Jeff
You are right there has been a reduced activity on our part in recent weeks but that is because we have had other work to carry out. However, it is only a few weeks since we were involved in the protracted discussions on fictitious capital and decadence. Please do not forget that intervening on the forums is only part of our activity. We would love to be able to intervene more and more consistently.
I agree with alf's question concerning what people thinks the level of agreement should be.
On the question of there being no decent in the ICC, because we do not publically disagree with the positions of our organization. Well, firstly we belong to the ICC because we support and are militantly committed to defending it, thus we will seek to do this as consistently as possible. For us it is not a question of defending our individual positions (our own little bit of intellectual property) but the collective positions of the organization. Secondly, we are pretty consistent and homogeneous in the way we argue our positions because they come from a process of rigorous internal discussion in every part of the organisation. Thirdly, comrades who do not agree with a position is not expected to defend it in public. If the disagreement is important and a discussion begins around it within the organisation and it is considered to be an important question for the whole movement and the class then the organization will express this discussion in public: as we did in the 1970's with the question of the period of transition, or in the middle of the 1980s around the question of centrism/opportunism. The majority position in the organisation has the duty to enable the most effective expression of minority positions and there can be no disciplinary response to the expression of minority positions. A minority also has responsibilities to ensure the most effective discussion of their positions. Within the history of the ICC, those that have split have done so after refusing to defend their positons within the organisation within the organisational statutes THEY HAD AGREED TO and were happy to defend when they were in a majority or when they did not have open disagreements with the ICC. It should also not be forgotten that the crises of the early 80's, 90's and the beginning of this century were based upon behaviours contrary to those of a communist organisation and not minority positions. Also each of the crisis within the ICC have not been blamed on the individuals involved -though they have to be held responsible for their behaviour and attitudes- but on organsational problems within the ICC and these problems have been analysed and presented in public through our press (not the usual attitude of a sect).
It is very interesting that we are criticised because we have had to go through a series of crises as we have developed our organisation and activity. The same criticism was made by the opportunists in the 1900's about the Bolsheviks (who also went through a whole series of organisational crisis).
It would be very useful if those who say that we do not allow internal dissent could provide some form of proof of this very easily banded about claim.
As for the way we come over, yes we are trying to overcome what could be a pretty defensive attitude. We have absolutely no interest in people not coming to our meetigns etc because they do not feel they can discuss with us, if this how we appear we certainly need to overcome this.
For us discussion is the very core of militant activity within the class as a whole and within a revolutionary organisation, as we have tried to explain in an article in our International Review on the question of the culture of debate http://en.internationalism.org/ir/131/culture-of-debate. Perhaps this text could provide the basis of another thread.
A comrade said that we did not allow fractions within the ICC. This is not the case.
A fraction is an expression of the fact that the organisation is in crisis, that a process of degeneration, of capitulation to the dominant ideology, has appeared within it. Contrary to the tendency, which emerges a around differences of orientation on circumstantial questions, the fraction is formed around programmatic differences which can only result either in the bourgeois positions being expunged from the organisation, or in the departure of the communist fraction. Since the fraction expresses a demarcation between two positions which have become incompatible within the organisation, it tends to take on an organised form with its own organs of propaganda.It's because the organisation of the class is never guaranteed against degeneration that the role of revolutionaries is to constantly struggle against the bourgeois positions which can appear within it. And when they find themselves in a minority in this struggle their task is to organise themselves into a fraction, either to win the whole organisation to communist positions and to exclude the bourgeois positions or, when this struggle has become sterile because the organisation - generally in a period of re-flux - has abandoned the proletarian terrain to constitute a bridge towards the reforging of the class party, which can only emerge in a historic period of rising class struggle.
In all these cases the concern that must guide revolutionaries is one that is valid for the class in general: not to waste the already tiny revolutionary energies that the class possesses; to ensure at all times the maintenance and development of an instrument which is so indispensable and yet so fragile - the organisation of revolutionaries.
Report on structure and functioning of the revolutionary organisation http://en.internationalism.org/specialtexts/IR033_functioning.htm
The above report also deals with the question of the divergences:
While the existence of divergences within the organisation is a sign that it is alive, only by respecting a certain number of rules in the discussion of these divergences can we ensure that such discussion is a real contribution to the strengthening of the organisation and to the improvement of the tasks for which the class has engendered it. We can thus enumerate certain of these rules:*
having regular meetings of local sections, and putting on the agenda of these meetings the main questions being discussed in the organisation: in no way must this debate be stifled;
*the widest possible circulation of different contributions within the organisation through the appropriate instruments;
*consequently, the rejection of secret and bilateral correspondence which, far from allowing debate to be more clear, can only obscure it by giving rise to misunderstanding, distrust and a tendency towards the formation of an organisation within the organisation;
*respect by the minority for the indispensable organisational discipline (as we saw in the last point);
*rejection of any disciplinary or administrative measure on the part of the organisation with regard to members who raise disagreements: just as the minority must know how to be a minority inside the organisation, the majority must know how to be a majority, and in particular it must not abuse the fact that its position has become the position of the organisation and annihilate debate in any way, for example, by compelling members of the minority to be spokesmen for positions they don't adhere to;
*the whole organisation is interested in discussion being as wide-ranging and as clear as possible (even when it deals with divergences of principle which can only lead to an organisational separation): it's up to both the minority and the majority to do all they can (obviously without this paralysing or weakening the tasks of the organisation) to convince each other of the validity of their respective analyses, or at least to allow the greatest possible clarity to emerge on the nature and significance of these disagreements.
To the extent that the debates going on in the organisation generally concern the whole proletariat they should be expressed publicly while respecting the following conditions:
*
that these debates involve general political questions and that they have matured sufficiently for their publication to be a real contribution to the developments of class consciousness;
*the place given to these debates should not disrupt the general balance of the publications;
*it's the organisation as a whole which decides on and carries out the publication of such contributions, basing such decisions on criteria which apply to any other article in the press: whether it's clearly written, whether it's of interest to the working class as a whole, etc. We must therefore reject the publication of texts outside of the organs responsible for publications, on the 'private' initiative of a certain number of members of the organisation. Similarly, there is no formal 'right' of anyone in the organisation (individual or tendency) to have a text published if the responsible organs don't feel that it is useful or opportune.
And in relation to the overall question of this thread: theoretical unity and the relationship of the individual to the organisation it makes these central points:
A fundamental precondition for a communist organisation being able to carry out its tasks in the class is a correct understanding of the relations that should exist between the organisation and its militants. This is a particularly difficult question to understand today, given the weight of the organic break with past fractions and of the influence of elements from the student milieu in the revolutionary organisations after 1968. This has allowed the reappearance of one of the ball-and-chains carried by the workers' movement in the 19th century - individualism.In a general manner, the relations between the militants and the organisation are based on the same principles as those mentioned above concerning the relations between the parts and the whole. More precisely, the following points need to be made on this question:
1.
The working class doesn't give rise to revolutionary militants but to revolutionary organisations: there is no direct relationship between the militants and the class. The militants participate in the class struggle in so far as they become members and carry out the tasks of the organisation. They have no particular 'salvation' to gain in front of the class or of history. The only 'salvation' that matters to them is that of the class and of the organisation which it has given rise to.
2.The same relations which exist between a particular organ (group or party) and the class exists between the organisation and the militant. And just as the class does not exist to respond to the needs of the communist organisation, so communist organisations don't exist to resolve the problems of the individual militant. The organisation is not the product of the needs of the militant. One is a militant to the extent that one has understood and adheres to the tasks and functions of the organisation.
3.Following on from this, the division of tasks and of responsibilities within the organisation is not aimed at the 'realisation' of individual militants. Tasks must be divided up in a way that enables the organisation as a whole to function in the optimal way. While the organisation must as much as possible look to the well-being of each of its militants, this is above all because it's in the interest of the organisation that all of its 'cells' are able to carry out their part in the organisation's work. This doesn't mean ignoring the individuality and the problems of the militant; it means that the point of departure, and the point of arrival, is the capacity of the organisation to carry out its tasks in the class struggle.
4.Within the organisation there are no 'noble' tasks and no 'secondary' or 'less noble' tasks. Both the work of theoretical elaboration and the realisation of practical tasks, both the work in central organs and the specific work of local sections, are equally important for the organisation and should not be put in a hierarchical order (it's capitalism which establishes such hierarchies). This is why we must completely reject, as a bourgeois conception, the idea that the nomination of a militant to a central organ is some kind of 'promotion', the granting of an 'honour' or a 'privilege'. The spirit of careerism must be completely banished from the organisation as being totally opposed to the disinterested dedication which is one of the main characteristics of communist militantism.
5.Although there do exist inequalities of ability between individuals and militants, and these are maintained and strengthened by class society, the role of the organisation is not, as the utopian communists thought, to pretend to abolish them. The organisation must try to ensure the maximum development of the political capacities of its militants because this is a preconditions for its own strengthening, but it never poses this in terms of an individual, scholarly formation, nor of an equalisation of everyone's formation.
The real equality between militants consists in the maximum of what they can give for the life of the orgainsation ("from each according to his means", a quote from St. Simon which Marx adopted). The true 'realisation' of a militant, as a militant, is to do all they can to help the organisation carry out the tasks for which the class has engendered it.
6.All these points imply that the militant does not make a personal 'investment' in the organisation, from which he expects dividends or which he can withdraw when he leaves the organisation. We must therefore reject, as totally alien to the proletariat, any practice of 'recuperating' material or funds from the organisation, even with the aim of setting up another political group.
7.Similarly, "the relations between the militants", while they "necessarily bear the scars of capitalist society...cannot be in flagrant contradiction with the goal pursued by revolutionaries, and they must of necessity be based on that solidarity and mutual confidence which are the hallmarks of belonging to an organisation of the class which is the bearer of communism" (ICC Platform).
I apologise for the length of the quotes but if we are going to have a discussion about the ICC being a sect etc again, we should at least do it around what we exactly say adn do and not what comrades think or believe we do.
When the ICC first appeared on Libcom I took an immediate dislike to them for some of the reasons mentioned already, but more annoying to me than the perceived 'cultishness' was that it seemed to me that they just wanted to tell everyone else that everything they were doing was shit and reformist, and that unless we were theorising about setting up workers' councils we were propping up capitalism. At about the same time they started sending their paper unrequested to the house I live in, and it does spend a lot of time slagging others off for being reformists, it doesn't give the initial impression of being written for anyone who isn't already obsessed with politics and it says in the aims and principles bits that all 'official anarchists' are part of the left wing of capitalism 
I have to say I think my first impressions were very wrong and I find the ICC's posts very interesting these days, now that I've got a bit more idea about what they stand for and that they are in favour of doing something in the here and now, not just being holier than everyone else, as was my first impression. I also enjoy reading the paper, and keep meaning to send them some money for it during a not-skint moment; but for now - thanks guys for sending it! There is a real yearning for a better world in there, if you take the time to cut through the sometimes challenging terminology.
I think people's problems with the ICC largely stem from a public relations problem rather than anything more serious, as well as a difference in our political cultures that causes us to find their level of public agreement a bit weird initially. Apart from our other political differences (and obviously there are important ones) to get onto the subject of the thread I wouldn't want to be in a group which was as theoretically unified as the left-communists are, as I think lessons are learned in struggle and I don't want to turn people away from getting involved because they don't have the perfect line on this or that thing yet. However I do find them interesting to discuss with, they seem to me like nice people on a personal level and I'm happy to have them here (that goes for the EKS comrades too).
I think the problem with the ICC, and the communist left in general (and many anarchists) is that they fetishize historical circumstances, while in reality, this historical events were not as pure as they think they were. For example, the ICC saying that the october revolution was proletarian, without realizing that the october revolution was an outgrowth of the february one, that wasn't led exclusively by proletarian forces. In Venezuela, for example, obviously there is not socialism, however, there is a real proletarian force in the bolivarian movement, that needs to be pushed towards communism. Obviously, there arent exclusively proletarian forces, but that has been always the case, whether it was in 1917 or 1936. This refusal to engage in the current struggle, because its already "adulerated" by the bourgeosie, makes of the communist left, in general, very irrelevant.
I do read the ICC publications ocassionally, and I think they have some good things to say. However, it seems to me, that they live in history, rather than the present.
it seemed to me that they just wanted to tell everyone else that everything they were doing was shit and reformist,
The problem is that it often is.
I think people's problems with the ICC largely stem from a public relations problem rather than anything more serious,
We discussed this with the ICC recently. I feel they have a tendency to blame the public relations problem mainly on the fact that they are saying things that people don't like. In a way I feel that they are dodging an issue that they really need to do something about. We know that we are saying things that people don't like, so it is best to do it in the least alienating way possible as the content is enough without bad presentation.
Devrim
...it says in the aims and principles bits that all 'official anarchists' are part of the left wing of capitalism
They base this on them supporting the Second World War. I think that it quite a difficult thing to say about anarchism precisely because it doesn't have 'theoretical unity'.
Devrim
In Venezuela, for example, obviously there is not socialism, however, there is a real proletarian force in the bolivarian movement, that needs to be pushed towards communism. Obviously, there arent exclusively proletarian forces, but that has been always the case, whether it was in 1917 or 1936. This refusal to engage in the current struggle, because its already "adulerated" by the bourgeosie, makes of the communist left, in general, very irrelevant.
The communist left should be engaged in all workers' struggles on a class terrain. We don't think that the 'Bolivarian movement' is a workers' struggle on a class terrain. We think that it a movement that is being used against the working class. The way that it mobilised support for attacks on the conditions of oil workers is one obvious example.
Devrim
Loads of garbage about cults - but still not a word about what should form the basis for an agreement around revolutionary organisation?
Quote:
Well, I don't have any first hand knowledge of it, so I only know what I read in the websites and publications of the ICC and their various splits. But really, I think it's enough to read what the ICC themselves write about these splits to see that there are major problems with the group.Why? Because they call the groups who split parasitic? Do you have any idea why they call them parasitic? Did you read their piece on parasitism? Are you following the press of those groups?
What do you know about the splits and the circumstances in which those splits took place?
They don't only call them parasites, but also thieves, thugs, liers, snitches, "a small association of wreckers" who are are conducting "hate campaigns" against members of the ICC and show "behaviour fitting only for police informers", just to give a few of the descriptions the ICC has used of their latest split. And yes, I do have an idea why they call them these things.
I did read their Theses on parasitism. In my opinion this text doesn't say anything useful, but is just more sectarian attacks against their "competitors" in the proletarian camp.
I'm not an avid reader of the left communist press, but I do read a bit here and there. I think International Perspectives is a good magazine and a lot more interesting than the stuff the ICC publishes. Mouvement Communiste also seem interesting, but I haven't read much of them. ICG sometimes publishes interesting articles, but they also seem to be into conspiracy theories and insurrectionism, so I would be vary of them as a group. The "Internal Faction" seems to be as bad as the ICC, and their writing style is terrible. I don't think I have read anything from the (long defunct) Communist Bulletin Group. They should put their texts online.
So how much do you think people need to read before they are allowed to publicly criticise the ICC?
Quote:
There is really no contradiction here: If a group doesn't allow dissent, then any internal criticism is likely to lead to expulsions or splits.What makes you think that the group in question doesn't allow dissident?
I don't know actually know what kind of internal discussions the ICC have, but I would say having a series of ugly spits isn't usually a sign of healthy internal debate. I any case, I would say that if members are only allowed to voice their opinions inside the organization, but aren't allowed to tell anyone else, then the organization doesn't allow dissent. Sorry if that offends you, but that's how I see it.
Also, I think it's a bit funny when people think calling the ICC a sect is slander, but calling other groups and persons parasites is just applying a political label...
baboon - read past my first paragraph, i was actually being nice about you
Back on topic, this is a tricky question for me. I can see that the left-communist take on this is very logically consistent, the idea that our organisations should be very theoretically consistent and homogenous because if we just let anyone join then we will be sucked into reformism by new people joining who haven't got the same level of understanding of capitalism etc.
whilst i can see the logic in this, it does give me a rather unpleasant impression of elitism, that the revolutionary organisation will always be a small group of people based on their theoretical knowledge rather than their material conditions, in a way that seems to me to discount the possibility of people learning through struggle.
In our local group we have a couple of members who perhaps don't view class as being of the same prime importance as our organisation does generally (though they do see it as important, obviously). However they liked what our group does, joined it, and seem to be coming to a more class-based political viewpoint - and if they want to campaign around issues not explicitly related to class then they just do it independently of the group. If we were left communists I presume they would have been told that they were not theoretically pure enough, and we wouldn't have had this exchange of ideas, or these keen people helping out in what I think is the worthwhile activity that we do.
That said i don't think revolutionary organisations should just let anyone in either, and I can see the dangers of that approach. I guess my solution would be to give the membership the right to choose who is and isn't let in on an individual basis, but to set the bar rather lower than the left communists. I know this isn't a particularly satisfactory conclusion, but I don't claim to have all the answers (that's not a swipe at anyone, by the way )
In any case, my first question still stands. Could those who think that we demand too high a level of agreement from our members outline what they think should be the basic points of agreement for a revolutionary organisation?
Personally, I think there has to be agreement about the general aims and principles, and if you don't agree with these, you shouldn't be in the group. As long as you don't say anything that is contrary to the A&Ps, you should be free to argue your views where you want, even if you disagree with the majority of the group on this or that point.
But then we have very different views on the role of revolutionary organization.
revolutionary organization
What is a revolution anyway? To form an acting revolutionary organisation, a group must agree on what a revolution means in terms of tasks. Communism is not a state of affairs to establish, consequently communist “organisations” can do no more than defend their principles.
We know that we are saying things that people don't like, so it is best to do it in the least alienating way possible
People don’t like it because it’s supernatural end-is-nigh claptrap and self-righteous “humanitarian” indignance.
They don't only call them parasites, but also thieves, thugs, liers, snitches, "a small association of wreckers" who are are conducting "hate campaigns" against members of the ICC and show "behaviour fitting only for police informers", just to give a few of the descriptions the ICC has used of their latest split. And yes, I do have an idea why they call them these things.
Good. Then you also know that they call all those due to the material actions of those who split, not their politics.
So how much do you think people need to read before they are allowed to publicly criticise the ICC?
You can publicly criticize the ICC, that is their politics, all you want. I don't think anyone, including the ICC, would have any problem with that: in fact they would be quite happy about it. However when you say that "the problem is more that they seem to solve their internal disagreements by regular purges of parasitical elements" you are talking bollocks unless you have serious evidence to back that this is actually how they handle their internal discussions, and you have admitted that you don't know much about it:
I don't know actually know what kind of internal discussions the ICC have
I any case, I would say that if members are only allowed to voice their opinions inside the organization, but aren't allowed to tell anyone else, then the organization doesn't allow dissent.
Excuse me?
To the extent that the debates going on in the organisation generally concern the whole proletariat they should be expressed publicly
Sorry if that offends you, but that's how I see it.
It doesn't offend me, I just think it is a very prejudiced attitude.
Also, I think it's a bit funny when people think calling the ICC a sect is slander, but calling other groups and persons parasites is just applying a political label...
The problem is not that people are calling the ICC a sect by itself. The problem is that all that backs those accusations are prejudices, where the ICC has material evidence when they are accusing other groups with parasitism.
Anyway, whatever...
How far should theoretical unity go? I'd start with Aims & Principles, but I think there is often a body of knowledge that is associated with a group that tends to get included, often informally. I can see why the ICC go to the lengths they do to document all these debates and why but I'm not really comfortable with that level of theoretical unity, for the same sorts of reasons outlined by Magnifico.
I think it's also important to say that members should have the right to argue for changes in the aims and principles, though clearly that shouldn't be a free for all,
regards,
Martin
From my practical experiances I can say that aims and practices are not enough for becoming a member of revolutionary organisation. A close militant might accpept all the principles, however organising inside a communist org. is not similar to that of burgeoise org.s .A militant who is involved but not organised must intervene with the group, join discussions with them and also regularly write to its bulletin. Only in this way he/she can more clearly understand divergences. I know this is not something like what capitalist "common sense", pragmatic rationality tells us... However it is the practical way.
so, I think a revolutionary organisations theoretical unity is not something only stated in aims and principles and left behind then. It is also something practical, something reproduced in daily communist militant work. In that sense there must be a process for joining an organisation in which the divergences would become obvious and discussed. Because if this process is missing, then organisations life is sabotaged in every movement and every turn. This also harms the sympatisers and kill their revolutionary enthusiasm... I am personaly familiar to this with left and anarchism
marmot wrote:
In Venezuela, for example, obviously there is not socialism, however, there is a real proletarian force in the bolivarian movement, that needs to be pushed towards communism. Obviously, there arent exclusively proletarian forces, but that has been always the case, whether it was in 1917 or 1936. This refusal to engage in the current struggle, because its already "adulerated" by the bourgeosie, makes of the communist left, in general, very irrelevant.The communist left should be engaged in all workers' struggles on a class terrain. We don't think that the 'Bolivarian movement' is a workers' struggle on a class terrain. We think that it a movement that is being used against the working class. The way that it mobilised support for attacks on the conditions of oil workers is one obvious example.
Devrim
can you show me anything about the oil workers, comrade?
Still, there are going to be always workers that are going to get a negative impact in any struggle. I am sure that in the russian revolution, there were a few workers who had it worse than befoire.
Programme First! Principles suck. I'm not a Trot, but unite behind tasks, not bureaucratic philosophical procrastination.
marmot how is your spanish?
article on recent oil workers strikes in Venezuela
Marmot: The "russian/october revolution" can mean two things, depending on the speaker: either the activity of the workers' councils, or the counter-revolution of the Russian state led by the bolsheviks. In the first case, although some groups of workers may have been individually worse off, the point is that the revolution was the self-activity of a large part of the working class for communist goals. In the second case I'd say its obvious that the entire worldwide working class lost out.
On the other hand, the "bolivarian revolution" can only be defined as the actions of the Venezuelan state/Chavez/MVR, no matter how many 'grassroots' elements surround them and support them (in some ways its similar to the Chinese GPCR). The fact is that the Venezuelan state (as a collective capitalist) has no choice but to attempt to improve the rate of valorization in Venezuela, including in the oil fields, just as any individual capitalist has no choice but to attempt to improve the rate of valorization in their firm; otherwise they would be replaced by the board of directors, or run out of business.
No matter how much rival bourgeois elements led the oil workers into the strike, the fact is that Chavez and the 'Bolivarian Revolution' used it as an excuse to rationalize the oil fields through 59,000 layoffs (compare this with the fact that he leaves former coup-plotters in power).
As with the GPCR, we can say that no matter how many workers are involved with the 'bolivarian revolution', they are only helping to insure that the capitalists most suited to extracting surplus value end up in charge.
Leo: Many of the former ICC groups, such as the IFICC, do have detailed, material reasons for why they accuse the current ICC of whatever they do. Obviously I'm not in a position to know who's right (I doubt you are either), but you can't write off all criticism by saying that the ICC have written material explanations for their use of 'parasite' and other labels yet no one has written material explanations for their criticism of the ICC.
The venezuela article was interesting; im translating it and will post it tomorrow.
Leo: Many of the former ICC groups, such as the IFICC, do have detailed, material reasons for why they accuse the current ICC
Yeah, they accuse them with councilism for being involved with the anti-CPE movement, for example and opportunist because they recognize that global warming exists.
Obviously I'm not in a position to know who's right (I doubt you are either)
I think I am, I talked a lot about all their splits, and this one specifically also, with them, and I know what happened in detail from first hand knowledge and I made my conclusions.
but you can't write off all criticism by saying that the ICC have written material explanations for their use of 'parasite' and other labels yet no one has written material explanations for their criticism of the ICC.
I am not writing of criticism. I am simply saying that people here who call ICC a sect or who say that there is no internal discussion etc. have nothing to back it up at all.
Well I think Felix has got it about right in his reflections on the ICC and that the 'impression' that organisation and it's members give to others is certainly 'cultish'.
For the benefit of Leo I will say that whilst I have little knowledge of how the ICC operates internally these days I have had plenty of contact with ICC members and ex members in the past (as well as some in the present) and have followed over many years the publications of both without changing my overal view of that organisation.
The ICC has many strenghs, but it's organisational approach and requirements for theoretical unity and maintenance of a unified 'public' face have done neither itself nor the wider pro revolutionary movement any favours in my opinion.
It is instructive to see how 'Internationalist Perspective' (formally the EFICC) operate to promote public discussion amongst pro revolutionaries so much better, but had to break away from the parent body to do it!
In the 'Rosa Luxemburg' discussion thread and in personal contact, ICC members have made it clear that membership does not require agreement with their published views on her Crisis theories, despite these apparently being at the core of much of what the organisation writes. But where is the debate on this in the ICC, does it exist at all? and if it does, why cannot it be publicly expressed, or do such disagreements have to wait till members leave?
I recall in the distant past internal discussions in the ICC about the British steel workers strikes which were cleary animated but it seems couldn'y possibly be expressed publicly. For the life of me I never understood why not.
There are many other such examples which illustrate the same problem which others here have referred to.
None of this is an argument against the need for pro revolutionary groups to have basic principles and strategies as a basis of membership but that should not stand in the way of individual members being able to publicly express diverse views within such a framework.
Finding the right balance is of course down to practice and experience in the end but the ICC does not set a good example. Unfortunately there are few anarchist groups around which get the balance right either - mostly failing in the opposite way to the ICC.
I have come to accept that in a world where pro revolutionary groups are in such a small minority, the shear struggle to survive means that most groups are defective in one way or another and the best that can be said is that if there can be open and honest debate between them and other non commited individuals, that the overal effect might be beneficial.
Which is where Lib Com (at it's best, when avoiding the uneccesary abuse) demonstrates it's worth.
[The first part of the article is a letter from a Brazilian reader, and includes a spanish translation of an extract from an english language article about oil workers strikes from venezuelanalysis.com.]
Dear comrade T,
We salute the sending of your letter, to which we are responding briefly and we will try to speak with you about the situation of the class struggle in Venezuela.
About the struggle of the oil workers
The article that they sent you describes part of what took place in a struggle which, between last september and october, was carried out by the oil workers of the state company PDVSA, the most important in the country, who got rid of some injured workers (one who was pregnant) and as well as some arrested workers. The struggle caused a slowdown for more than 8 months of the discussion over the collective contract that regulates the wages and benefits of the workers. The workers struck and demonstrated in the facilities of PDVSA in the state of Anzoategui, in eastern Venezuela, and Zulia, south of Lake Maracaibo in the west. The company, in a shady deal with the unionsm, who were mostly controlled by pro Chavez tendencies, delayed the discussion of the wage clauses. The workers struggle put pressure on several union leaders, such as those of C-CURA (Autonomous, Revolutionary, Unitary, Classist Current) of the UNT (Unitary Union of Workers), or those of FEDEPETROL (Federation of oil, chemical, and related workers of Venezuela), who were made to "radicalize" against PDVSA and the government, so as not to be unmasked in front of the workers.
In the end, the unions and PDVSA obtained aproval of a miserable wage incrase of 12,000 bolivars/day, which was rejected by the workers, who demanded an increase of 30,000. In this way, the monthly salary of an oil worker reached approximately 1,320,000 Bolivars (equivalent to $610, according to the official exchange rate, and as low as $300, if we use the unofficial exchange rate, which is regulated by defining the real price of various products and services).
So that you have a reference, this salary is equivalent to a bit more than the cost of a basket of basic goods for a family of 5 (as of Oct 2007), which comes to 1 million Bolivars. Even adding the [either treasury bonds, or vouchers] which oil workers receive, they don't make enough to lead a dignified life; already its necessary to add to the low salaries, both the continual increase of the price of goods and the shortages, which according to the Central Bank of Venezuela is 30% with respect to basic products. And the oil workers are some of the best paid in the country!!
Without a doubt, we think this struggle has had a political and moral victory por the oil workers and the venezuelan proletariat as a whole:
-In the first place, the oil workers have gone to bring the struggle back up onto their own class terrain; after having been one of the sectors hit hardest by the bourgeoisie, to being the center of the polarization between chavistas and opponents, who permitted the state to get rid of 20,000 PDVSA employees in 2003 (at least half of whom were workers or employees of low rank), without one note of compensation. This struggle has a major significance in the moments when the Chavistas and opposition give force to the political polarization, through the campaign in favor or against the constitutional reform proposed by Chavez himself. The workers, at least during these mobilizations, have placed themselves in the terrain of their own demands, despite the harassment of the bourgeoisie to place any workers or social struggle in the terrain of the polarization.
-The struggle has made clear [lit. naked] the bourgoies, antiworker character of the Chavez government: equal to that of the preceding governments (to which Chavismo assigns all of the social ills), that of Chavez also responds with repression, teer-gas bombs, lead, and jail against the workers who "dare" to fight for a dignified life.
An important fact: the oil workers of Puerto La Cruz, in the east of the country, some of whom were sympathetic to Chavismo, have denounced the high wages of the "socialist" officials of PDVSA which are more than 50 times the basic monthly salary (much higher than the wages of the industry officials during preceding governments), while they deny raises to the workers which would allow them to cover at least the basic basket [of goods] (the exploitation of their labor power being the primary source of the salaries and kickbacks of the upper state bureaucrats and of the profits of various sectors of the national bourgeoisie; we take this into account).
-These struggles, which were preceded by others last May, which mobilized the oil workers to obtain the reinstatement of more than 1000 workers of the revently nationalized oil companies, whom the "socialist" government of Chavez tried to throw to the street: genuine and important expression of workers' solidarity, in which the families of the affected workers also participated.
-As we've said, the workers found themselves unsatisfied with this agreement. An uneasiness settled in, which could awaken at any moment.
Its important to add that the same reaction of the oil workers is beginning to develop with a certain force in other sectors. The doctors, teachers, and some other sectors of public service workers have started mobilizations for wage demands; they have created assemblies where, apart from demanding wage increases, they have denounced the high level of deterioration of public services. In a recent assembly of doctors in Caracas, who were part of the Health Ministry, they identified themselves as "health proletarians".
Its important to say that those for and against the government have tried to divide and polarize the movement, succeeding in many cases. Moreover the government mobilizes its organizations (bolivarian circles, communal councils, the social ombudsman, and when its necessary, the armed groups) to scare and even physically assault the workers.
Another aspect, no less important, is that almost daily the impoverished masses (mainly sympathizers of the government or with a client relationship to it) express their indignation, protesting the shortage of living, the crime, the lack of services, etc., and ultimately the shortage of products such as milk, sugar, cooking oil, etc. In some cases, they have been repressed. This situation is in contrast to the high officials of the regime (called the "boliburgesia", or bolivarian bourgeoisie), who are strutting their opulence with the most open frankness; they have made massive investments in armements, which before you know it will be unleashed against the proletarians and the impoverished masses; and they've invested important resources from the oil rent into the development of the imperialist policy of the Venezuelan state in the region.
This is the real face of "21st century socialism" promoted by Chavez and lauded by the Left, leftists, and "altermundialistas" [other-worldists, supporters of the WSF], who "slobber" to see their discussions through TeleSur; who as much as the entire bourgeois regime, are sustained by the exploitation of the working masses. The one difference is the "revolutionary" verbal diarrhea, in the hope of confusing the proletarians inside and outside of Venezuela.
About the "reduction" of the working day
The "reduction" of the working day from 8 to 6 hours per day is considered in the consitutional reforms proposed by Chavez, along with other work-related "benefits", such as social security por the workers of the informal economy (which as in the rest of Latin America covers more than 50% of the labor force). These proposals, before seeking a real increase in the workers' quality of life, are the "cock-and-bull story", the big lie, with the hope of obtaining the support of the workers for the official proposal to reform the constitution.
The official ideology has not said how this reduction in the working day will be realized; but it is supposed that the un-worked hours will be utilized for political "formation" (indoctrination) or also in the so-called "socialist emulation" which the Fidelista cuban bourgeoisie invented to exploit the workers by the state, with no pay. Furthermore, one of the objectives of the bourgeoisie (Chavista or not) is to see how to charge taxes on the informal workers; by offering them the benefits of social security (which don't offer any real protection to the workers), the state will have great control over them and will be able to impose taxes on them.
The principal objective of the constitutional reform (charged with a big dose of hypocrisy, like every constitution in the world), is to strengthen the legal framework for greater control of the state over society, more militarization, legally justify the repression of the social movements, and permit the indefinite reelection of Chavez as president of the republic, among other things.
We can not lose sight of the fact that the Chavez government is a bourgeois government, where the necessities and priorities of Capital prevail; in this sense, we can not be gullible (which we do not believe is your case), with respect to the Chavez government's search for the "greatest amount of social happiness", as the reformed text of the constitution puts it. Its precisely this deceitful propaganda that the Chavista movement throws out through their PR campaigns on the internal and international level, so that the workers of Venezuela and other countries will think that in Venezuela there is a real improvement in the living conditions of the workers and the population; this is the big lie sustained at its base by Chavista propaganda.
The capitalist crisis inescapably obligates every bourgeoisie, whether of the Right, the Center, or the Left, to attack the living conditions of the working class. In all of the countries where they have reduced the working day (France, Germany, etc.; including Venezuela, where at the beginning of the '90s they reduced the work day from 44 to 40 hours per week), this measure has not resulted in an improvement of the living conditions of the class; completely to the contrary, the wages and social benefits have worsened, the precarious work has increased.
The intensification of the capitalist crisis will force the working class of Venezuela to fight against the state, as the oil, health, and education workers have done. In this way, positioned on its class terrain, the proletariat will be able to leave the trap of the political polarization which has kept its hands tied, and take part in the struggle of the world proletariat for the construction of real socialism.
Hoping we've responded to your questions,
the ICC.
Wow, thanks Oliver.
yeah that's good shit - if the english could be tidied up that'd be great in the library.
Oliver, that's excellent, real practical solidarity
i'm cleaning up the english and should finish by tomorrow sometime.
In less than two weeks time hundreds of neo-Nazis and racists will descend on the coastal town of Dover calling for Britain to “close the border”. It is vital that anti-fascists and anti-racists...
A short biography of Séraphine Pajaud, French anarchist and champion of atheism, anti-militarism and women's liberation
An article by Staughton Lynd reinterprets the concept of union democracy to include workers of all kinds (unionized workers, nonunion workers, and farmers); protection of the rights to strike,...
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
Class struggle, unions, history, anarchism, football, work, novels, cinema, art, music, tv shows... I can count more if you want.