International Communist Current presentation for the Midlands Discussion Forum meeting of 25 April

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
May 2 2009 17:25
International Communist Current presentation for the Midlands Discussion Forum meeting of 25 April

ICC presentation for the Midlands Discussion Forum meeting of 25 April

This presentation was based on rough notes so this short written version won’t correspond exactly to what was said at the meeting, which was attended by representatives of the Midlands Discussion Forum, the Exeter Discussion Group, the Commune, the ICC, the Communist Workers' Organisation, Internationalist Perspective, former members of the Communist Bulletin Group and others. An assessment of the significance of this meeting will be published at a later date.

We want to begin with a few words about the significance of the moment in which this meeting is taking place, and which the holding of the meeting gives us the opportunity to explore further.

There seems to be a strong level of agreement here that this crisis cannot be understand as just another ‘bust’ in a never-ending cycle of boom and bust but has historic roots, going back not only to the end of the period of post-war prosperity but to the beginnings of the 20th century and beyond. There are certainly differences in our understanding of the roots of this crisis but there is a general recognition that these roots must be sought in the fundamental contradictions inherent in the accumulation of capital. There is also a recognition that this crisis will not spontaneously right itself but will push capitalism further along the road towards war and self-destruction, even if, again, there are different approaches to the role that war plays for capital in this era. There has been little disagreement with the CWO’s affirmation that this is in fact the worst crisis in the entire history of capitalism.

The recognition of the gravity of this stage in the crisis has certainly been a factor pushing the elements here to pose the question of the responsibility of revolutionaries. But there is another, closely linked factor: the fact that this deepening of the crisis is confronting a working class which, after a long period of retreat, is showing clear signs of developing its will to fight and its consciousness. Despite all the difficulties the proletariat has faced since it reappeared on the historical scene in 1968 – the long drawn out nature of the crisis and the bourgeoisie’s capacity to ‘manage’ it, allowing it to create periods of apparent ‘boom’; the difficulties of the struggle developing a political perspective, which is linked to the isolation and tiny impact of revolutionary groupings; the break-up of whole concentrations of once militant and experienced sectors of the working class; the huge ideological campaigns of the ruling class, particular the campaigns about the death of communism and the end of the class struggle after 1989 – despite all these and other very real problems, which resulted in a long retreat in the class struggle during the 1990s, we can say with confidence that the working class today is not in the same defeated condition it was in the 1930s.

The signs of class revival are not hard to read: the movement against the CPE in France in 2006 and other struggles by proletarianised youth around the world, most spectacularly the revolt in Greece at the end of 2008; the appearance of general assemblies in these and other movements, such as that of the steelworkers of Vigo in 2006; the development of mass strike movements in countries like Egypt and Bangladesh; the clear search for solidarity in many struggles – in Britain, for example, the wildcats at BA, the oil refinery strikes; the Belfast Visteon occupation which not only spread immediately to Visteon plants around London but also became a focus for strong feelings of solidarity from other workers. In all these various developments, we see the germs of the future mass strike movement mentioned in the CWO’s presentation.

But this development in the class struggle is also expressed in a search for political clarity. In some cases this is directly linked to the struggle – such as the interesting example from the FIAT Pomigliano, Italy, mentioned by the CWO comrade, or in Greece where a minority explicitly denounced the role of the official trade unions and called for general assemblies. But it’s also expressed by the appearance of discussion circles, internet forums, and minorities adopting internationalist positions and in a number of cases moving very quickly towards the ideas of the communist left. Like the revolt of proletarianised youth, these developments are to a large extent the expression of a new generation. This is evident, for example, with the most active elements in the libcom.org internet forum but also with many of the people approaching the ICC and/or left communist positions, as we have seen in Europe, Latin America, Australia, the US, Turkey, the Philippines….

These developments, like the appearance of a whole new generation of revolutionaries after 1968, emphasise the necessity for debate and regroupment. They open up the overall perspective for the construction of a world communist party.

Alongside the appearance of this new generation, we can see from today’s meeting that there has also been a raising of questions among those who have been around for a long time, among the ‘old gits’ who have maintained their activity come what may or who are only now wiping away the sand from a long sleep.

The ICC has always been in favour of debate, joint work among revolutionaries, and the regroupment of communist currents. In the early seventies we called for international conferences to bring together the products of the resurgence of class struggle; at the end of that decade we welcomed the initiative of Battaglia Comunista to begin a cycle of conferences of the communist left, and we have always regretted the breakdown of this attempt. Today we are devoting a large part of our resources to meeting the challenge raised by the new generation, engaging in debate in numerous circles and internet forums, forming new sections, while at the same time working closely with other groups where the possibility exists, as for example with our joint interventions with the Workers’ Opposition group in Brazil.

But we have also always insisted that joint work and regroupment must be on a clear and principled basis, based on real programmatic agreement, and that less directly programmatic issues such as the way revolutionaries behave, their mode of organisation, the need for relations of trust and solidarity between them, the problem of sectarianism etc are political questions in their own right and cannot be ignored in any serious process of discussion and regroupment. It is also evident to everyone here that over the past decades there have been a number of traumatic experiences – whether the failure of the international conferences or the splits in existing groups – which have created a great deal of anger and bitterness. In our view, these traumas cannot be overcome simply by agreeing to ‘put it all behind us’ This doesn’t work either in the psychology of individuals or in the political sphere: to really go forward, the past has to be confronted and understood in depth. This meeting cannot give rise to any flashy but premature initiatives but it can be the beginning of a process of contact and discussion which can bear positive fruit in the future.

shug's picture
shug
Offline
Joined: 12-11-06
May 2 2009 19:25
Quote:
over the past decades there have been a number of traumatic experiences – whether the failure of the international conferences or the splits in existing groups – which have created a great deal of anger and bitterness. In our view, these traumas cannot be overcome simply by agreeing to ‘put it all behind us’ This doesn’t work either in the psychology of individuals or in the political sphere: to really go forward, the past has to be confronted and understood in depth.

Going by the discussion at last week's Birmingham meeting, I don't remember anyone suggesting that past traumas can be overcome by simply agreeing to 'put it all behind us'. What was suggested by a number of speakers was that the present crisis is a wake up call to the elements in the left communist milieu to recognise that what unites us is far more profound than what divides us, and that fraternal feeling is a fundamental part of our responsibility towards our class. Without this latter, to claim

Quote:
to really go forward, the past has to be confronted and understood in depth

is rather disingenuous. To take just one example, the ICC splits of the early 80's were written about exhaustively by both the ICC and the CBG - confronting was certainly present, yet there was little sign of understanding, and certainly no sign of moving on. 30 years on, there are real issues remaining to be resolved: how a political organisation handles debate, responds to tendencies or dissent within it, takes positions, relates to the rest of the milieu etc. No-one appears to be seeking to downplay these differences. But they cannot be resolved in some kind of abstracted academic exercise. Resolution, if possible, will come about through the recognition of basic joint agreement, and the solidarity and mutual respect that comes through joint work, intervention and debate.

Intifada1988
Offline
Joined: 13-09-07
May 3 2009 04:36

I think the points shug put forth here are well founded.

We need to maintain a culture of debate (on all the issues).

When revolutionaries are so finely divided by their ideological differences, its like trying to put two magnets of the same pole together..

..debate is important..

To me, its simple. Obtain the goals sought by the conferences..create a platform
(based on ACTION/INTERVENTION/PRAXIS/PRACTICE/CONSCIOUSNESS-BUILDING whatever, etc) that everyone can live with and AT THE SAME TIME keep debating these trivial (when compared to the task at hand) disagreements in a culture of respect and understanding..

to make it plain: we need to stop fucking around and do something that will help progress the movement..if we as revolutionaries try our best to fight capitalism, we can't go wrong, the worst that will happen is that the next wave of revolutionary struggle will learn from our mistakes......real talk

miles's picture
miles
Offline
Joined: 21-09-08
May 3 2009 09:10
Quote:
To take just one example, the ICC splits of the early 80's were written about exhaustively by both the ICC and the CBG - confronting was certainly present, yet there was little sign of understanding, and certainly no sign of moving on.

Little sign of understanding by whom? About what, exactly? The problem with this statement is that within the ICC we don't think about the CBG very much - except when they turn up now and again to attack the ICC... Maybe from the perspective of the CBG we spend all our time remniscing about the events of nearly 30 years ago, but I can assure you that's far from the case.

Quote:
30 years on, there are real issues remaining to be resolved: how a political organisation handles debate, responds to tendencies or dissent within it, takes positions, relates to the rest of the milieu etc. No-one appears to be seeking to downplay these differences. But they cannot be resolved in some kind of abstracted academic exercise.

I agree these are real issues to think about and deal with - it's hard to 'resolve' them because just as you establish some kind of regularity of functioning things change and your praxis has to change again. Not sure what you mean by 'abstracted academic exercise', there has to be a theoretical underpinning to your practice.

Quote:
Resolution, if possible, will come about through the recognition of basic joint agreement, and the solidarity and mutual respect that comes through joint work, intervention and debate.[

If you read Alfs post carefully he says

Quote:
The ICC has always been in favour of debate, joint work among revolutionaries, and the regroupment of communist currents. In the early seventies we called for international conferences to bring together the products of the resurgence of class struggle; at the end of that decade we welcomed the initiative of Battaglia Comunista to begin a cycle of conferences of the communist left, and we have always regretted the breakdown of this attempt. Today we are devoting a large part of our resources to meeting the challenge raised by the new generation, engaging in debate in numerous circles and internet forums, forming new sections, while at the same time working closely with other groups where the possibility exists, as for example with our joint interventions with the Workers’ Opposition group in Brazil.

However, the question is not only 'doing' joint work initiatives but the basis upon which they are undertaken.

Quote:
But we have also always insisted that joint work and regroupment must be on a clear and principled basis, based on real programmatic agreement, and that less directly programmatic issues such as the way revolutionaries behave, their mode of organisation, the need for relations of trust and solidarity between them, the problem of sectarianism etc are political questions in their own right and cannot be ignored in any serious process of discussion and regroupment.

Unfortunately, it's far from 'simple' as Intifada claims.

shug's picture
shug
Offline
Joined: 12-11-06
May 3 2009 11:28
Quote:
Little sign of understanding by whom? About what, exactly? The problem with this statement is that within the ICC we don't think about the CBG very much - except when they turn up now and again to attack the ICC... Maybe from the perspective of the CBG we spend all our time remniscing about the events of nearly 30 years ago, but I can assure you that's far from the case.

Oh, dearie me. This kind of lofty, patronising tone was exactly the kind of approach I was suggesting we move away from. I'll try again. Alf says that

Quote:
to really go forward, the past has to be confronted and understood in depth

. Well, he's quite right of course. But understanding and movement towards resolution of differences depends on a willingness to do so, and that will be better encouraged by a spirit of fraternal feeling rather than the haughty contempt that you appear to be displaying. Funnily enough, no-one is really suggesting that the ICC think about the CBG very much, or spend their time reminiscing about events of 30years ago. What is being suggested is that, in the face of increasing attacks on our class, and increasing reaction from our class, it is time that the milieu and the organisations within it recognised the importance of fraternal spirit, out of which can come both joint activity and the possible resolution of past differences. This isn't said out of some hippyish touchy feelyness, but out of recognition of the current weakness of the left communist milieu at a time when the need for its interventions are becoming increasingly important.

berrot
Offline
Joined: 6-03-08
May 3 2009 22:45

I hope participants (and witnesses) on this thread remember that there has been no suggestion that groups need to be working for any form of regroupment, that the only item on the agenda is some agreement to talk to each other in order to facilitate working together in ways yet to be determined. There is therefore no need at this stage for anyone to get aerated about past acrimony. It can only lead to further bad feelings. It was perfectly apparent at the Birmingham meeting that all those present could see the eggshells strewn around the room, and were determined to avoid crushing any of them underfoot, knowing exactly what was at stake. It doesn’t help much if people behave on libcom here like road-rage drivers in the comparative anonymity of their vehicles, making unrefined gestures just to see the reaction from other users. We should all follow the old adage: if you have nothing positive to say, keep it somewhere below your larynx.

I think a far more useful way to deal with the historic differences would be to focus on how, where and to whom we should be addressing the left communist message. As Alf has said, it’s the programme, stupid. Even if everyone agreed to allow everyone else to attend their respective meetings and to exchange printed material, we would still only be talking amongst ourselves. How about some practical proposals for reaching out to the working class, setting up the dialectic between revolutionaries and the class which theory envisages? Or is this something which must await the actual outbreak of the revolution itself? Have there been any organised interventions in current struggles, or must outbreaks like the Visteon workers’ subside without any perspectives advanced by the communist left? Will anyone take up the suggestion from the meeting to use/set up a forum for the communist left (whether it’s the ICCs, IPs or totally independent of any single group)? How do we ensure we maximise access to workers in dispute? Should there be a website shared by all the groups, aiming to introduce newcomers to programmatic content and providing links to the vast arrays of material on groups’ own websites? What has changed in the past 30 years that will alter how we make contact with our core constituency? And no doubt discussions of a theoretical nature will have to occur – at the very heart of all these processes.

It will be these sorts of initiatives that will frame whatever debate is needed to clear the lungs and vision of those who are long in (or, by now, is it short of?) tooth and thirst for resolution. (Editor: Did he mean reVolution?)

Berrot

Intifada1988
Offline
Joined: 13-09-07
Jun 21 2015 23:20
Intifada1988 wrote:
I think the points shug put forth here are well founded.

We need to maintain a culture of debate (on all the issues).

When revolutionaries are so finely divided by their ideological differences, its like trying to put two magnets of the same pole together..

..debate is important..

To me, its simple. Obtain the goals sought by the conferences..create a platform
(based on ACTION/INTERVENTION/PRAXIS/PRACTICE/CONSCIOUSNESS-BUILDING whatever, etc) that everyone can live with and AT THE SAME TIME keep debating these trivial (when compared to the task at hand) disagreements in a culture of respect and understanding..

to make it plain: we need to stop fucking around and do something that will help progress the movement..if we as revolutionaries try our best to fight capitalism, we can't go wrong, the worst that will happen is that the next wave of revolutionary struggle will learn from our mistakes......real talk

Is this post why the ICC has me billed as an opportunist? It six years old and I couldn't agree with myself more today.

Jamal R.