Karel Appel & Jan Appel
Sep 25 2008 16:12
Simple question:
Was Karel Appel, of CoBrA (predecessors to the SI) fame, the son of Jan Appel, of KAPD/ICC fame? On wikipedia it says that Karel Appel's father was a Jan Appel, a barber in Amsterdam in 1921, which would seem to exclude the possibility of it being the same guy. But maybe wiki is wrong.
Sep 29 2008 09:43
#2
Dear Comrade
As far as I know Jan had no children and as Devrim says went to Holland in 1925. In 1921 I beleive that Jan was a KAPD delegate to the 2nd. Congress of the 3rd. International. There is an obitory in the ICC's press.
Melmoth
Sep 29 2008 09:55
#3
NB
In 1921 it was the 3rd. Congress of the Comintern.
Melmoth
Sep 29 2008 10:39
#4
Sep 29 2008 11:10
#5
Did Appel ever actually join the ICC?
Sep 29 2008 13:03
#6
No, but he actively supported its foundation and development while his health permitted
Sep 29 2008 21:50
#7
Thanks Alf
So we have the following facts:
1. The ICC claims that Jan Appel "supported its foundation and development while his health permitted".
2. Jan Appel was not part of the foundation of the ICC and was not afterwards a member of this organization either.
May be for historical interests you or others could tell us some more details about this suggested relation ?
Best regards
j.
www.kurasje.org
Sep 30 2008 05:38
#8
kurasje wrote:
2. Jan Appel was not part of the foundation of the ICC and was not afterwards a member of this organization either.
The ICC's obituary states otherwise:
ICC wrote:
After 1948, however, Appel remained in contact with his old comrades, both in Holland and elsewhere, among others with Internationalisme, predecessor of the ICC, at the end of the forties and during the fifties. That’s why Jan Appel was once again present at the end of the sixties at the founding of Revolution Internationale, the future section in France of the ICC, and a product of the massive struggles of the proletariat in 1968. Since then with numerous visits from comrades and sympathisers of the ICC, Jan Appel contributed to the formation of a new generation of revolutionaries, participating at the formal constitution of the ICC in 1976, one last time, thereby passing on the torch and the lessons of one generation of revolutionaries to another.
Devrim
Sep 30 2008 09:38
#9
I can personally vouch for the fact Appel was also present at the 1974 meeting in Paris attended by RI, WR, Revolutionary Perspectives, Workers Voice and others. This meeting also marked a significant step in the proces that led to the foundation of the ICC.
With regard to Appel's relationship with the ICC after 1976, I need to do some research but I will try to get back to Kurasje on this.
Sep 30 2008 10:07
#10
I remember Jan Appel form the meeting in 1974 that Alf refers to. I remember a massive bloke, obviously had been 'built like a brick shithouse' all his life. At the conference where I was translating as best I could for the rest of the WV group, the man was wheeled in and out quite quickly. He didn't speak French and I had no chance to try out what little German I knew with him. He just jabbed a huge finger at us from Birkenhead and said one word - 'proletarier' - which all of us recognised, then with a huge grin on his face, he left.
Now at that meeting I do not recall any mention of a body called the ICC and certainly no claim was made that Appel was involved in it since of course we did not know of this body's existence. If now it is claimed this body was in existence, then it simply confirms our long held view that the WV group were lured to Paris under false pretences.
Sep 30 2008 10:40
#11
hello, dav....long time no see. I didn't say that the ICC existed formally although we were already talking about an 'international tendency' which was forming around the positions of RI. If you recall, WR came to the conference trying to argue that the Bolsheviks were a counter-revolutionary faction of state capital, and, logically, that the KAPD were just their left wing apologists. This position deservedly collapsed, particularly under the hammer blows of Marc Chirik's very thorough defence of the proletarian nature of the Bolsheviks and the October revolution. I don't know exactly what position Appel held on the Bolsheviks at that time, but in some of the informal discussions that took place around the conference he certainly argued forcefully against WR's position on the KAPD....There were no 'false pretences' luring WV: it was invited to take part in a process of international discussion and regroupment and it was a serious error when WV withdrew from the process, hastening the demise of the group.
Sep 30 2008 11:47
#12
Dear D
You have a very selective memory. I was also with you at the conference mentioned. Do you remember comrade all the months of preperation that WV put in, the discussions not only with WR but interntionally. That WV also made a political preperation based on discussions witth the international discussion tendency proposed and set up by Internationalism in the US. That you personally participated (in London) with discussions with the early WR, that there was a massive correspondance not only with RI , but internationally. How was this an alurement? and what false premise did WV need to eventually regroup with the Aberdeen group? Incidently, Appel only shook hands with all of the conference not only WV.
Laurie
Sep 30 2008 14:05
#13
Selective memory indeed - actualy I'd very much like to forget as much as possible of the whole sorry saga. So I've no intention of entering into any further discussion on this - except to say I have never once regretted the decision not to go any further with whatever process is being described.
And I stand by my comment that in 1974 and indeed until some years after that I was unaware of the existence of the ICC and had thought that I was in discussion with a number of disparate groups and that 'all options were open'. It is now clear to me, at least in retrospect , that that was not the case.
I can't speak for the others on this but apart from one member of the former WV, no-one felt sufficiently attracted to the project to want to continue.
Gra
PS I only came on to this thread to back the contribution of Kurasje who is more interested in historical accuracy but since I was responsible for transcribing much of Jan Appel's work into readable Endlish, to make it more widely available, it seems, to me at least, to stretch the bounds of credibility to claim a figure like Jan Apppel for one particular tendency, and the ICC in especially.
Sep 30 2008 14:21
#14
We are not claiming Jan Appel exclusively for the ICC. He saw us as an expression of a positive development in the class struggle and the re-emergence of the ideas he had fought for his whole life. He had previously developed good relations with the GCF which was the predecessor to the ICC and these relations of mutual confidence continued into the period when the ICC was formed. But we are certainly not saying he saw us as the only expression of the reappearance of left communist ideas in the 1970s.
I am at a loss to know how you couldn't have become aware of the existence of the ICC "until some years" after 1974. The first edition of World Revolution came out in May 1974 and it talks very clearly about the development of 'our international tendency' and contains a platform which was in fundamental agreement with the positions of RI and Internationalism. The ICC as such was essentially formed at a conference in 1975 although our founding congress wasn't until 1976.
Sep 30 2008 19:14
#15
Alf
I am happy with the more measured statement of your first paragraph, which seems more to accord with what I know of Jan Appel's life.
As I said in an earlier post I do not intend to make any further comment regarding the ICC.
Gra
Oct 3 2008 17:05
#16
Hi - and thanks to all of you so far.
May be this discussion should continue under another heading, but anyway ..
It seems that this question have called some of the 'veterans' on the stage and lets hope that we can keep them here for a moment in order to get some of the old stories clarified som more. Also it seems to me that behind the dust whirled up here there are more than one interesting subject to discuss: One is the question of Jan Appel's relations with the 'radical left' of the late 60's and 70's. But another is obviously also the actual discussions and development of various 'radical left' groupings at that time.
But 'davgraham' is right: my primary interest and original purpose was one of 'historical accuracy' - which to me is not only a question about 'historical correctness', but also and in this context a 'political question' of 'honesty'.
1. So as to the Jan Appel-connection to the ICC:
For readers of the ICC-orbitrary of Jan Appel especially the last paragraph - as quoted by Devrim above - one gets the impression that Jan Appel somehow supported the ICC possitively. - And on a second level it can be read at if he was even supporting the ICC possitively in the specific quarrels against other groups at that time.
The problem with this paragraph is the language which slides from letting Appel beeing 'present' at the formation of Revolution International through 'numerous visits from comrades and sympathisers of the ICC' (to Jan Appel and not the other way round !) into Jan Appel 'contributed to the formation of a new generation of revolutionaries, participating at the formal constitution of the ICC in 1976'.
There is a difference between 'beeing present' at a meeting and 'participating at the formal constitution of ..' I suspect that that there were actually no difference: Jan Appel was for some reason or another only also just 'present' at the later constitution of the ICC'. - And the reports from some of you on his beeing 'present' at some conference in 1974 only strengthens my suspection.
Then there is also various ways of 'beeing present' at a meeting. You can be there passively only observing, you can be there observing and intervening critically, you can be there speaking on the agenda.
So it would be nice to know more specifically how Jan Appel attended these meetings. - The last paragraph of the ICC-text is somehow manipulating through the words themselves.
2. Then the question of the 1974-conference as discussed here also:
I think I once saw some pamphlets with resumees/minutes from these conferences ? Unfortunately there are deep hidden in some boxes somewhere in the cellar.
I dont know/don't remember if the WR had the positions as in Alf's short version: "that the Bolsheviks were a counter-revolutionary faction of state capital, and, logically, that the KAPD were just their left wing apologists". - But let us just for a moment accept that.
Then the position of Jan Appel in relation to that could be worth a speculation:
As coming from the KAPD, the AAUD and the Dutch GIC(H) the last part of it - the critique of the KAPD as left wing apologists of the Bolsheviks - would surely not be his coup of tea and could provoke some reservation.
ICC-there is a great difference between 'being present' and 'participating'
Oct 3 2008 17:19
#17
(Continued from the last message - I dont know what happened, but the message wasn't finished)
2. Then the question of the 1974-conference as discussed here also:
I think I once saw some pamphlets with resumees/minutes from these conferences ? Unfortunately there are deep hidden in some boxes somewhere in the cellar.
I dont know/don't remember if the WR had the positions as in Alf's short version: "that the Bolsheviks were a counter-revolutionary faction of state capital, and, logically, that the KAPD were just their left wing apologists". - But let us just for a moment accept that.
Then the position of Jan Appel in relation to that could be worth a speculation:
As coming from the KAPD, the AAUD and the Dutch GIC(H) the last part of it - the critique of the KAPD as left wing apologists of the Bolsheviks - would surely not be his coup of tea and could provoke some reservation.
But the 'the hammer blows of Marc Chirik's very thorough defence of the proletarian nature of the Bolsheviks and the October revolution' would definitely not be inline with his positions either. On the contrary.
But may be invited by Chirik and having known him frome many years back Appel might not have wanted to make real interventions here.
Or may be - as 'DavGraham' suggests - he couldn't make such either.
--
Well
Since some 'veterans' are here who were there we might get some of these questions enlightened some more.
j./Kurasje.org
Oct 3 2008 18:19
#18
Melmoth wrote:
Dear ComradeAs far as I know Jan had no children and as Devrim says went to Holland in 1925. In 1921 I beleive that Jan was a KAPD delegate to the 2nd. Congress of the 3rd. International. There is an obitory in the ICC's press.
Melmoth
I am not sure one way or the other, but as the children we received an e-mail from someone stating they were his grandchild. This thread resulted, and I believe some people from the forums then spoke with the person:
http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/has-anyone-met-jan-appel-or-know-anyone-who-has
Oct 8 2008 08:10
#19
"There is a difference between 'beeing present' at a meeting and 'participating at the formal constitution of ..' I suspect that that there were actually no difference: Jan Appel was for some reason or another only also just 'present' at the later constitution of the ICC'. - And the reports from some of you on his beeing 'present' at some conference in 1974 only strengthens my suspection.
Then there is also various ways of 'beeing present' at a meeting. You can be there passively only observing, you can be there observing and intervening critically, you can be there speaking on the agenda.
So it would be nice to know more specifically how Jan Appel attended these meetings. - The last paragraph of the ICC-text is somehow manipulating through the words themselves.
2. Then the question of the 1974-conference as discussed here also:
I think I once saw some pamphlets with resumees/minutes from these conferences ? Unfortunately there are deep hidden in some boxes somewhere in the cellar.
I dont know/don't remember if the WR had the positions as in Alf's short version: "that the Bolsheviks were a counter-revolutionary faction of state capital, and, logically, that the KAPD were just their left wing apologists". - But let us just for a moment accept that".
Actually, Kurasje, I think there's more than enough 'suspicion' in your approach. The last paragraph is fairly charactersitic of this. I was a member of WR from the beginning and there are other comrades who can 'testify' that we went to the 74 conference with this position. I am not sure whether our original document arguing this position still survives. Why would we make up something like this?
I also think that your 'suspicions' about Appel's participation are somewhat disparaging to Appel as well as the ICC or the groups that went on to form it. He was in his 80s at the time but he was still capable of intervening at the conference. He talked about the efforts of the German left to understand what had gone wrong in Russia and the reasons he wrote The Groundprinciples of Communist Production and Distribution'. I would call that participatioin, not just being present. He also participated in the less formal discussions which helped to convince us that we were up the spout about the Russian revolution. The implication in your posts is that Appel was kind of wheeled on to boost the prestige of...who exactly? There was no ICC at that point.
Nov 2 2008 13:56
#20
Well, according to my memory World Revolutionary did maintain a more rigorous position vis-a-vis Bolshevism before succumbing to the blandishments of Revolution Internationale. As for Jan Appel playing a role in that degeneration, Alf knows more than me.
I would say know. Jan went to Holland in 1925 and worked in a shipyard.
Devrim