Response to FGCI Klasbatallo (Canada) I bow to the next request of fellow Klasbatallo, but it pisses me off, I do not want to answer the same stale salads on the worship of the transcendent and stainless Leninist organization, I do not want to answer Weirdoes who have not even taken the time to read the text before them and recite the lesson from the old Chirik by heart for 20 years, but are unable to answer this very interesting text Klasbatallo (reproduced below on this blog):
"As you have perhaps noticed, the FGCI responded to our" contribution "in January. Although we are not necessarily in agreement with all their criticism does not seem in any way respond to our text itself (she accuses us of advice by the band - we're not), we believe that this criticism is part of a process of debate that we hope will be a little more forward. Also, we wondered, since you have already published our "contribution" to your blog with your critical comments, if it were possible for you to put the criticism of FGCI again with your own comments if you judge the all relevant, as your blog is read and experienced than ours.
http://fractioncommuniste.org/fra/bci04/bci04_4.php
Although In any comrade, receive our fraternal greetings,
A. For international calls - Klasbatalo! _______________________________________________
I folded because I do not find much interest in rehashing well-known two or three members of the Fraction of robust international communist left, which has already split the outer fraction. Most say fractions or groups are ridiculously reduced to two or three individuals and speak as if the world party. The response of two zebras that FGCI is even more ridiculous than the sermons of the sect ICC:
1. They defend the sect as the defending trotskiens the Stalinist party until he shot, and the ICC is not the Third International degenerate, it is degenerate alone.
2. They accuse him of wanting to liquidate Controversies three main organizations of the maximalist environment, no need to controversies they have settled themselves;
3. The greatest danger is the Council, no it's my grandmother! These old fossils from the 1980 ICC rehash an old analysis, which remains valid, but that is not the first today, there are more urgent when the proletariat is not moving her ass against major attacks and is unable to demonstrate class solidarity, it does not care intellectuals and anti-party of Lenin and hampers Chirik.
remarks arrogant FGCI torque (I almost elf!) Are naturally good. Controversy is nothing but a coterie worldly but they have not killed or raped Bordigist an old activist of the IAC. They have the right to live and I am entitled to ignore them. Masochistic defense groups nonexistent each event in the world for years (and I rant enough against this weakness, except that PCI is an effort to act quickly in times of grave) is as useless as our two FGCI are invisible, impossible to contact, unable to talk to a stinking Marxist sectarianism stutterers. It is good to the evil behind his keyboard, but that nobody cares, and defense prodomo ITC and TCI is the blurb, these two sects are more than circles unable to invisible too. FGCI our two (or three, with a central committee member of the base + a + a sympathizer) zigaguent dead stuff with a sudden they want to do the grouping in this phantom of Damen and now "around"? What they turn not round! TCI former Battaglia (international communist tendency, tendency of what, who?) What is it that has split from it without knowing why, who and who and who and what. ITC is the same, and more obscure point out that militants of the CNT came I ask "what happens in there). It's over the past Blanqui Lensers clandestine, self-proclaimed party, or he is suspicious. We can not trust guys who remain hidden behind a camera or hierarchical mustache behind a site or behind a blurb on a current hackneyed words left Communist no longer means that activist adrift, hatreds annealed, deafness, refusal of otherness. All the lessons were not lost in this unfortunate current maximalist but dispersed units will never meet, the proletariat would have liked, but he will. The course of history without continuous scrap the old petty bourgeois. And I, dear fellow Canadians, I say something to your donors lesson: the party never appears before the revolutions, you lie and keep lying, band has been. It appears, in any case after, it will not be the product of the ICC or advice. Fortunately.
JLR
PS: After a visit to the site of TCI, the group around which our donors want us to do great belly dance, there's nothing, absolutely nothing, not a word about the upheavals that have shaken the growing Arabic for two months! Hey mate, their shall we say, wake up we overthrew the capitalist state, can you give us Marxists for your good advice to move faster towards the ideal communiste.IL there is one that many will answer: we do need a wake up call sooner!
______________________________
RESPONSE TO TEXT-International Communications KLASBATALO
ON THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO A STATE OF THE COMMUNIST LEFT by Fraction of the Left Communist International (FGCI)
"Jung and a host of other will not let themselves be convinced that there is never a difference of principle between us and Ruge, they stick to the view that these are only personal bickering. When told that Ruge is not a communist they do not want not believe and express their regret at seeing rashly rejected a "literary authority" as Ruge "(Letter from Engels to Marx, November 19, 1844).
Since our initial contacts with fellow-Communist Internationalist Klasbatalo (ex- ICD), we have continually discuss and try to clarify the issue of the communist forces of our time, what we call the proletarian camp, or the proletarian political milieu. The contribution of peers is a mark important step in our discussion. It is particularly important in highlighting the inadequacies of current major groups of the Communist Left - the inability to assume an active and decisive role of cluster grouping because of the weight of bigotry and political opportunism - it just call them a hand and it is indirectly reflected in s 'questioning, increasing trends in discharge and disposal of these groups.
While the open crisis of capital and workers' reactions it provokes, announce the opening of a process towards class confrontations decisive front and solid, the dispersion state of weakness and political camp of proletarian - which should tend to strengthen and consolidate around him, around his positions and policy guidelines - Instead favors anti-trends like organization and councilist anarchist. The point that today a movement - often composed of former militants ICC "disappointed" by elements reinforced anarchist - just advocate, directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, for the liquidation and disappearance of key organizations the proletarian camp.
Already in April 2009, the group internationalist outlook called for a gathering of pro-revolutionary "that, for our part we rejected in particular for his ignorance, that is to say, in fact for its rejection, main organizations of the Communist Left and for his anarchic tone (see our response to the call amid pro-revolutionary Bulletin 47 of the Internal Fraction of ICC). Since then, this dynamic release of the main organizations of the proletarian camp has increased, particularly because of the reinforcement it receives from many former "worshipers disappointed" as those found in the Forum of the Communist Left. They joined right out (voluntary) of the ICC to "IP Call" and became the most active destroyers of participating organizations of the communist left to the point of advocating the extinction (see Controversies 3, it is midnight in the Left Communiste1). We rejected and fought this thesis in the liquidator and destructive form of FGCI 2 in the text the proletarian camp he finally goes bankrupt?
Can we reconcile the irreconcilable?
In their contribution, based on two texts, the comrades of CIK "were given, they declare input mandated to respond to the two groups (...) attempting to reconcile" although " these two positions seem irreconcilable. " Their contribution is suffering greatly from this commitment to "synthesis" and "conciliation". Based on their willingness to reconcile the irreconcilable, the text of the comrades is brought to glaring contradictions and the sudden, dangerous political concessions that are expressed in particularly dangerous political mistakes. To summarize their contribution in summary, the CIK appear on the one hand criticize the article Controversies - who "wants an implicit appeal to scuttle the three major existing organizations of the Communist Left" - while supporting his argument based on Marx and Engels: "This is actually how Marx and Engels saw the creation and disappearance of political organizations are endowed with the proletariat. (...) As well as stressed Controversies (...) after the ebb of the course struggles, read the exhaustion of the proletariat as crushed often by his defeat, the organization tends to seek legitimacy for the preservation of its existence. It tends to sink in particular tests that divide on issues of second order. "And the companions of the CIK is one of quality, to say out loud who they think, and especially to think that Controversies so hard: "You can easily draw a parallel to that effect with the ICC seems to have deeply embedded in the organizational paranoia and autism in recent decades" 2 (emphasis added).
In fact, any Controversies in criticizing his rejection of historical continuity, to assume against the proletariat and the middle communist, his own history and its own responsibilities - his supporters have a history of which they are accountable - the comrades of CIK repeat the arguments most erroneous controversies leading to the adoption of an anti vision councilist-type party. The first error, perhaps the least important, is that of ITC, and groups of the Left that would bankrupt in 30 years. The second is that any organization, whatever the historical period, the price of power relations between classes, whatever the circumstances, and regardless of the organization - left, fraction, group, circle ... -Is inevitably led to degenerate following mechanically, inexorably, reflux struggles - which leads to the abandonment of all combat fraction3. Finally, Marx and Engels were the first bearers of this vision that is then taken over by balance and even the Communist Left from France which is from the ICC. Nothing is further from the truth!
In their desire to reconcile the irreconcilable, peers are asked to commit two types of errors: first, belong to what we describe as a misunderstanding or confusion policies, while the latter are political mistakes. Misunderstandings
Major "misunderstandings" relate to two questions: "clustering" and "discussion".
When our faction, as it always has, calls for "consolidation" of the forces of the communist left around a "cluster reunion", it in no way reduces the process to a simple and immediate membership the "pole". This "simple and immediate membership" can only mean the complete elimination of existing differences and therefore the assertion of a near-total agreement with the positions of the organization-pole. This vision of the group - which unfortunately prevails today, especially among organizations from the communist left - is not only inaccurate but also breaking with tradition and practice of true historical communist movement. This is the tradition and practice that we strive to defend and which are the opposite of sectarianism ambient current, which is marked by the exclusive defense of his "little chapel" and the rejection of other political tendencies. If it does reference than what prevailed in the period from the late 1920s and 1930s, yet marked by the cons-revolution and defeat deeply working class, it is clear that, despite these conditions particularly unfavorable, currents and international organizations and especially the opposition of the Left Communist (Italian, Germano-Dutch and others) have increased (because they felt the historic responsibility and they had the political will) attempts to combine their forces. These attempts were based, of course, a number of basic common positions but does not imply in any way, that differences should be left at the door or put under the table to take part. They were manifested by frequent and direct links, through holding meetings and even international conferences, sometimes by the establishment of common organizational structures (international secretariats or offices ...) and by publishing newsletters "discussion" or "information" international, and even if their merger into a single organization was not done.
the same way that many organizations have sought to regroup, highlighting their differences and confronting them when we speak of the TCI (former IBRP) as "cluster grouping" worthy of the name today ' Today, it does not, in our view and in view of the communist tradition, the absolute need to unite in it but, at least, around it, this organization is central to the process of reunification. In this sense we believe the TCI must assume the responsibility that devolves today and for now, she is only able to assume. Contrary to the CIK qu'écrivent, not us We grant that "immediately" contract "of the cluster grouping the Communist Internationalist Tendency. But it is his link "organic", namely its historical link with organizations in the past is also its theoretical connection with his loyalty to Marxism and its political link to the claim of continuity programmatic labor movement, and organizational the ability of international intervention - particularly the press - the proletariat and towards other revolutionary minorities, and it is finally the deep current weakness of the other organizations were eligible to play this role of "cluster grouping".
Unfortunately, we must recognize that TCI also has a major weakness at this level - and it shares with all other organizations of the Left Communist Current - weakness that stems from the weight of the cons-revolution and fracture organic. This is particularly expressed through a tendency to a monolithic view of wrong and the political vanguard of the proletariat and was difficult to conceive the existence of different positions within it (inevitable reflection of heterogeneity that exists within the classroom). It is this confrontation between different positions and even divergent as is the development of class consciousness and that may arise from the process of unification and consolidation of the communist forces. There is no aggregation and formation of a vanguard of the proletariat united and consistent if the differences are ignored or refused.
Criticizing our "curse" against the approach of controversies, the CIK argue in turn that "time is for discussion at the opening of the trial, harsh criticism, certainly, but fraternal" - something with which all world will declare in agreement. But the comrades must realize that there is debate and discussion - or rather argle-bargle and political debate. In our case here, the discussion can be meaningful only if it aims to clarify policy for the reunification of the true communist forces. It therefore can not participate in the political clarification on the condition of being in the program framework and policy of the Communist Left. Any other part of the "discussion" can at best correspond to drift into impotence, in participation in the dispersal and political confusion, at worst, based on another type of concern (discount questioning of Marxism, revision or rejection of the historical experience of our class), it generally tends to move away from the camp of the proletariat.
"We are united under a voluntary decision, specifically to fight the enemy and not give into the swamp next door, where guests from the beginning, we were blamed for formed a separate group, and preferred the path of struggle in the path of conciliation. And some of us shouting "Come in this swamp! And when they actually ashamed, they retort: What backward people you are "Are not you ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to follow a better way! Oh! Yes, gentlemen, you are free not only inviting, but to go wherever you want, even in the marsh (...). But then we drop it by hand, do not cling to us and do not defile the great name of liberty, because we too are "free" to go wherever we please, free to fight both the marsh those who carry them "(Lenin, What to do?).
For our part, and far from a supposed" rigidity "that we oppose the will of" discussion (supposedly) open "claimed by some and others, we have had ever since our establishment as a fraction within the ICC to raise, lift and participate in "debates" that have real political issues, that is to say that beyond political battles that we are against the influence of bourgeois ideology in our class (weight of the board, anarchism, democracy, individualism ...), we focus the discussion with and around the main camp of proletarian political organizations with reference to these historic centers, and that to best promote the process of consolidation and clarification of policies, in view of the constitution of parti4.
Errors Political
councilist Contrary to the argument that the comrades of CIK resume when relying on the arguments of controversies, the existence of political organizations of the proletariat is a continuing need both in the period of ascendancy of capitalism in its historical period of decline, and in both periods of flow in periods of reflux of the struggle of the proletariat. This ongoing need is confirmed, verified by the constant struggle of Communists, starting with Marx and Engels - that incorporate the contrary CIK - for the construction, development, defense and even the maintenance existing organizations. Far from being the "organizational fetishism," the ongoing battle for the existence of the communist organization as the most advanced expression of class consciousness is first and foremost a political struggle of political confrontation and clarification is because of mergers, breaks, splits, and even disappearances of organizations. This is the struggle for political homogeneity and unity of political vanguards of the proletariat. For cons, the function and the formal reality of these revolutionary organizations are, themselves, dependent on historical periods: the mass organizations in the period of descent of capitalism in its decadent minority organizations; form sides in periods of massive struggles of the proletariat as "fraction" in times of reflux5.
should therefore wring the neck of this thesis the Council that the communist organizations come and go depending on mechanical development and ebb of the class struggle. Say that such was the understanding and practice of Marx and Engels, then in their stride in the history of the communist movement, is a falsification of history.
Marx-Engels, the Communist League and the 1st International
We can not go in detail here conditions on the dissolution of the Communist League (1852) and the 1st International (1872-1874). The argument often advanced by activists who turn their backs on the need of the organization and the party is that Marx and Engels had deliberately dissolved these organizations to devote himself to theoretical studies address the ebb of the class struggle. And they take the opportunity to draw a parallel with their present situation.
This parallel is already particularly misleading since historical times are completely different. At the time of the League and the AIT, capitalism was in full descent and conditions of class struggle quite different from those prevailing after the 1st World War and the revolutionary wave that follows. Similarly, the conditions that prevail between the League and AIT-they both are different: one is faced with the fact that the proletariat just beginning to form as a class, it is a class in training. This determines the shape and the very action of the League compared to the AIT. "The international movement of proletarian America and Europe is at this time [1890] became so powerful that not only its original shape and narrow - the secret League - but his second shape, much larger - the International Association of Public workers - it has become a hindrance, and the simple sense of solidarity, based on intelligence from the same class situation, is sufficient to create and maintain among workers of any country and any language, a single major party of the proletariat "(Engels, 1890, a few words about the history of the League of Communists).
More importantly, the dissolution of the League does that confirm a factual situation, namely the bursting of the real league in which there is no more political unity: "In short, the reserve was not advocating that we taste these people and he had to try to trigger revolutions, we will refusâmes of the most absolute. The split occurred as discussed in Revelations "(ibid., emphasis added).
The fallacy of an alleged" misuse "of Marx and Engels in the activity of the party is even more evident with the example of the dissolution of the 1st International. Again, we can not go into detail. Nevertheless, the effective dissolution of the International held in 18746. Far from turning away from any task of "consolidation" of the party, and Marx Engels, who tried to keep the organization moving Center in New York, are constantly in the years that follow, promote and participate in the formation of the German party to the point of posing as ... 1875, their political conditions to be able to adhérer7. The legend of a Marx retiring to the theoretical is a distortion of historical reality.
Behind this "interpretation" of history, is a political vision that contrasts the thinking and deepening the theoretical and political "party struggles," that is to say in the debates, discussions, confrontations positions including what one deals with "bickering" fraction. However, experience labor movement shows that the contrary is not thinking "pure" free of immediate contingencies, which is most favorable to the advanced theoretical and political, but rather the confrontation and polemic. Is this not precisely the history of fractions?
History fractions
We do not here back on the history and role of fractions - Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Pannekoek, etc. ... - In the 2nd International that the text of the comrades left behind. Yet this story is precisely the struggle for the organization and its defense against opportunism and revisionism.
Is equally false that the reference to Marx and Engels in the balance, to justify the dissolution of the proletarian political organizations. While the CIK does not refer to it. Nevertheless, and insofar as they rely on what leaders say Controversies - taking the example of stock after that of Marx and Engels to justify their removal of the "bickering" and liquidate existing organizations - we intend to answer here. Balance, that is to say, the Italian Left in exile in France and Belgium, comes from the Committee of Understanding (1925) which is the first internal grouping the Italian Communist Party to oppose the Bolshevization party, which marked the takeover of opportunism within the Party and the International. Far away from the "bickering" party to dedicate himself to "take stock" theoretical-political "revolutionary experience, the Italian left fighting tooth and nail in the party - despite the exclusions - to the point of presenting theses at the Congress of Lyon in 1926. Even better, and at least some activists Controversies souvenir8 it should, members of the faction continued to try to intervene despite the physical risks in meetings Stalinized PCs in the 1930s.
These distortions of reality history have very concrete policy implications and very dangerous. Certainly, in their text CIK9 talk mainly about contradictions that reveal their hesitation between two opposite ways, and their willingness to reconcile senseless, which leads to the historical and political errors and a centrist position in the present moment of the battle for the party . But the text of controversies which they reiterated the arguments are much more consistent, as was clearly noted (and criticized) the CIK themselves. Indeed, consequences and policy implications of this text is call "to scuttle the three main organizations current Communist left. "Clearly, for our part, we will do everything we can to protect and save these organizations. Two lines, two diametrically opposed perspectives, one excluding the other. As such, we intend to fight the text of Controversies.
Controversies calls for the liquidation of the proletarian camp organizations
According Controversies, "certainly it is midnight in the century of the communist left as it has been three decades since this current is passing through a crisis political and organizational very deep. "This finding may be due to the discrepancy between the reality of struggles, particularly in the years 1980, and an overly optimistic view of these, especially with the analysis of ITC then to 'the 1980 years of truth. " What is true for the ICC would also be for PCI "Bordigist" who saw the revolution in 1975. Already note in passing that this argument, the critical analysis of ITC on the 1980s, was mainly used by ... IBRP who did not share any of this analysis. Controversies will therefore have another explanation is calling for the dissolution of IBRP.
More importantly, this finding - and extremely dangerous politically incorrect, we return - based on the alleged scuttling by Marx and Engels in the Communist League and the 1st International we have already addressed most haut10. We have much to say also about shortcuts, and even the use of quotations from Marx and Engels, text Controversies to show that the continued existence of organizations of the proletariat in periods of declining struggles that can lead to degeneration. The text makes no distinction either between historical periods, or between different forms of organization of the proletariat. More importantly, it completely ignores the political struggles that have accompanied the process of degeneration, especially the fight against these processes fractions. It focuses only "small minority between two waves of struggle" whose function was limited to only link between the old and the new organization. Suffice it to note the following passage to dismiss it as typical of the council, dismissed the organization and the party, the current approach Controversies: "History has consistently shown that, fundamentally, the latter [the" organized political expressions "] naturally arise during the phases of social turmoil and fall apart during periods of reflux. More advice, you die! We do not develop further here because the object of our criticism of the text focuses on another aspect, the more immediate namely, his real political objective. Not only the text calls for the liquidation, to consider scuttling the comrades of CIK, organizations of the proletarian camp as they exist today, but worse still he calls to liquidate all their theoretical heritage, political and organizational.
So back to the quote claiming that "it is midnight in the century of the communist left." A series of observations is in support of the assertion. Some are just like those which emphasize the inability "to establish a common area of debate." But most are false and carry with them a challenge to the Communist Left. Indeed, the thesis is that the Communist Left is in crisis and did nothing, "product" since the late 1970s because it had overestimated the reality of class struggle in the 1980s.
"The shift to a lower number and magnitude of struggles throughout the working class in the mid-1970s, and widespread decline in the early 80s, will be at the origin of a growing gap in this current: a mismatch between objective reality marked by the ebb and subjective discourse that denies (...). Instead of understanding this shift and the general decline of the struggles adapting their policies and organizational structure as Marx and Engels had learned, the major groups of the communist left will persist in their policy errors. "
In support of this argument, emerged from nowhere in any case that these comrades out of their hat today, white as snow, although they have participated in developing and defending this analysis for nearly three decades, the argument comes first in the number of strikes and strikers. But this without any explicit reference to any conflict, any fighting!
No word on the miners' struggle in Britain, not a word about the struggles COBAS of Italy, nothing on the wildcat strikes of railway workers in France and Belgium, nothing about the struggles in utilities, steel in various countries, particularly Europe. And especially not on the mass strike in Poland! All these experiences have not existed as workers Controversies. So actually, if one denies these experiments - which those comrades most directly involved as activists ITC - it is difficult to take into consideration the advanced class consciousness, class, ie say in the great masses of workers, these experiments have allowed: the challenge to unions to the point that workers in struggle, becoming organized, or tended to organize themselves independently or in coordination COBAS; experience the confrontation unionism based on these bodies which sought to destroy it from within the organization attempts and the question of the extension of the struggle and the necessary confrontation with the unions, that is to say the fight for the political struggles of the Assemblies, the fight for unions contend the organization and direction of events Street and the question of generalization international workers' struggles, and how many others still experiences and policy lessons such as the rejection of leftist parties, and particularly of the Stalinist parties ...
We also leave aside here the assertion that groups have "best known as (...) consolidation process during the 1970s." The constitution of IBRP Is not a reunion? The constitution of the sections of the IAC in Sweden and Mexico do not they part of a consolidation process? ... Defending
ITC cons attacks Controversies
If we deny any experience of the 1980s, then effectively the advanced theoretical and political organizations have done Communists have not existed (the reader will forgive we refer almost exclusively to progress of our organization, ITC). One has to only take the International Review of the 1980 ICC, read their summary to see how this organization has spoken, clarified, deepened, was also reappropriated theoretical and political issues. Cite just a few directly related to the reality of class struggle of the 1980s: the party (among others: On the party and its relationship with class, 1983), the essential active role, "part- involved "we said, communist organizations in the struggles, the role of political leadership, and hence their presence at the forefront of the clash with unions and leftists (see much of the editorial of the magazine throughout the years), the distinction of class consciousness and awareness in the classroom; The historical conditions of the generalization of the struggle of the working class (1981) and process of the mass strike, the historic course, but also the "critical theory of the weak link" that defined the central historical role of the proletariat of Western Europe (The proletariat of Western Europe in the center of the spread of Class Struggle, 1982) in contrast to the position of IBRP of the time on the subject (see his Theses on Communist tactics in the peripheral countries capitalist) organizations operate revolutionary opportunism and centrism in the period of decadence (1986), the fight against modernism and the adviser, the defense theory of decadence: Understanding the decadence of capitalism (1987) and the defense of the fractions in the history of the labor movement, the imperialist war and the alternative war or revolution, war, militarism and imperialist blocs in the decadence of capitalism (1988); on the politics of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat Machiavelli, consciousness and unity of the bourgeoisie, etc. ...
We are sure we can find, perhaps to a lesser degree, while a series of texts produced by the IBRP and even among groups Bordigists survivors who participate and all of this deepening of political and theoretical advances throughout the years.
What we therefore propose Controversies today is to ignore all this, to act as if it had not existed. This is the old saw "modernist", under a blanket most carefully, which claims to reject the contributions of labor movement organizations and be part of the innovative. So, like all who wade into the middle councilist today, especially around Prospect internationalist comrades Controversies affirm their willingness to discuss with everyone, instead of "bickering" that is to say also without accountability to anyone, "freely", ie without reference to the debates of the past without reference to the main "suppliers" of advanced theoretical and policy today, namely the organization of the proletarian camp - whether you agree or disagree with the positions developed does not change to the method. In short, they are willing to discuss everything except the ... angry: political differences and actual positions that hire. If
was only that, it would not be too serious. But it gets worse. Taking advantage of sectarianism and political weaknesses of the leading organizations of the Communist Left, Controversy and the movement that now congregate around this review appear to offer an alternative to its weaknesses with scattered and isolated elements that are closer to the Communist Left and are clueless about her situation. She leads nowhere and the negation of the real communist left, the one that exists today and around which we must join together in spite of its weaknesses. The primary responsibility does not amount to controversies, but rather to IAC extremely serious opportunistic drift and vacillation and lack of confidence, if not tended to sectarianism of the Communist Internationalist Tendency.
Nevertheless the political struggle against the false alternative proposed by the comrades of controversies, that is to say, the political struggle against the danger of councilism - especially now that the ICC draws a line of equality between Communist Left and anarchism - is nevertheless necessary. That's how we warned the comrades and the entire camp against their approach in their first public appearances and publication:
"Finally, a quick little comment on the Forum for the Left Communist Internationalist: therefore, apparently, activists who recently left the ICC. We have read the first issue of controversy. And let's not paint, this first reading indicates that these comrades seem to take a path that can lead to political confusion and the questioning of the achievements of the ICC and the communist left. Already, in terms of method: they do not say what was their political career, which led them to break with the current and therefore does not appear to be part of the claim, criticism, and theoretical continuity, political and organizational. Immediate political consequence the rejection of any theoretical frame-political imperative and binding related to their history: first, they do not engage in combat within the ICC to defend their positions and take their opposition to current policy, and other hand, they threw themselves with enthusiasm unfounded, other than the goodwill expressed in the desire to "overcome all [the] legacy from the past", namely the dispersion, the profound differences and "painful wounds [ the] avant-garde of the proletariat ", the Call of IP to the point of having become the principal and zealous propagandist in Europe. They are "free" of any continuity and without reference. Thus, the most obvious and most immediate of this "freedom" sought for their own political past, is found for example in the text on the international situation of their review, trends and paradoxes of the international scene. This text, without any reference to analysis and positions developed by the major communist groups, even without any reference to ITC and its opportunistic positions on the matter, is unable to identify any prospect for the capitalist world and refuses to take a position on major theoretical and political issues faced by revolutionaries: what is the alternative-history posed by Marxism, war or revolution, is still valid? Is the capitalist world is moving towards a strengthening of the contradictions between the imperialist great powers whose dynamics can only lead to a third world war general? Does the imperialist war remains a central question facing the international proletariat? While taking up a vision akin to that of the theory of decomposition of the current ICC, the article did not say a word. We would have other critics, both the method and approach of comrades then, who can we believe that lead away, to leave the land of Marxism and communist political struggle, as pronouncements thereunder, but it deserves a more elaborate criticism on our part that we can accomplish here. Nevertheless, it seemed impossible to ignore the appearance of this Forum and not to inform our readers and the proletarian camp "(Bulletin 47 of the Internal Fraction of the IAC, Presentation on" Calling in the middle pro-revolutionary "We celebrating today).
Unfortunately, our prediction was far below what this group has developed. Today, fellow Controversies come to call almost openly the sinking of the ICC and ICT and especially to oblivion, ignorance, short for the liquidation, debates and theoretical developments and policies of three decades!
We tell CIK, although we maintain with members of a fraternal attitude Controversies, we do not see how we can on this basis, in this context, conduct discussions real "positive", with all this movement councilist. We can only fight as we fought the call in the middle "pro-revolutionary" internationalist perspective. We hope that, contrary to Jung, they "let themselves (...) convinced that there is a difference of principle between us and "the comrades of controversies, they are adhered to" the view that these are only personal bickering "to paraphrase Marx quoted at the beginning of this text.
The current and historical course the danger of councilism
"We believe the Council is the biggest danger to the revolutionary environment today, and more than substitutionism [the visions of the party defended in particular by the current" Bordigist "], it will become a very great danger for the intervention of the party in revolutionary struggles to come. (...) If the substitutionism constitutes a danger especially during periods of decline in the revolutionary wave, councilism is a much more formidable threat, especially in the period of rise of the revolutionary wave "(International Review of ITC 40, 1985 The danger of conseillisme11).
The CIK cite a text Internationalism (JFM) of 1947 - written by Comrade MC - to support their view that it should be open discussion and debate on all elements and groups that pretend to claim the communist left, regardless of their dynamics and their history. It s 'acts, in our opinion, a dangerous mistake. On the one hand, we can not put on the same plane groups and historical groups and isolated elements that seek to come together - to refer - about them on one hand and, on the other hand, groups and individuals who reject these organizations, the historical and collective they wear, and even call for its demise - Controversies saying out loud, it's worth, what others think and want in a whisper. On the other hand, and the very weak - especially sectarianism - historical groups that shape the proletarian camp, or proletarian political milieu, "open the discussion to all people of goodwill", that is to say without and exclusive method, means in practice today, in reality, diving into the medium anti-party, in the swamp with the group advising international perspective is the most grotesque expression.
Internationalism The text cited, let us recall in passing, does not call the dissolution of the revolutionary groups facing the worst situations cons-revolutionaries. But above all, the period of revolution extreme-cons in which it is located, and its consequences on the activity of communist groups, can be compared to that of today. Unfortunately, CIK does not take into account - it's a debate that we have so far barely touched with peers in spite of, to say the least, misunderstandings if differences - The historical reality of the current class struggle. If we can "understand", without sharing, the hesitations that peers may have a few more years to recognize the existence of a historical process towards decisive confrontation of classes, the explosion of the crisis and workers' reactions massive and growing on all continents have since come largely confirm the reality of a historic course towards class confrontations massive. And it is precisely when we are asked to disband organizations of the communist left and make a clean sweep of their experiences! Just when the proletariat struggle will increasingly need a critical need of its most advanced, highest, most consistent, on its own class consciousness, we are asked to destroy them!
paraphrase the quote, we are entitled to ask the fellow if "conditions and factors that determined the most profound defeat of the proletariat and the historic night of this period [the 1947] that has engulfed the labor movement revolutionary are [they not] exhausted "since then? -Has there been any "change of course before the generalization of the next imperialist war" that the GCF saw as imminent ? Especially since the outbreak of the crisis and the international workers' reactions are emerging now. Accordingly, "the revolutionaries [Today in 2010] can [they] claim to exercise a direct influence on events and effective? Be only "islands, men consciously and voluntarily going against the current (...) necessarily isolated from the broad masses of the proletariat" [emphasis added]? Taken
centrist by their desire to reconcile the theories of Controversies and ours, between the explicit call for the liquidation of the communist organizations of today and the call to defend and strengthen the comrades eventually distort the political meaning of the text of Internationalism and finally concede that communist groups today made the mistake of "strive to survive." We have seen that the explanation of the counselor about what they call the "bankruptcy" of the proletarian camp, what we see as the weaknesses and shortcomings of this camp, do not hold water and carries it in First, the abandonment of experience and political achievements of decades and ultimately the abandonment of the political, theoretical, programmatic and organizational Communist Left.
We also saw that the so-called decline of struggles in the 1980s did not exist - even though there has been progress and setbacks during this period of course - and he could not explain why the problems of the proletarian camp today. Especially since there is no mechanical link between the hazards of the development of class struggle and the development of communist organizations - periods of decline may well correspond to moments of political strengthening of organizations and even digital .
weaknesses of the proletarian camp are both much deeper, more historic, and at the same time the current historical situation promotes their passing. Call for the dissolution of communist groups today when the situation is the massive development of workers' struggle is even more stupid and dangerous. Indeed, the difficulties of the communist forces are threefold:
- they continue to suffer, like the working class as a whole, weighing the cons-revolution, especially Stalinism. Never before in its history, the proletariat had suffered a long period, 50 years of revolution-cons. An important expression of the weight of it on the proletariat and its vanguard minorities is precisely the fear of "political", the underestimation and release the active role, leader, Communist organizations and class consciousness, rejection of political confrontation with the forces of capital and especially with his state. Briefly, an expression of the negative weight of the cons-revolution is precisely the Council in all its variants;
- they also suffer, another consequence of the cons-revolution, the breakdown of organic with previous organizations. Not the working class and its political minorities had been cut as sharp and as long with the organization of the past. The ties that still exist today are so weak, so thin - only the PCInt-Battaglia Comunista and PCInt "Bordigists" can formally revendiquer12 - it must take into account that there was a real break of continuity organique13;
- finally, the strengthening of the bourgeoisie in its arms anti-proletarian especially the ideological and policy it has developed in the period of decadence. The development of state capitalism does not only economically. These are all sectors of society that the capitalist state has striven to occupy and absorb. The consequences for the lives and struggle of the proletariat are important: there is more possibility Permanent Life Policy - Exchange of labor, mass trade unions, mass parties, etc. ... - The proletariat and the capitalist state does everything possible to eliminate and silence any expression which is opposed by its grip on all the workings of society - we can not develop here - especially on small communist organizations.
Yet, this situation must not invite us to give up. Instead, the opposite advice, the Communists cling even more to the question of political organization that became the state capitalist totalitarian as ever. Much pressure on the communist groups is enormous, However we must cling to them. If we wait for the proletariat do arise spontaneously, automatically, the development of its struggle, the Communist organizations and the party, then we'll meet again for sure in the situation such as Germany in 1918. And even worse. So we know, the defeat is assured. As we said before, between 1918 and Berlin, Petrograd, 1917, we choose without any hesitation 1917.
So small are the small communist groups, and what are their weaknesses, they are the vital link that must be maintained at all costs in order to give the proletariat the faster its main weapon: the organized expression and the highest in its class consciousness, the Communist Party. They are the last thread that connects us to that past so precious and some would have us cut! That is criminal. They are not surprised to find ourselves in combat with all our strength.
December-January 2010-2011
Fraction of the International Communist Left.
Notes:
1. http://www.leftcommunism.org/spip.php?article169
2. Or again: "However, with controversy, we believe an organization striving to survive despite the historical negative, which produces more struggles with high content theoretical risk considerably (...) no longer behave as a revolutionary organization and risk, rather, in this period, behaving like a pathetic cult of elected "
3. What the text calls Controversies "horseplay".
4. What other expression of rejection of debate, discussion, and therefore real expression of bigotry, ignorance of systematic official positions of other communist groups, especially the silence on their convention and Other general meetings? For our part, we have taken a position on virtually every Congress that the ICC has held since 2001 while as we did on the conference IBRP in 2008.
5. The reader will forgive the quick and easy form in which we present in very broad terms the different forms that are more accurately are forced to take the communist organizations at different times. We also forgive not develop here the differences in function between the party and fraction forms. He can always refer to texts on the subject that our International Review of ITC was able to publish throughout the years 1970-1990.
6. "By your departure [of August 1874 Sorge General Council of the International], the old International has completely ceased to exist "(Engels to Sorge, September 1874).
7. cf. Letter of Engels to Bebel, March 1875:" Marx and I will never agree to join a new party built on this basis.
8. Comrade MC liked to tell young activists we were then, how members of the Italian Fraction organized themselves "physically" to post in public meetings of the Stalinist despite the beatings and assaults, some times it going even with a gun in your pocket.
9. Without doubt it is fairer to date about the text of the comrades that CIK themselves in that, so far, they had registered strongly in the fight for the party and had rejected the advisory approach the point of rejecting the call amid pro-revolutionary internationalist perspective.
10. From this point of view, the reader will forgive this digression, it is for us to say the least amusing to note that the militants, those controversies, are today without any explanation of their position and past practice, advocating the dissolution of organization at the slightest touch of wind came contrary. Indeed, had they not participated in our exclusion from the ITC in 2001-2002, some of them at the forefront in the name of "defense organization" that is to say they were mired in the fetishism of organization? While we affirm that their political unity of the organization was no more. There is an apparent contradiction. In fact, whether yesterday or today, it's at home, the same approach and the same error: a deep discharge (or, at best, a misunderstanding) of the collective, political organizations of proletariat, as a privileged and indispensable, and even as a unique place in the current period can we move forward, reflection and action communists, real debates and confrontations actual positions, fighting and confrontation objections. The rejection "fetish" of the organization is often the product of an individualistic conception of activism, even the disappointment at the anonymous and collective nature of the commitment and political struggles in the Communist organization, is the inverted layer, if not the direct result of the fetishism of the organization, too, comes just as often a design equally individualistic than the first report of the militant organization - particularly of a mystified vision and "sacrificial" communist commitment that we had qualified in the ICC of "Full activism."
11. http://fr.internationalism.org/rinte40/conseil.htm. For our part, we continue to assert the position that the ICC had set when the danger of the adviser. What says the ICC today and members of Controversies?
12. Although their refusal or reluctance to claim the Italian Fraction in exile (Balance Sheet), then only organic continuity with the Communist Party of Italy, in reality reduces even more.
13. We can come back here on the negative consequences of this deep organic breakdown. Included among them the sectarianism that had never been so ravaged to the point that the Communists today are unable to date to resume the past traditions in relations between groups and currents, to the point they ignore and decreed "axis, or spine, the future party"
