The IBRP

263 posts / 0 new
Last post
mic
Offline
Joined: 11-12-06
Jan 12 2007 21:42

Imperialism is a phase of capitalism, and not a policy of some countries. I thought this was a shared principle. China has certainly been an imperialist country, and an imperialist power, for a lot of time. But as such, it's now emerging among the greatest.

Apart from this, in your long list of events I cannot see any evidence of decomposition and chaos. Quite the opposite: the efforts to create larger blocks are clear, in my opinion. The fact that such blocks are not yet precisely delineated doesn't justify your misunderstanding of the whole phenomenon.

Forgive me, but I have to remember you a question you have not yet answered, and which is essential for me to understand your "method that is capable of taking into account, accomodating and, as much as possible, predicting the nature of such changes within an overall framework":

Quote:
If the law of value can be cheated as you argue, what kind of law can explain the dynamics of the capitalistic system? I would infer that the whole analysis of Marx is not valid anymore, because its preconditions are not valid anymore, they can be cheated.

In fact, I cannot find any single position of yours being really explained. As we wrote in The Economic Role of War in Capitalism's Decadent Phase:

Quote:
The ICC has now decided that the period in which this cycle sustained the capitalist system has ended. At their 16th congress they announced, without any explanation, that:

The cycle of crisis/war/reconstruction is over.

This assertion is, in fact, derived from the earlier assertion that capitalism is in a period of "decomposition and chaos." Since this earlier assertion has never been explained theoretically either, these so-called theories are nothing more than conjecture. As we have previously stated, it is necessary for the ICC to explain in a theoretical way how such a tendency to decomposition is generated in the infrastructure of society. Without such an economic underpinning this assertion cannot be taken seriously. However, instead of explaining the basis of their assertions, the ICC has treated them as proven fact and proceeded to draw out conclusions implicit in them.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jan 12 2007 22:18

mic: attempting to cheat the law of value is not the same as overcoming the law of value. Surely it is evident that the Stalinist regimes tried to cheat this law in many ways, only for the law to have its revenge in the longer term?

Your problem about the theory of decomposition lies with your question, or rather with your narrow conception of materialism, which demands that every phenomenon in society has to have an immediate economic cause. The historic economic impasse of capitalism (expressing the permament collision between relations of production and productive forces) is certainly the underpinning of the phenomenon of decomposition, which is after all just a phase of decadence, which you nominally adhere to. But the opening of this phase is also determined by factors of class struggle, which cannot be totally explained by economic indicators. We have explained many times that decomposition derives from the fact that, on the one hand, capitalism's path towards war is blocked by an undefeated working class, but at the same time the working class has not been able to raise its struggle to the level required for an assault on the system. Both the drive to war and the class struggle are responses to the economic impasse, but, again, it is neither necessary nor possible to explain every development in either tendency to a specfic level or form of the economic crisis or to changes in the organisation of the productive process.

We have had to answer a similar kind of mechanical materialism on the '1924-67' thread, where people were trying to argue that you could only give a materialist explanation to the defeat of the working class in the 1920s and 30s if you derived it from alterations in the technical organisation of capital - that expaining it by examining the massive defeats suffered by the working class in the 20s was an 'idealist' method.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Jan 15 2007 16:30

If China has been an imperialist power for a long time Mic, then that is a clarification on your previous position. In a world of imperialism, for a long time, did China have an imperialist policy? In relation to Japan for example? Korea, Vietnam, Russia, etc? Did its bourgeoisie, its military/state apparatus, formulate and attempt to implement an imperialist policy of China? Of course it did. Imperialism is a particular stage of capitalism but it's also the parts of its sum. Every nation state has imperialist appetites in relation to its neighbours or at a wider and deeper level on the world arena. To see only "big" countries as imperialist, which is what you are suggesting, implies the existence of countries outside of the framework of capitalism. As you say, "imperialism is not the policy of some countries" it is the policy of ALL countries.
If you can't see any evidence of chaos and decomposition in the world, I suggest you open your eyes. At least read some back issues of your own press, Revolutionary Perspectives dealing with the international situation, where it is both implicit and explicit.
It's taken the IBRP a long time, too long, at least a decade, to come up with an analysis of the 1991 Iraq war that doesn't depend on vulgar economics, ie, its famous "oil revenues", but it slips right back into this with its "euro" explanation which explains nothing at all.
Be concrete mic, where do you see a new bloc coming from that will oppose the USA? Where are these "clear" efforts to create larger blocs coming from? Such an analysis of new blocs suggests a relative stability in the international situation as more or less equally weighted forces cancel each other out in carving up well defined spheres of influence. That period finished nearly two decades ago and that is a striking confirmation of the decomposition that Alf outlines above. Just a cursory glance at the world today, at the role the USA is playing, suggests that even if Germany (the only real, possible candidate for a new bloc leader) tried to assert itself as an alternative to the USA (as it tentatively and so disasterously did in the Balkans 1990), then military chaos threatens to generalise even further.

mic
Offline
Joined: 11-12-06
Jan 16 2007 09:01

Baboon, I didn't say "euro" is the only reason, but I wanted to show you that our analysis is a bit deeper than what you pretend. You can read the document. Do it, please. For the rest, I'm not saying or suggesting anything of what you argue against.

Alf, thanks for your answer. I wanted to reply sooner, but I'm a bit busy. Sorry!

I appreciate your clarification about cheating the law of value. It would need some more explanation about what you mean as "cheating", but your sentence here that "the law [will] have its revenge in the longer term" is a step in the right direction.

The problem is that you pretended this cheating could be permanent, and I hope your post here is the starting point of a rethinking, or at least of a better explanation.

Your precise statement (one of them) was:

Quote:
In order to avoid brutal collapses and to assume the constraints of the war economy, state capitalism has cheated the law of value in a permanent way.

In response to this, we wrote (The Economic Role of War in Capitalism's Decadent Phase):

Quote:
The idea that capitalism is surviving by cheating on the law of value is at root a rejection of the labour theory of value. While the use of credit, deficit financing and so on is a means of postponing the balancing of the books in value terms, but such "cheating" can only be effective in the short term. The ICC believes that by piling up mountains of paper debt, the system can be kept going in a way which is somehow evading the laws which govern capitalism. Stabilising capitalism through the credit system is the dream of Keynes. If the laws of capitalism could be so conveniently evaded, or "cheated", by the bourgeoisie they would not be laws at all and Marx's economic analysis to capitalist society would be wrong.

About the debate about materialism and idealism, I promise to come back. But it's not new. I believe Engels (in his "Anti-Duhring") was right:

Quote:
Then it was seen that all past history was the history of class struggles [27]; that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and of exchange — in a word, of the economic conditions of their time; that the economic structure of society always furnishes the real basis, starting from which we can alone work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure of juridical and political institutions as well as of the religious, philosophical, and other ideas of a given historical period. But now idealism was driven from its last refuge, the philosophy of history; now a materialistic treatment of history was propounded, and a method found of explaining man's "knowing" by his "being", instead of, as heretofore, his "being" by his "knowing".

This doesn't mean that superstructure doesn't have effects on the economic structure. They exist and must be analyzed. But, if you want to define yourself as marxists, you cannot avoid describing the economic structure, "starting from which we can alone work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure".

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jan 16 2007 11:11

hello again mic. The ICC phrase you quote about cheating the law of value is not crystal clear, it's true. But the attempt to cheat the law of value is indeed permanent.

On materialism and idealism, we can also cite Engels, in this case, his famous letter to Bloch of 21 September 1890:

"According to the materialistic conception of history, the production and reproduction of real life constitutes in the last instance the determining factor of history. Neither Marx nor I ever maintained more. Now when someone comes along and distorts this to mean that the economic factor is the sole determining factor, he is converting the former proposition into a meaningless, abstract and absurd phrase. The economic situation is the basis but the various factors of the superstructure – the political forms of the class struggles and its results – constitutions, etc., established by victorious classes after hard-won battles – legal forms, and even the reflexes of all these real struggles in the brain of the participants, political, jural, philosophical theories, religious conceptions and their further development into systematic dogmas – all these exercize an influence upon the course of historical struggles, and in many cases determine for the most part their form. There is a reciprocity between all these factors in which, finally, through the endless array of contingencies (i.e., of things and events whose inner connection with one another is so remote, or so incapable of proof, that we may neglect it, regarding it as nonexistent) the economic movement asserts itself as necessary. Were this not the case, the application of the history to any given historical period would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree".

We are saying that the IBRP's attempt to find an immediate economic cause for every war (and increasingly, to describe every war as a war for oil) is an example of the kind of vulgar materialism that Engels is arguing against here.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Jan 16 2007 14:53

mic, first of all I want to say that I agree on the basic underpinning of capitalism being the extraction and realisation of surplus value.
I also want to make it clear that, overall, I support the position of the IBRP on imperialist war: its instransigent position against all sides in such wars is without equivocation, its internationalism and denounciation of support for the "lesser evils" is a beacon for the working class. But its "innovations", including some of its mechanical interpretations of economic aspects in relation to war, lead it to look at the concrete through somewhat distorted lenses.
I don't think capitalism can permanently cheat the law of value and I don't think that this is the position of the ICC. Debt was a short-term measure in capitalism's ascendency (ie, Capital and Rosa Luxemburg) but is limited in decadence - in fact it is part of decadence and the expression of state capitalism. The printing of bills and promissary notes is building up big trouble which is undermining the whole system. The present US debt - richest country in the world, biggest debtor country in the world - is over 40 trillion dollars. Not only is this debt growing, not only can the principal never be paid off, neither can the interest. The law of value will have (is having) its revenge. A part of this today is the massive and generalised attacks raining down on the working class from the bourgeoisie.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Jan 18 2007 12:42

Mic, I will read your article and come back.
Here I want to come back to the question of "unlimited time" for capitalism, ie, its ability to cheat the law of value. This is a position that has been defended by many anarchists, including what I understand to be libertarian communists, elsewhere on this site who consider the law of value an outmoded concept that belongs in the murky past. I look forward to you joining the ICC and its sympathisers, speaking out against such positions in the future.
The response by capitalism from the 1920s of the development of state capitalism provided the system with a breathing space and abilities to manipulate, which, in their way, piled up (are piling up) problems for the future. But nowhere does content of the ICC's positions suggest anything like an eternal life to capitalism. On the contrary. Its articles in its Review and national press, particularly on the international situation and class struggle (and the crisis really) show that time is a very pressing question for the working class. This is very clear in all its positions on the class struggle and the responsibility of the proletariat at this juncture. As far as imperialist war goes the ICC's position is crystal clear: capitalism is descending into the abyss and the whole capitalist world, with its particular and generalising flashpoints, is becoming more dangerous and more pressing for the working class alternative. That doesn't at all suggest unlimited time for capitalism and I too urge you to read the press of the ICC.
I have to say, if anything, it has been some of the analyses of the IBRP that have suggested a perpetuity to capitalism, that it can somehow continue to overcome its basic economic contradictions. While it apparantly formally continues to hold onto the analysis of capitalism's decadence, some quotes have suggested that this is being called into question within the IBRP.
While I maintain that the IBRP continues to make a too vulgar analysis between war and aspects of the economy (important as these can be in some circumstances), I would, following the ICC, call this present stage of capitalism the war economy. It's not the mechanical links here and there, as important as these could be, but the overriding subservience of the whole of civil society to the war economy of the capitalist state.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Jan 19 2007 12:31

I've read the text you recommended mic, The Economic Role of War in Capitalism's Decadent Phase, and found it a great disappointment. It's not what you cracked it up to be at all. I will be making a more measured and detailed response but here are my first thoughts. It is the same expression of the IBRP's reliance on a crude, deterministic economic - well analysis is too strong a word. It shows a vulgar understanding of capitalism (and Capital), is decidedly unserious in places (particularly in relation to the ICC and class struggle, where it has just made up nonsense. Aren't you embarrassed about this mic?). The latter is based on a number of quotes from the ICC press on the class struggle taken out of their context and then given a wacky interpretation by the author. That isn't serious discussion mic. In the last 50 odd words, the IBRP manage to lay out its explanation of how capitalism can survive ad infinitum. It continues to support its opportunist concessions to leftism with its positions on globalisation and "technological revolutions" (it fell for the dotcom bubble in a big way). This text is only a formal support for the decadence of capitalism and this support won't last long. Not with "analyses" like this it won't.
Its positions on wars today and since WWII are overwhelmingly supportive of a crass economic juxtaposition that explains nothing of wars today. For the IBRP they are all about "raw materials" and one part of a sentence which reads "... or strategic regions to control key areas of the world" in relation to war today, sticks out like a sore thumb because it is in complete contradiction to everything else which is written around it.
"Globalisation" began in 1914, with the decadence of the system and what the bourgeoisie (and leftism) calls "globalisation" today is nothing but particular economic measures which serve overall to strengthen the US and major capitalist economies in the short term.
The possibility that the working class could be defeated, ground down, or we could see the "mutal ruin of contending classes" (something that is as plain as the nose on your face given the ecological threat from capitalism) is something that frightens the IBRP into denial. But that doesn't really matter for it because capitalism will rise from the ashes, be triumphant again and, get this, even after a third world war (look at the first, look at the second... a third?) and merrily restart its process of accumulation. Wars are good for capitalism, it says, they, if they are large, global and destructive enough (how destructive - not totally surely - just about "enough" destructive then?) provide a constant new field for accumulation. That is not a serious analysis.
Capitalism, for the IBRP, can go, go forward, in constantly creating new bands of proletarians, indefinitely, getting rid of and replacing the old, outdated, expensive workers of the capitalist metropoles with their high wages and social wage. And more. They can go on increasing the numerical standing of the working class according to this text. Now that is in complete contradiction to the perspectives outlined by Marx in Capital at the height of capitalism's ascendency.
Let's just take the "economic miracle" of China. It's created work, yes. It's created workers, yes. But it's also created massive unemployment, lumpenisation, destruction, disease and ratched up China's machinations on the inter-imperialist arena. This isnnot the horrors of the birth pangs of capitalism and the brutalisation of the working class, but its death throes. In fact, China today is the perfect metaphor for capitalism's decomposition.
The IBRP has foresworn any discussion with the ICC for decades now, and it shows. It has ossified in its own isolation and regressed, while holding out its hand and talking with various leftists, maoists, stalinists and a "unanimous" lone Argentinian crook that it saw as conjunctural allies. I will make a more detailed response directly to the ICC.

shug's picture
shug
Offline
Joined: 12-11-06
Jan 20 2007 21:14

Ah, and so it goes. On and on and on. RP/WV/CWO/IBRP v ICC down through the years (what, 30 now?), shredding each sentence of each statement of the other, seeking confirmation that the other is on the slide into leftist/counterrevolution and that it's us, us, us, us who really guards the holy writ. Every position of the left-communist platform, every drawn-out stumbling towards understanding, has been paid for by the working class - and for what? So its political vanguard can play games of semantics with each other. And demoralise and drive into despair both members and militants moving towards communist positions down through the years. The IBRP are far from innocent in this, but the ICC's history of first marginalising and then vilifying dissent under the mantra of "better fewer, but better" is truly fucking stomach turning.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Jan 21 2007 00:55

I Want to learn something different than this discussions aims from mic. Is there any article that how the IBRP is orginising inside working class? What is the tactics of IBRP in that respect? How do you intervene in strikes etc.?

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jan 21 2007 16:42

Shug, when has clarification ever not developed through polemic and confrontation in the workers' movement? Do you think that the issues being discussed on this thread, for example, are just semantics, all of them (eg, the material basis of imperialist war, decadence, the capacity of the left communists groups to work together...)? And where do you stand on the painfully acquired positions of the left communist platform? Do you want to participate in defending them on these boards for example?

As for the accusations you make about the ICC "villifying dissent", you should back up your arguments, although not on this thread.

mic
Offline
Joined: 11-12-06
Jan 22 2007 10:16

Hi Mikail.

IBRP certainly supports workers in their struggles, as actively as we can. We participate in demonstrations, strikes, street blockades... in general all protests against owners but also against unions. When workers fight against capital, we support them, even if we don't hide our criticism about the limits of these struggles, above all the limits often imposed by bourgeois-left leaders. In some occasions, even in recent years, some of our comrades were also able to organize with their co-workers to strike autonomously, without support of any union and against anti-strike laws.

Unfortunately, class struggles are quite rare today, and we have not the strength we would wish.

We have produced various analysis about the class composition today. In particular, I was active in a Italian group called GLP (Groups of Proletarian Struggle), and I felt soon in agreement with IBRP in that proletarians are no more concentrated in huge factories, and that territory is one of the place to try and organize. Where we're present, we're actively proposing the creation of assemblies of workers of different factories in the same area to fight together and in solidarity with each other's objectives.

Well... it's not just our analysis, it's the way workers organize in reality. It's what happened, to a large extent, in Argentine in 2001, for example. See The Piqueteros Movement of Argentina

I'm quoting from The New International will be the International Party of the Proletariat:

Quote:
It is a process where the bourgeoisie has confronted the crisis in the cycle of accumulation by putting into action all the counter-measures to falling profits. First among them, the demolition of v (the amount of variable capital) by means of a veritable technological revolution -- that of the microprocessor -- which has led to a greater increase in productivity than the increase in the organic composition of capital and all with virtually no significant reaction from the working class. As a consequence the working class has had to submit to a process of break up and reconstitution (which is still underway) and though this has far from modified the fundamental relations of production and of class, it has changed the identity of the working class itself and the possible forms its reconstituted struggle and politics can take.
Quote:
[...] changed composition and distribution of the working class, the consequent changed perspectives for the genesis of struggles, the relationship between all this and our traditional policy of factory groups and the consequent widening of their role and function to a territorial one.

You could also find the following articles interesting:

* On class composition and recomposition in the globalisation of capital

* What's the Deal with the Unions?

There are lots of other documents, Mikail. Just ask wink But thanks for the question!

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jan 22 2007 10:41

Mic, I think that what Mikael is asking about is 'communisr factory groups'. I too would like some information on this question.
Devrim

mic
Offline
Joined: 11-12-06
Jan 22 2007 11:12

Probably you're right, Devrim: some background is necessary. Here you can find the Platform of Internationalist Communist Union Groups, of 1963.

Their nature and role, however, must be updated according to the most recent developments of capitalism, above all the fragmentation and scattering on the territory of the working class, mainly due to the so-called revolution of microprocessor.

I'm approximately translating from La classe operaia nella fase attuale e le sue prospettive:

Quote:
The different distribution of the class in working places radically changes and diversifies the ways of possible appearing of new waves of struggle. In addition to finding unions as first bastions to fight and overcome, proletariat cannot count just on the starting of struggles from large industrial concentrations, especially in capitalist metropolis, and which could extend to all productive units of a sector or of the whole production, as it always happened in history of workers movement. The other possibility is that the beginning of re-organization of struggles starts from aggregating forces on a territorial basis.

This is the reason we call them "Communist groups of factory and territory".

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Jan 22 2007 12:22

Familiar attack on the ICC from shug above... "the IBRP aren't angels... BUT THE ICC - WELL I NEVER". This "I am totally scandalised and disgusted by this" attack on the expression of proletarian positions from shug is nothing but an attempt to stop and derail the debate. It's been going on for longer than 30 years shug. Go back and read Marx and attempt to come up with a political position in defence of the working class yourself.
This is an important debate and will have consequences for the working class. The IBRP has itself focussed on the question of imperialist war in the decadence of capitalism and its 2005 text laying out its position. I think this text and position is a milestone for the IBRP because it shows that its support for a position on the decadence of capitalism is nothing but an empty shell and what this text underlines is the IBRP's abandonment of the marxist theory of decadence.

mic
Offline
Joined: 11-12-06
Jan 22 2007 18:43

Devrim, if you can read French, this document is probably the most appropriate: Thèses sur le syndicat aujourd’hui et l’action communiste

The original version is in Italian, and I'm still searching for an English translation. Otherwise we'll produce one.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jan 22 2007 20:52

No, I can't. I think Leo may have a little French, but not enough to read an article. The reason I presumed that it was the factory groups that Mikael was referring to was because he had asked me about it before in relation to an e-mail the IBRP sent us which mentioned factory groups.
Devrim

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Jan 27 2007 09:13

devrim is right. I am curious about factory nucleus of the IBRP basically. But thanks for the articles. I will read them in a more detailed fashion soon.

I think there is also an important discussion-seperation about the nature of the international organisation. If I am wrong mic will correct me but I think IBRP is against the tendency -icc for instance- to organise the revolutionary group internationally and not on a national level.

This is what the icc refers as fraction discussion and the source of seperation between ıcc and ıbrp is mainly on this issiue.

Of course there is also a discussion on decadance but I know too little about that discussion.

TonySoprano
Offline
Joined: 14-10-06
Jan 27 2007 11:35

I'm new here - hy to every1 !!

I belong to Battaglia, just to avoid to be misunderstood ( Hy to Devrim, whom I've just met on our forum as NoNick ).

I'm now in a such hurry, I hope i'll be back later but i wish to spend two words;
the main problem today is the lack of struggles and the will of struggle itself is missing ( I speak so 'cause I'm worker myself).
We are like fishes without water....

For mikail: we even produce flags, pins, t-shirts,stickers and whatever our fantasy says us in order to substain our organisation - we are not namely a bunch of cranky (!?!) guys as read briefly above...

Red Greets

mic
Offline
Joined: 11-12-06
Jan 27 2007 21:02

Hi Mikail, and hi Tony wink

Mikail, probably I've not fully understood your question.

By all our statements and by the concrete work we're carrying on, I can assure you that our final aim is the International Party of the Proletariat. But, actually, I don't see any contradiction with organizing also at a national or local level, exactly in the same way now we have and promote local sections of Battaglia in various regions of Italy, for example.

I'm quoting from The New International will be the International Party of the Proletariat:

Quote:
Our objective is the International Party of the Proletariat: homogeneous, centralised internationally, in which the national sections will act on an international level as the local sections of our Party do today. Not an International of Parties, but the international Party. A lot of political ground will have to be covered before the situation of today is transformed into one which sees the rise of that party. We cannot predict whether the process is also going to be a long one chronologically.

Probably you refer to these considerations, which appear few lines below, in the same document:

Quote:
Shouldn't a multinational 'expansion' of the strongest and most representative organisation be considered? No. Because revolutionary politics is a serious thing: a 'section' comprising a set of comrades beyond the 'mother' country cannot concretely constitute an element of true organisation. It is important to have the courage to recognise the difficulties of really making an organisation work at a national level: the necessary level of co-ordination of a 'country' is not always complete; the distribution of the press, in our organisational condition of 'small numbers', is again influenced by the smallest variation in the availability of militants; and so on -- we could continue with the concrete elements of organisation.

Furthermore, a mini-section parachuted into a country doesn't have the same potential for implanting itself in the political scene of that country as an organisation which arises from that political scene and which is oriented towards revolutionary positions -- in which case, size is not the issue. Thus we reject as nonsense the criticisms of those who reproach us with not having 'exported' Battaglia Comunista and we challenge anyone to demonstrate that Battaglia Comunista hasn't made known its positions abroad and thus contributed to the maturation of other groups. And what counts is not the name of the organisation, much less the copyright, what counts is the substance of the political positions on which their actions are based and their perspectives toward the international party.

The origin of the IBRP itself is instructive here. The CWO's original positions were framed in the disheartening framework of 1975/76. A criticism of their Platform appeared in Prometeo that was taken seriously on the part of the CWO. A debate ensued which led to the common line we now hold and which we present to the rest of the world.

So, to make a long story short, we try to organize around a platform more than around a name. Today we're not an international party, it's true. But we work to build such a party. Anyway, I wouldn't say this is one of the main differences between IBRP and ICC. Above all, we've different methods of analysis.

At the end, have I touched the topic you were interested in?

About factory and territory nucleus, I'll inform you as soon as we'll have an English translation of that document I hinted at. It's the most appropriate one.

mic
Offline
Joined: 11-12-06
Jan 27 2007 21:24

Ah, Mikail, you'll also find something interesting in the Platform:

Quote:
The IBRP's framework is as follows:

1. The proletarian revolution will be international or it will be nothing. International revolution presupposes the existence of an international party: the concrete political expression of the most class conscious workers who organise together to fight for the revolutionary programme amongst the rest of the working class. History has shown that attempts to form the party during the revolution itself were too little too late.
2. The IBRP thus aims for the creation of the world communist party as soon as the political programme and international forces exist for this. However, the Bureau is for the party, and does not claim to be its sole pre-existing nucleus. The future party will not be the simple expansion of a single organisation.
3. Before the world party can be formed the precise details of the revolutionary programme will have to be clarified in all its related aspects via discussion and debate amongst its potential constituent parts.
4. The organisations which eventually come to form the world party must already have a meaningful existence inside the working class in the area from which they spring. The proclamation of the international party (or its initial nucleus) on the basis of little more than the existence of propagandist groups would be no step forward for the revolutionary movement.
5. A revolutionary organisation has to strive to become more than a propaganda network. Despite the limited opportunities, it is the task of proletarian organisations today to work to establish themselves as a revolutionary force inside the working class; this in order to be in a position to point the way ahead in the class struggle of today as a precursor to organising and leading the revolutionary struggles of tomorrow.
6. The lesson of the last revolutionary wave is not that the working class can do without organised leadership, nor that the party is the class (a metaphysical abstraction of latterday Bordigists). Rather, that leadership and its organisational form (the party) is the most important weapon that the revolutionary working class has. Its task will be to fight for a communist perspective in the mass organs of proletarian power (soviets). The party, however, will remain a minority of the working class and is not a substitute for the class in general. The task of establishing socialism is one for the working class as a whole. It is a task which cannot be delegated, not even to the class conscious vanguard.

mic
Offline
Joined: 11-12-06
May 8 2007 12:23

I have forgotten to post here the link to the main document of ibrp about "factory and territorial groups". Very late... But here it is:

Communist Work and the Trades Unions Today (1997-06-01)