What do you think?
Rate this book
Pannekoek and Gorter's Marxism
- GenresPolitics
176 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 1978
2 people are currently reading
59 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 13, 2020
This is a book which I am glad to have read, however I can't say I would recommend it to someone looking for an introduction to the politics of the Dutch-German Communist Left, and two of its key thinkers, Pannekoek and Gorter.
The choice of works in this collection is odd. Pannekoek's "World Revolution and Communist Tactics" is perhaps the best piece, but the others feel extremely dated, even for when this book was published (1978). Whilst Karl Kautsky certainly is a figure of importance in the history of communism, he is not someone who has had any lasting impact upon the world wide communist movement, thus I do not see the need to include a lengthy piece on the disagreements between Kautsky and Pannekoek. Pannekoek's thought on the role of the masses could surely have been explained more succinctly and in a clearer way which avoided the reader requiring a certain level of familiarity with the finer points of history of Marxism.
Stylistically Pannekoek and Gorter are a funny pairing; Gorter writes in flowing prose bursting with emotion and zeal, whereas the physicist Pannekoek writes in a very considered, cautious and perhaps scientific style. I don't agree with those who say that Gorter's writing is "flowery" and lacking in rigour, but he certainly does not approach the construction of his arguments in the same way as other Marxists of the period do.
I am surprised at the lack of any passages from Lenin as Philosopher or Workers' Councils, which contain more of Pannekoek's insights and own theories regarding the revolution. Nevertheless a reader would be able to divine some of the core ideas shared by the two revolutionaries, and what the book does well is chronicle and show the extent to which communists throughout Europe (including senior Bolsheviks such as Lenin) were interacting and communicating with each other before and most importantly during the Russian Revolution. Sadly though one can also see how quickly the great dream of October 1917 turned to nought but dust.
The choice of works in this collection is odd. Pannekoek's "World Revolution and Communist Tactics" is perhaps the best piece, but the others feel extremely dated, even for when this book was published (1978). Whilst Karl Kautsky certainly is a figure of importance in the history of communism, he is not someone who has had any lasting impact upon the world wide communist movement, thus I do not see the need to include a lengthy piece on the disagreements between Kautsky and Pannekoek. Pannekoek's thought on the role of the masses could surely have been explained more succinctly and in a clearer way which avoided the reader requiring a certain level of familiarity with the finer points of history of Marxism.
Stylistically Pannekoek and Gorter are a funny pairing; Gorter writes in flowing prose bursting with emotion and zeal, whereas the physicist Pannekoek writes in a very considered, cautious and perhaps scientific style. I don't agree with those who say that Gorter's writing is "flowery" and lacking in rigour, but he certainly does not approach the construction of his arguments in the same way as other Marxists of the period do.
I am surprised at the lack of any passages from Lenin as Philosopher or Workers' Councils, which contain more of Pannekoek's insights and own theories regarding the revolution. Nevertheless a reader would be able to divine some of the core ideas shared by the two revolutionaries, and what the book does well is chronicle and show the extent to which communists throughout Europe (including senior Bolsheviks such as Lenin) were interacting and communicating with each other before and most importantly during the Russian Revolution. Sadly though one can also see how quickly the great dream of October 1917 turned to nought but dust.
September 1, 2020
As the third international pushed Soviet Russia’s defensive tactics on the global movement, council communists like Pannekoek and Gorter railed against the parliamentary opportunism, party dictatorship, and trade unionism that would result in historic defeats for the communist movement. Positioning themselves as the torch bearers of historical materialism, they called for tactics based on conditions in the developed capitalist countries, rather than a fixation on the inapplicable Russian model. Their argument was, in short, that the working class, developing unity in the factory councils and guided by the communist party, must take power as a class, fighting alone against all the power of global capital. It seems quaint and simplistic today, but perhaps this was the perfect conception of revolution for its time. Or perhaps I am throwing out grandiose statements to heighten the impact of this review. The answer can be...both.
April 10, 2014
I've been meaning to engage with some of the Council Communists for a while, so glad I finally got round to reading this. I have to be honest, and say I was a bit disappointed. The introduction to this selected works of Anton Pannekoek and Hermann Gorter wasn't impressive, and not only had a bunch of factual inconsistencies, but was also insanely harsh on Luxemburg, which I never like. Nevertheless, the articles within the collection were Gorter's piece on Nationalism and WW1 (1915), as well as his programmatic piece on organization and tasks for the KAPD (1921). Pannekoek's stuff was a series of polemics, the first a reply to Kautsky on imperialism, revolutionary organization, party & class, and the like (1912). The second and third, were replies to a Radek Comintern congress speech, and to Lenin's 'Left-Wing Communism' (LWC) (1920).
Gorter's piece on nationalism focuses on how it inflicts the working-class, and is a very good analysis that discusses the relationship between class anger, frustration, but yet passivity, combined with an ideological offensive by the ruling class and the dormancy of the social-democratic movement. A very good piece all round. His second piece pretty much follows on from Pannekoek's debates with Lenin and Radek. Pannekoek's polemic with Kautsky is excellent and in terms of dead Germans thrashing it out, it goes up there with 'Revolution or Reform', 'the Mass Strike' or 'Our Path: Against Putschism'. It systematically pulverizes economic determinism, the rising bureaucracy within the SPD, the nonsensical, top-down belief in a mass political strike to stop war and bring down capital and more. It was very good indeed. All in all, anything before the German revolution, Pannekoek and Gorter are on top form and are probably some of the most consistent left radicals in the Western European social-democratic movement. Their post-1918 stuff I was very disappointed by, however. I've read LWC a number of times, and radically re-thought it in the last year, and whilst i think it is an incredibly important and useful text, my experience does push me to find some common ground with Alfred Rosmer's warnings about its misuse. Nevertheless, the main thing that annoyed me, was that I thought the quality of the arguments put forward around the March action, not taking part in elections and TUs, were very weak and didn't really grapple with the serious questions Lenin poses in LWC.
In saying all this, I do think it crucial that when discussing people like Pannekoek and Gorter (and Ruhle), we should try to distinguish them from people like Bela Kun and Ruth Fischer. Not on the basis of their tactical and strategic choices, but on the basis that the council communists represented a revulsion towards an increasingly bureaucratized international and Soviet state, as well as the opportunism of the Second International whereas people like Bela Kun and Ruth Fischer, were emblematic of it. I also think, they got spurred on a bit by Paul Levi's terrible political approach to ultra-leftism. So, pre-1918, they're great, post-1918, I'm not too impressed. Before I make a final judgement, I need to read some Ruhle, and Pannekoek's pieces on 'Workers' Councils' and 'Lenin as Philosopher'. I do encourage more people to engage with this stuff nevertheless, even if they disagree.
Gorter's piece on nationalism focuses on how it inflicts the working-class, and is a very good analysis that discusses the relationship between class anger, frustration, but yet passivity, combined with an ideological offensive by the ruling class and the dormancy of the social-democratic movement. A very good piece all round. His second piece pretty much follows on from Pannekoek's debates with Lenin and Radek. Pannekoek's polemic with Kautsky is excellent and in terms of dead Germans thrashing it out, it goes up there with 'Revolution or Reform', 'the Mass Strike' or 'Our Path: Against Putschism'. It systematically pulverizes economic determinism, the rising bureaucracy within the SPD, the nonsensical, top-down belief in a mass political strike to stop war and bring down capital and more. It was very good indeed. All in all, anything before the German revolution, Pannekoek and Gorter are on top form and are probably some of the most consistent left radicals in the Western European social-democratic movement. Their post-1918 stuff I was very disappointed by, however. I've read LWC a number of times, and radically re-thought it in the last year, and whilst i think it is an incredibly important and useful text, my experience does push me to find some common ground with Alfred Rosmer's warnings about its misuse. Nevertheless, the main thing that annoyed me, was that I thought the quality of the arguments put forward around the March action, not taking part in elections and TUs, were very weak and didn't really grapple with the serious questions Lenin poses in LWC.
In saying all this, I do think it crucial that when discussing people like Pannekoek and Gorter (and Ruhle), we should try to distinguish them from people like Bela Kun and Ruth Fischer. Not on the basis of their tactical and strategic choices, but on the basis that the council communists represented a revulsion towards an increasingly bureaucratized international and Soviet state, as well as the opportunism of the Second International whereas people like Bela Kun and Ruth Fischer, were emblematic of it. I also think, they got spurred on a bit by Paul Levi's terrible political approach to ultra-leftism. So, pre-1918, they're great, post-1918, I'm not too impressed. Before I make a final judgement, I need to read some Ruhle, and Pannekoek's pieces on 'Workers' Councils' and 'Lenin as Philosopher'. I do encourage more people to engage with this stuff nevertheless, even if they disagree.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews