisrupted,
derailed without any objective possibility of finding any employment. This was true not only
formembersoftheelite,thecapitalistandlandowningclass,butalsoformembersofthemiddle
classes,andevenformembersoftheworkingclass!Underthesecircumstances,apoliticalright
ofsuffrageonthebasisofageneralobligationtolabour,shestated,isquiteanincomprehensible
measure. Luxemburg thus pleaded in favour of respecting the principle of universal suffrage.
This after all had historically been granted to members of the working class not by way of
bourgeois charity, but in consequence of the working class own determined struggles. She
warnedagainstageneraldisenfranchisementofbroadsectionsofsociety,somethingshewould
completelydisagreewith(21).
The second point is that regarding freedom of expression and freedom of association. Shortly
after the conquest of power, the new Soviet government instituted measures banning the
publicationsofawholeseriesofrivalpoliticalorganisations.Thelistofprohibitionswasindeed
strikingly large. It included even the paper brought out previously by the highly respected
socialist writer Maxim Gorky! Moreover, they were followed later by prohibitions on rival
political organisations. In her pamphlet Luxemburg expressed firm disagreement with these
measures:Itisawellknownandanindisputablefactthatwithoutafreeanduntrammelledpress,
without the unlimited right of association and assemblage, the rule of the broad masses of the
people is entirely unthinkable. Luxemburg warned that the tendency of the Bolshevik Party to
relyonextensiveterrorandonothermeasuresofrepressionforconsolidationoftheirrule,would
ultimatelythreatentherevolutionitself.Fortherevolutionssuccessdependedonthestrengthof
political life, it depended on the participation of the broad masses of the people. With the
repressionofpoliticallifeinthelandasawhole,lifeinthesovietsmustalsobecomemoreand
morecrippled.(22)
Lastly,IwishtoquotethewayLuxemburgdefineddemocracyinherpamphlet.Thoughsomeof
thestatementssemadeontheRussianrevolutionin1918arelargelyofhistoricalinterest,apart
ofherviewsremainofgreatactualvaluetoday.Thiscountsinparticularforthemannerinwhich
she defined democracy. Whoever has been dubbed a heretic like the undersigned, or has been
denouncedforholdingdivergingordissentingviews,isboundtofeelcomforted.Forinatruly
propheticpassage,sheargued:Freedomonlyforthesupportersofthegovernment,onlyforthe
members of one party however numerous they may be is no freedom at all. Freedom is
alwaysandexclusivelyfreedomfortheonewhothinksdifferently.Notbecauseofanyfanatical
concept of justice, but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political
freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when freedom
becomesaspecialprivilege(23).Nowthatthehistoricalerawhensocialismwasdefinedasone
partyrule has passed for ever, there is much reason to reflect on the way Rosa Luxemburg
definedsocialistdemocracy,andtorereflectonherdefenceofpeoplescivilandpoliticalrights
undersocialismformulatedattheverystartofLeninsBolshevikPartyrule.
4.Conclusion
By way of conclusion of this summary on Marxism and socialist democracy, I wish to restate
theneedtobreakwithallexclusivisttraditions.Thisbreakisanimportantprecondition,Ibelieve,
for the revival and blossoming of Marxist thinking in the era of globalised resistance. After the
success of the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, and given Lenins extraordinary success in
capturing state power for the Russian working class, it was only natural for socialist activists
worldwidetoupholdtheBolshevikexperiment,andglossoveritslimitationsintermsofsocialist
democracy.Lenincouldmusterhisuniquesuccessbecausehehailedtheworkerscouncilsthat
mushroomed in the course of the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917. His moral stance
seemed to invalidate all criticisms. Further, since imperialist countries made strenuous efforts to
subvert the Russian revolution through multiple military interventions, it was only natural for
socialists to rally to Lenins cause. Even Rosa Luxemburg in her critical essay on the Russian
revolutionreferredtotheabsoluteneedtostandbytheBolshevikParty.ThevictoryofLeninism
withintheinternationalworkersmovementissimilarlyexplainable.Itwaspredicatedonthefact
that the Russian revolution triumphed in a period when all other attempts to establish workers
ruleincountriesofEuropetragicallyfailed.
Today, in the era of globalisation, when the undemocratic practices in formerly socialist states
haveresultedinaworldwidesetbackforalmostallemancipatorycurrents,thereislittlereason
tocontinueglossingoverthelimitationsoftheBolshevikexperiment.Leninscontributiontothe
historyofMarxism,suchashispopularformulationofthetheoryofimperialismhisideasonthe
unity of workers and peasants in the democratic revolution and his enthusiastic and principled
supportforanticolonialstrugglesincountriesoftheSouthalltheseareappreciated.However,
itiscrucialforMarxiststodaytorecognizethatvaluablecurrentshavebeensidelinedhistorically,
that currents such as those represented by Antonio Gramsci and Rosa Luxemburg have
contributed their own, differential ideas to the tradition of Marxist thought. There is an urgent
need to democratise our thinking as Marxist activists. For too long dissidents and minorities
withintheMarxisttraditionhavebeenignored,orevencondemnedinthenameofanunfailing
Leninism. In the era of globalisation Marxism can still regain its status as a scientific or proto
scientificcritiqueofcapitalistrule.However,itcanonlydoso,ifwearereadytoreflectonthe
contributions a variety of currents have historically made to human emancipation, including
most adamantly the feminists and the anarchists. An open reappraisal of the international
workers movement in its flourishing period after World War One will, I believe, be helpful. It
willbehelpfultowardsdevelopinganuptodateperspectiveonsocialistdemocracy.
Dr.PeterCustersLeiden,theNetherlands,December1,2011www.petercusters.nl
References:
(1) on Gramscis life, see for instance: John M.Cammett, Antonio Gramsci and the Origins of
ItalianCommunism(StanfordUniversityPress,California,USA,1967)andAlistairDavidson,
Antonio Gramsci. Towards an Intellectual Biography (Merlin Press, London, 1987) also
NarahariKabiraj,Gramsci.JibanOChinta(RadicalBookClub,Kolkota,1996)
(2) see Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital (Monthly Review Press, New York,
1964)forexcerptsseePeterHudisandKevinB.Anderson(ed.),TheRosaLuxemburgReader
(Monthly Review Press, New York, 2004), Part One, Chapter 1, p.32 (The Historical
ConditionsofAccumulation)
(3) on Luxemburgs life, see for instance: Peter Nettle, Rosa Luxemburg (Oxford University
Press,1969)andElzbietaEttinger,RosaLuxemburg.ALife(BeaconPress,Boston,1986)
(4)forabibliographyonthehistoryofworkerscouncils,seee.g.AntonPannekoek,Workers
Councils (Introduction by Noam Chomsky AK Press, Oakland/Edinburg, 2003, p.209) for
experiencesintheGlobalSouth,seee.g.AssefBayat,WorkersandRevolutioninIran:AThird
World Experience of Workers Control (Zed Press, London, 1987) and Ian Clegg, Workers
SelfManagementinAlgeria(MonthlyReviewPress,NewYork,1971)
(5) see The Turin Factory Councils Movement (Report dispatched in July 1920 to the
Executive Committee of the Communist International see Antonio Gramsci, Selections from
PoliticalWritings.19101920(Lawrence&Wishart,London,1977,p.310)
(6)ibid,p.314
(7)ibidseefurtherPauloSpriano,TheOccupationoftheFactories(PlutoPress,London,1975)
(8)AntonioGramsci(1977),op.cit.,p.311/312
(9)ibid,p.114forananarchistaccountoftheItalianworkerscouncils,seee.g.DanielGuerin,
Anarchism from Theory to Practice (Introduction by Chomsky Monthly Review Press, New
York,1970),p.109
(10) see Karl Marx, The Civil War in France. Address of the General Council of the
InternationalWorkingMensAssociation(inKarlMarxandFrederickEngels,SelectedWorks.
VolumeTwo(ProgressPublishers,Moscow,USSR,1973),p.202
(11)AntonioGramsci(1977),op.cit.,p.119
(12)ibid
(13) see eg. Antonio Gramsci, Unions and Councils (from lOrdine Nuovo, 12 June 1920
AntonioGramsci(1977),op.cit.,p.265)
(14)AntonioGramsci(1977),op.cit.,p.115
(15)ibid,p.119/120
(16)seee.g.RosaLuxemburg,SocialReformorRevolution(1899)andTheMassStrike,the
Political Party and the Trade Unions(1905) in Peter Hudis & Kevin B. Anderson (2004) ,
op.cit.,p.128and168
(17) for Luxemburgs position on the formation of workers and soldiers councils, see the
programmaticdocumentWhatDoestheSpartacusLeagueWant?(inPeterHudisandKevinB.
Anderson(2004),op.cit.),p.354
(18)forLuxemburgscritiqueofLeninsorganisationalmethodsandhisinnerpartycentralism,
see the following two documents: Organisational Questions of Russian Social Democracy
(NeueZeit,1904)andCredo:OntheStateofRussianSocialDemocracy(September/October,
1911) (texts published in Peter Hudis and Kevin B. Anderson (2004), op.cit., p.248 and p.266
respectively
(19)republishedinPeterHudisandKevinB.Anderson(2004),op.cit.,p.281
(20)forthisquestion,seeeg.PeterNettle(1969),op.cit.,p.452andPeterBierl,AlleMachtden
Raeten. Rosa Luxemburg: Raete Demokratie und Sozialismus (ISP Verlag, GmbH, Koeln,
Germany,1993),p.9
(21)seePeterHudisandKevinB.Anderson(2004),op.cit.,p.302304
(22)ibid,p.304307
(23)ibid,p.305.

Share 3
Commentsarenotmoderated.Pleaseberesponsibleandcivilinyourpostingsandstaywithin
thetopicdiscussedinthearticletoo.Ifyoufindinappropriatecomments,justFlag(Report)
themandtheywillmoveintomoderationque.