What do you think?
Rate this book
Workers' Councils
Contemporaries across the spectrum of Left thought, from Antonio Negri to Noam Chomsky, are falling over each other to claim the mantle of Left Communism. Left Communism is the theory and practice of worker control and self-organization whose adherents provided the main opposition to the Bolsheviks. Rarely printed, often cited, Pannekoek’s Workers’ Councils is the Das Kapital of Left Communism. This updated edition includes a substantial introduction from Noam Chomsky, illuminating the continuing relevance of this classic text. "An urgent message to the future— are we listening?—from the most brilliant theoretician of libertarian com-munism."—Mike Davis, author of City of Quartz Anton Pannekoek was a Dutch worker, Socialist, and astronomer. He wrote Workers’ Councils amidst Nazi occupation of Holland.
112 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1936
31 people are currently reading
1549 people want to read
About the author
Anton Pannekoek
88 books56 followersDutch astronomer and marxist theorist.
He was one of the main theorists of council communism. As a recognized Marxist theorist, Pannekoek was one of the founders of the council communist tendency and a main figure in the radical left in the Netherlands and Germany.
In his scientific work, Pannekoek started studying the distribution of stars through the Milky Way, as well as the structure of our galaxy. Later he became interested in the nature and evolution of stars. Because of these studies, he is considered to be the founder of astrophysics as a separate discipline in the Netherlands.
The Astronomical Institute Anton Pannekoek at the University of Amsterdam, of which he had been a director, still carries his name.
He was one of the main theorists of council communism. As a recognized Marxist theorist, Pannekoek was one of the founders of the council communist tendency and a main figure in the radical left in the Netherlands and Germany.
In his scientific work, Pannekoek started studying the distribution of stars through the Milky Way, as well as the structure of our galaxy. Later he became interested in the nature and evolution of stars. Because of these studies, he is considered to be the founder of astrophysics as a separate discipline in the Netherlands.
The Astronomical Institute Anton Pannekoek at the University of Amsterdam, of which he had been a director, still carries his name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
December 22, 2007
An amazingly uplifting and intensive look at workers' control of the means of production from a left-socialist/anarcho-syndicalist perspective. (ie. no bosses, no masters; worker control, direct democracy, consensus.) I highly recommend this book if you hate your job and/or are wondering why you labor, for whom, and for what.
July 27, 2014
Is Workers' Councils the book anarchists find most vexing? Because the ideas in here certainly sound anarchist, and Workers' Councils deals mostly with ideas on how to approach syndicalism (worker-run factories). But, at the same time there is an obvious Marxist bias in Anton Pannekoek's writing. Maybe it's the sarcasm in Pannekoek that's hard to notice. Whatever the case may be, it's evident in reading this book that, as Noam Chomsky says in the introduction, this is good working class literature.
Workers' Councils is divided in five chapters detailing how a worker-run factory should be organized, which political ideologies workers have to choose from, what the nature is of capitalism in different countries, and their social organization (such as communists in Russia versus national socialists in Germany).
The most compelling part of the book is certainly the first two chapters which deal with the actual workers' councils. After giving a brief outline of the exploitation facing workers, such as unemployment being driven by the workers' lack of access to their factories (sounding very similar to what Marx wrote about in his Capital), Pannekoek then discusses in detail how the workers ought to go about organizing their factories. He stresses how the workers need to drive production and make all the decision in an organization containing the least amount of authority. Pannekoek admits that this will lead to fair amount of meeting and administrative work by the workers themselves, which would be a necessary evil if the workers are to maintain control of the means of production. He especially focuses on bookkeeping and how thorough (and public) it must be in order for workers to be able to make decisions based on real facts facing their production.
Underlying this book is Pannekoek warning against all forms of authority that might hinder worker control of factories (including socialism which still just puts the means of production in the hands of another ruling class). In addition he insists that unions actually harm workers since they function in a system that keeps capitalism intact, and create an authority outside of the factory that the workers must obey. Very interesting.
However, as fresh and compelling as these aspects are, Workers' Councils is not without its faults. Since there are no references (Workers' Councils was written as a long pamphlet), we have to take Pannekoek at his word when he talk about history, which he does at length (nearly the entire second half of the book). This can get quite boring, since it adds little to what Pannekoek had been talking about for a hundred pages. And at times, it's hard to figure out from which perspective Pannekoek is writing. Is he being sincere or making fun of the authority controlling the masses? For example, when writing about the Russian revolution, he maintains that the chaos arising from a revolution will create a situation where consumption of the public will be coupled to their production. But who is to decide this? Wouldn't the freedom the workers have fought for be completely suppressed? In addition, Pannekoek writes that if the Russians put their fate in the communist party then they must follow their direction. This in itself is a very authoritative position to take and Pannekoek's entire argument (that organization should be in workers' hands) crumbles as it's an example of replacing one master for another (not to mention suppressing independent thought by the workers). So, he must be joking, right? It's never clear.
Perhaps it's the Marxist in Pannekoek that prevents him from writing a completely unbiased book (especially when it comes to the Bolsheviks), which is a bit frustrating when reading the second half of Worker's Councils. Or maybe Pannekoek is unable to tip his hat to the anarchists. And this is unfortunate, because it makes the golden argument Pannekoek makes seem more like it's gold plated.
Workers' Councils is divided in five chapters detailing how a worker-run factory should be organized, which political ideologies workers have to choose from, what the nature is of capitalism in different countries, and their social organization (such as communists in Russia versus national socialists in Germany).
The most compelling part of the book is certainly the first two chapters which deal with the actual workers' councils. After giving a brief outline of the exploitation facing workers, such as unemployment being driven by the workers' lack of access to their factories (sounding very similar to what Marx wrote about in his Capital), Pannekoek then discusses in detail how the workers ought to go about organizing their factories. He stresses how the workers need to drive production and make all the decision in an organization containing the least amount of authority. Pannekoek admits that this will lead to fair amount of meeting and administrative work by the workers themselves, which would be a necessary evil if the workers are to maintain control of the means of production. He especially focuses on bookkeeping and how thorough (and public) it must be in order for workers to be able to make decisions based on real facts facing their production.
Underlying this book is Pannekoek warning against all forms of authority that might hinder worker control of factories (including socialism which still just puts the means of production in the hands of another ruling class). In addition he insists that unions actually harm workers since they function in a system that keeps capitalism intact, and create an authority outside of the factory that the workers must obey. Very interesting.
However, as fresh and compelling as these aspects are, Workers' Councils is not without its faults. Since there are no references (Workers' Councils was written as a long pamphlet), we have to take Pannekoek at his word when he talk about history, which he does at length (nearly the entire second half of the book). This can get quite boring, since it adds little to what Pannekoek had been talking about for a hundred pages. And at times, it's hard to figure out from which perspective Pannekoek is writing. Is he being sincere or making fun of the authority controlling the masses? For example, when writing about the Russian revolution, he maintains that the chaos arising from a revolution will create a situation where consumption of the public will be coupled to their production. But who is to decide this? Wouldn't the freedom the workers have fought for be completely suppressed? In addition, Pannekoek writes that if the Russians put their fate in the communist party then they must follow their direction. This in itself is a very authoritative position to take and Pannekoek's entire argument (that organization should be in workers' hands) crumbles as it's an example of replacing one master for another (not to mention suppressing independent thought by the workers). So, he must be joking, right? It's never clear.
Perhaps it's the Marxist in Pannekoek that prevents him from writing a completely unbiased book (especially when it comes to the Bolsheviks), which is a bit frustrating when reading the second half of Worker's Councils. Or maybe Pannekoek is unable to tip his hat to the anarchists. And this is unfortunate, because it makes the golden argument Pannekoek makes seem more like it's gold plated.
Read
April 15, 2015This makes sense.
Pannekoek's proposed model of libertarian communism rejects both state-run communism and trade unions. State socialism might appear to be more appealing than capitalism because it is supposed to be "a ruling class of humane reformers instead of profit-hungry capitalists" (32). Workers are no more in charge of production than they were under capitalism; they have simply changed masters. We can see in the historic example of Russia that even after the Communist Revolution, the workers in Russia remained "a subject and exploited class, living mostly in miserable working conditions, under a strong and oppressive dictatorial rule, without freedom of speech, of press, of association, more strongly enslaved than their brethren under Western Capitalism" (81-82).
"By the power of the unions capitalism is normalized" (59). Each trade union controls the excesses of one particular capitalist which is in the interest of other capitalists since he will no longer have an unfair advantage. However, disagreement inevitably rises from trade union officials and those they are supposed to represent because officials want to stick to their hard-earned negotiations and members want even better conditions. the power of the capitalists continues to outweigh that of the unionist.
What then, is the alternative Pannekoek is proposing? Not the workers forming organizations to negotiate with capitalists nor handing over control to another ruling class, different only in name, but the workers themselves managing production. "Everybody who takes part in the work takes part in the regulation of the common work" (20). They will concern themselves with daily proceeding, mutual relations and regulation of work.
Pannekoek's proposed model of libertarian communism rejects both state-run communism and trade unions. State socialism might appear to be more appealing than capitalism because it is supposed to be "a ruling class of humane reformers instead of profit-hungry capitalists" (32). Workers are no more in charge of production than they were under capitalism; they have simply changed masters. We can see in the historic example of Russia that even after the Communist Revolution, the workers in Russia remained "a subject and exploited class, living mostly in miserable working conditions, under a strong and oppressive dictatorial rule, without freedom of speech, of press, of association, more strongly enslaved than their brethren under Western Capitalism" (81-82).
"By the power of the unions capitalism is normalized" (59). Each trade union controls the excesses of one particular capitalist which is in the interest of other capitalists since he will no longer have an unfair advantage. However, disagreement inevitably rises from trade union officials and those they are supposed to represent because officials want to stick to their hard-earned negotiations and members want even better conditions. the power of the capitalists continues to outweigh that of the unionist.
What then, is the alternative Pannekoek is proposing? Not the workers forming organizations to negotiate with capitalists nor handing over control to another ruling class, different only in name, but the workers themselves managing production. "Everybody who takes part in the work takes part in the regulation of the common work" (20). They will concern themselves with daily proceeding, mutual relations and regulation of work.
November 23, 2025
Pannekoek tiene una grandísima facilidad para exponer la realidad del movimiento obrero, señalar la situación y rumbo del sistema capitalista, y a su vez, retratar el antagonismo entre la Dictadura de Partido de Lenin y la liberación de la clase obrera. Más allá de ser capaz de describir perfectamente el rumbo que va a tomar el sistema hacia la beligerancia y el colapso (varios de los escritos los publicó en plena Entreguerra, de modo que su análisis fue bastante acertado), creo que lo más destacable de toda su postura respecto a los consejos obreros es la contradicción entre estos y los partidos y sindicatos, demostrando que la vía para la liberación efectiva de la clase obrera es llevar a cabo la lucha de clases a través de consejos autogestionados, y no a través de grandes partidos compuestos y dirigidos por burócratas. Hay que resaltar también como cada parte de su postura está vigente y se reafirma hoy en día teniendo en cuenta incluso el propio desarrollo y complejización del sistema económico. Este tipo era un astrónomo, y aún así fue uno de los grandes intelectuales del movimiento obrero, así que tiene aún más mérito el ser un referente incluso fuera de su campo de especialización.
August 28, 2023
I found Worker’s Councils to be a truly fascinating collection of works. While the opening chapters are the meat of what I was looking for when it came to Pannekoek’s ideas on how a socialist economy should be structured, his analysis of the war, the future of capitalism, and his critiques of state socialism were quite enlightening.
July 11, 2018
As Noam Chomsky wrote in the introduction to Workers' Councils, this is truly ''good, working-class literature''. Pannekoek creates a foundational theoretical work for Left Communism and libertarian socialism, a strong argument for worker ownership and self-management and a severe critique of authority, Bolshevism and capitalism.
Using the platform of worker self-management and ownership of the means of production, Pannekoek furthers this past just economic production to social production. Workers councils are seen more than just an administrative part of production but constitute the essence of societal organization and interaction on bot a political and economic level. He rejects outright the vanguardism of the Bolsheviks and the beaurocracy of the trade unions both of which are heavily critiqued throughout the book. Instead, he argues for direct control, direct democracy on both the shop-floor and in political life and essentially outlines an anarchist form of organization of society, albeit details offered are scarce and Pannekoek never acknowledges or bridges the gap with Anarchist thought, which remains kind of perplexing considering the many similarities between it and his writing (Marxist bias?).
He also goes on to describe various forms of capitalist organization in various countries as well as offering a very on-point and prescient, as always for leftist theorists of his time, prediction and analysis of the morphing and adaptive nature of capital. Much of the book, half, is spent on this state by state look at the forms of capital and of various doctrines and their evolution such as fascism and liberalism. However, there is a lack of detail and depth sometimes when actually talking about forms of organization or how would the workers go about doing this or a more in depth look at previous cases of this such as Anarchist Catalonia. This leaves you with the sensation that there is much that is missing and although interesting, some parts of the book could have been included in separate writings or shortened to focus on the main topic.
Using the platform of worker self-management and ownership of the means of production, Pannekoek furthers this past just economic production to social production. Workers councils are seen more than just an administrative part of production but constitute the essence of societal organization and interaction on bot a political and economic level. He rejects outright the vanguardism of the Bolsheviks and the beaurocracy of the trade unions both of which are heavily critiqued throughout the book. Instead, he argues for direct control, direct democracy on both the shop-floor and in political life and essentially outlines an anarchist form of organization of society, albeit details offered are scarce and Pannekoek never acknowledges or bridges the gap with Anarchist thought, which remains kind of perplexing considering the many similarities between it and his writing (Marxist bias?).
He also goes on to describe various forms of capitalist organization in various countries as well as offering a very on-point and prescient, as always for leftist theorists of his time, prediction and analysis of the morphing and adaptive nature of capital. Much of the book, half, is spent on this state by state look at the forms of capital and of various doctrines and their evolution such as fascism and liberalism. However, there is a lack of detail and depth sometimes when actually talking about forms of organization or how would the workers go about doing this or a more in depth look at previous cases of this such as Anarchist Catalonia. This leaves you with the sensation that there is much that is missing and although interesting, some parts of the book could have been included in separate writings or shortened to focus on the main topic.
October 14, 2020
First things first: this book is about 100 pages longer than Goodreads would have you believe. As other reviewers have noted, Pannekoek's originality and valuable contributions are in his theorisation of the mechanics of workers' councils and the methods of achieving this aim. Situated somewhere between anarcho-syndicalism and Left Communism; the book complicates and fleshes out an understanding of the State and State power that is complementary to that of Lenin, which is worth a read.
I do feel that while the history on offer is interesting, it is more comprehensively covered elsewhere, and Pannekoek's style, while often brisk, is not engaging enough to justify reading unless you are doing a critical study of the whole text.
Overall, I recommend a read, but only as a complementary text to the reader's study of other theorists and historians, this isn't a masterwork of political theory.
I do feel that while the history on offer is interesting, it is more comprehensively covered elsewhere, and Pannekoek's style, while often brisk, is not engaging enough to justify reading unless you are doing a critical study of the whole text.
Overall, I recommend a read, but only as a complementary text to the reader's study of other theorists and historians, this isn't a masterwork of political theory.
December 29, 2024
Pannekoek offers a very thorough and comprehensive analysis of different developmental stages of capitalism and their history, an analysis of the different national bourgeoisies of the world and different lessons and points of clarity for the working class in the changing forms of class struggle.
The book uses very accessible language, in contrast to some of Pannekoek’s other more in-depth works (such as Lenin As Philosopher). While the conditions of world capitalism constantly assume new forms, very obviously since Pannekoek wrote this work, it is still a timely call to not be blinded and knocked down by faux and co-opted forms of struggle, but to remain committed to the building and organization of worker’s councils, the true form of worker’s control.
Highly recommend!
The book uses very accessible language, in contrast to some of Pannekoek’s other more in-depth works (such as Lenin As Philosopher). While the conditions of world capitalism constantly assume new forms, very obviously since Pannekoek wrote this work, it is still a timely call to not be blinded and knocked down by faux and co-opted forms of struggle, but to remain committed to the building and organization of worker’s councils, the true form of worker’s control.
Highly recommend!
January 1, 2022
The 'utopian' element of the book (describing how life is organised under the rule of workers' councils) requires something of a leap of faith because the author does not quite explain what in the reality of the 1940s would bring that about. But his analyses of what has brought the world into the abyss of World War II and its immediate aftermath are insightful, and the discussions of capitalist domination by means of ideology are reminiscent of Gramsci (whose "Prison Notebooks" were first published in 1947, i.e. after Pannekoek's book).
August 5, 2024
I actually didn’t finish this book. I would say the first few chapters about how we should go about setting up our societal structures and empowering people was great work and built on my worldview and how I plan to organize. I will say toward the middle it got a little boring. I’m sure at some point I’ll revisit to look at what I’ve missed. But for now I think it’s time to go on to the next book.
September 22, 2018
Amazing book! It gives historical, theoretical, and fictional insight.
As Howard Zinn puts it "it should be read by all people who want to think beyond capitalism, bureaucratic socialism, and opportunistic trade unionism, to the idea of direct democracy in the production and distribution of our societies enormous wealth".
As Howard Zinn puts it "it should be read by all people who want to think beyond capitalism, bureaucratic socialism, and opportunistic trade unionism, to the idea of direct democracy in the production and distribution of our societies enormous wealth".
June 1, 2021
A libertarian socialist masterpiece with brilliant ideas for how to organise the means of production.
July 14, 2024
Good and interesting book about a different current of socialism
January 9, 2025
Pannekoek mon amour
September 16, 2015
In the first chapter Panekoek presents a critique of capitalism and explains his proposed alternative: workers' self-management. Nothing new for us, but in 1946 this was an exciting new perspective on radical politics. The remaining of the book is pretty much useless. His reflections on WW2 and post-war politics are specially irrelevant today, well, except if you are an historian or something like that.
Want to read
July 9, 2012Finally picked up a copy of this while perusing Red Emma's.
November 15, 2022
Not much in terms of science. Wishfull thinking mostly. Some good criticism of the party and union.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews