The ICC way and our way
- This topic has 47 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m posting this not for the purpose of attacking the ICC or starting a debate about them but for ourselves to see where our strengths and weaknesses lie in organisation and outlook when compared with another organisation that is outside the “Left.” This can be considered alongside the other thread on Left Unity.“…the ICC’s statutes… is basically the rule book, which explains how the ICC works. It is not a publicly available document….…there is a passage in the ICC statutes which says that people could not be members of trade unions except in ‘the case of professional constraints’. My understanding of the meaning of this was that it meant unless there was a closed shop. During the discussion a comrade from the Turkish ICC ended up giving a long definition of this term, which could be effectively interpreted to mean that you could be a member of a trade union if you thought that it was good for you….…The ICC sees itself as a single internationally centralised organisation, and not as a collection of different national sections. This said the amount of intervention of the central organs into the everyday running of the various sections seemed to me to be not just excessive, but absolutely overbearing….The ICC centre regularly asks for reports concerning how many contacts each section has, and how close to the organisation they are. To me, it seemed that there was very little autonomy within each individual section, and that the International Secretariat seemed obsessed about managing every tiny detail, concerning the sections day to day functioning…. Of the three ICC members from Turkey (including myself) who had attended the meetings of the ICC International Bureau, two of us came back with the feeling that it was little more than a transmission belt for decisions that had already been made by the IS…… one of the reasons for left communists insisting on a tight level of political agreement for membership of their organisations is so that these organisations have an organic level of theoretical and tactical unity. Organisations such as the UK SWP, who will recruit anybody who has a left leg, by necessity end up with a situation where there are the leaders, who decided on virtually everything, and the led, who end up implementing decisions made above them. Theoretically a tight level of political organisation should enable an organisation to avoid this sort of problem. In my opinion in the ICC’s case it doesn’t. Despite what I would consider an extremely high level of political agreement as a criteria for membership, it still seems to me that in the ICC the orders come from the top, and are transmitted downwards. This process, I feel, acts to discourage initiative coming from the membership of the organisation as a whole and despite the ICC’s protests to the contrary tends to mirror the hierarchical relations prevalent in society as a whole……There seems to be a perception in some anarchist circles that the whole reason for the ICC to engage in various actions, such as participation on the English anarchist Libcom forum, is to recruit people. To be honest, I don’t think that the reality could possibly be much further from the truth. My impression would be more one that it seems that the ICC actively tries to avoid recruiting new people by making it as difficult to join as possible……There is an impression amongst many outside of the ICC that there is little internal debate within the organisation. As has been said before by others who have left the ICC, this is in no way true. In fact the opposite is true. There is so much ‘debate’ within the ICC that it tends to make any real discussion impossible….…., the ICC has, through its own actions, over the years generated a great deal of suspicion, and hostility towards itself from those who might otherwise be somewhat more sympathetic towards it. In my opinion, one step towards beginning to break that barrier down would be a candid admission of its own mistakes rather than its continual insistence that even when ‘mistakes were made’ (in a Reaganesque formulation), its general perspective were absolutely correct….”To start off a discussion, my first question is …Has the SPGB made any mistakes? If so , what were or are they?
This reminds me of an incident during one of our election campaigns when our candidate (Ralph Critchfield, think) declared "yes, we have made some mistakes". When a member of the audience asked "what mistakes?" he couldn't answer..
No longer having Dave Perrin's history available to check but i think i recall he mentions the party expected a post-WW2 slump that never occurred. But that is more a technical mistake , not something based on prcatice or principle, isn't it? There was also the early explanations of crises that were in error until it was agreed that it was disequilibrium. But again more a technical than fundamental. I'm guessing most members are members because of the party's strengths. Some will be aware that my personal view is that the hostility clause was often targeted at some groups who were possible potential allies and the differences that existed between us and them should be comradely divergence of views, in spite of their own attitude towards ourselves, at times. If Left Unity have an issue with innumerable micro-grouplets, then the anarcho-communist, non-market, non-state sector shares the exact same problem. To a certain degree the attitude towards non-SPGBers has been clarified saying our hostility clause is not the reason for our opposition towards those who may have a variant view of the means and methods towards socialism ie the old SLP and current AF. In the end it will be th working class who will determine the tactics and strategies dependent on the circumstances and situation the working class face and makes me reticient to make outright condemnation of Stuart, (or Bill when he went off on his Co-op explorations) The class war is after all a series of battles and not always on the same field of battle.
What an (potentially) interesting thread! I may be jumping the gun a little in terms of the progression of this conversation, but I'd like to talk a little about the ICC's Semi-State. As I understand it this is the Dictatoriship of the proletariat a period where the proletariat have "smashed" (not siezed control of the existing one) the state and have proceeded to create a semi state which would then wither away in time. I got the impression that they see this political transition as lasting a little longer than we do, the main reason would probably be because they see no concievable alternative to armed conflict against the ruling class. This would necessarily be a period of buying and selling and not socialism. I put to them that Marx's and in fact most definitions of the state have one class exploiting another, in Marx's case for the purpose of extracting surplus value. I asked who would be the exploiting class in this scenario assuming that the bourgeouisie has been expropriated. The answer which seemed to be generally agreed was that the proletariat would exploit itself. I wonder what comrades think of the concept of the the proletariat exploiting themselves?I hope I've been fairly accurate in my description of the views of the ICC and I hope LBird or someone else will correct me if I have got anything wrong.
alanjjohnstone wrote:In the end it will be th working class who will determine the tactics and strategies dependent on the circumstances and situation the working class face and makes me reticient to make outright condemnation of Stuart, (or Bill when he went off on his Co-op explorations) The class war is after all a series of battles and not always on the same field of battle.I think there is a world of difference between the Left communists and Left unity. One is a an organisation of class conscious workers who stand for revolution and the other, to use an ICC turn of phrase is a bourgeois party who seeks to maintain and manage capitalism.
Ed wrote:I'd like to talk a little about the ICC's Semi-State. As I understand it this is the Dictatoriship of the proletariat a period where the proletariat have "smashed" (not siezed control of the existing one) the state and have proceeded to create a semi state which would then wither away in time. I got the impression that they see this political transition as lasting a little longer than we doMuch longer. In one of their early pamphlet they say it could be as long as the Israelites had to wander in the wilderness, i.e. 40 years. I don't know if they've modified this since. I think they call it a "semi-state" as their theory is an amalgam of Council Communist (who reject the idea of a state) and Bordigism (who embrace it). As far as we're concerned it would be a state but a democratised one controlled by the working class. Not quite sure if they agree with this second part since I think they still think "the party" will exist during this period and, as the quote in the opening item in this thread made clear, in their view this would be a highly centralized, top-down (not to say Leninist) organisation.
Ed wrote:I put to them that Marx's and in fact most definitions of the state have one class exploiting another, in Marx's case for the purpose of extracting surplus value. I asked who would be the exploiting class in this scenario assuming that the bourgeouisie has been expropriated. The answer which seemed to be generally agreed was that the proletariat would exploit itself. I wonder what comrades think of the concept of the the proletariat exploiting themselves?Not much, but did they really say that !The concept of "workers' self-exploitation" and rejection of it is a view which we probably pioneered in the 1960s in our criticism of various proposals for "workers control" of a market economy. For instance's here's an extract from an article from the Socialist Standard of February 1969 criticising the old Solidarity Group (from which, ironically, some of the founding members of the ICC group in Britain emerged when they realised this. Even more ironically this was written by David Ramsay Steele who later became a leading anarcho-capitalist)):
Quote:"Capitalism without capitalists" could never in fact come about. Should the working-class reach a level of understanding where they could pressurize the ruling class out of existence, they would long since have passed the stage where they would have abolished the wages system and established Socialism. And there are several purely economic arguments why escalating differences in access to wealth would always result from a wages-profits system. But even if we suspend these judgments, and consider "Capitalism without capitalists" in our imaginations, we can see it would be no improvement on capitalism with capitalists. Workers collectively administering their own exploitation not a state of affairs which Socialist aim for.I think the ICC member calling himself Alf is on this forum so perhaps he could clarify things.
ALB wrote:Much longer. In one of their early pamphlet they say it could be as long as the Israelites had to wander in the wilderness, i.e. 40 years. I don't know if they've modified this since. I think they call it a "semi-state" as their theory is an amalgam of Council Communist (who reject the idea of a state) and Bordigism (who embrace it). As far as we're concerned it would be a state but a democratised one controlled by the working class. Not quite sure if they agree with this second part since I think they still think "the party" will exist during this period and, as the quote in the opening item in this thread made clear, in their view this would be a highly centralized, top-down (not to say Leninist) organisation.I think they certainly have modified their view on how long it will take but still probably hard to quantify as neither them nor us would presume to put a precise number on the exact days, weeks, months. As it wholly depends on the circumstances at the time. If one were to presume, as they do that it will be after a gigantic and bloody civil war then of course it will take a little longer. I think the semi-state is the amalgamation of various democratically controlled workers councils rather than the dictatorship of the party in the Leninist or bordigist sense. That would coincide with their view of where the Russian revolution went wrong, taking the power away from the soviets. Which would basically be a bit like syndicalism, an arrangement Bordiga denounces as "a mercantilist economy" in Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism (part 3).
ALB wrote:Not much, but did they really say that !Yeah, there was a longer explanation but if I tried to quote it from memory I would end up butchering it, which would probably be very unfair. Anyway the reason I ask is that the phrase came up recently between myself and another comrade in relation to the upcoming party poll. Different context perhaps but the concept may be similar, food for thought. But let's not get side-tracked on that.
Ed wrote:As it wholly depends on the circumstances at the time. If one were to presume, as they do that it will be after a gigantic and bloody civil war then of course it will take a little longer.I'm not sure that is the explanation as to why they think their "semi-state" should last longer (decades) than our "democratised state" (a year or so). Given that the capitalist class only own and control the means of production because they control the state, once they lose control of the state (whether peaceably or violently) to a socialist-minded working class majority, capitalism can be abolished very quickly, almost literally at a strole and common ownership, democratic control and production directly for use (if not full free access) be introduced immediately. I don't see why, even assuming their civil war scenario, this couldn't be implemented straightaway in the "liberated" areas.I think there is another reason: that they don't think that the forces of production have yet developed a stage where they can provide plenty for all and that therefore a period of accumulation and restricted consumption for the producers is needed (I think that this is what they must mean by "workers self-exploitation"). This is because they are still tied to what happened in Russia. The Left Communists, from which they emerged were, proposing an alternative way forward for Russia in the 1920s which they thought could be implemented and, clearly, in the conditions of Russia of that time, plenty for all was far from possible. Even In the 1930s the Council Communists were proposing a "labour-money" scheme which included a blueprint of how to integrate into the economy peasants owning their own land and animals and producing for sale.They need to get away from Russia Revolution and what happened after as a model for any future socialist revolution. To dump all that baggage and come into the 21st century.
I don't think that's true of the ICC. I mean another possible difference in theory between us and them is decadence theory. I've heard this told two ways, either capitalism has peaked and is now in decline or it means the exact same thing as we mean when we say that capitalism is developed enough for socialism to be made a reality. I say possible difference because I know some of our members think there could be some value in decadence theory. So the last thing I think it is, is development of capitalism. Rather fears over reorganizing production from jobs which will no longer be necessary and possibly to fight counter revolutions and stuff like that. I don't know though you'd have to ask them. And as the article that Alan posted points out Left coms do not have homogenous opinions about everything, that's probably one of our biggest similarities. But yeah from my interactions with them they have definitely acknowledged the political transition needs to be as quick as possible.So no I think decades is inaccurate.
Alb wrote:They need to get away from Russia Revolution and what happened after as a model for any future socialist revolution. To dump all that baggage and come into the 21st century.I whole heartedly agree with this though. The Russian revolution stands as a great testament as to what not to do but the SPGB could have told them that beforehand .
Ed wrote:If one were to presume, as they do that it will be after a gigantic and bloody civil war then of course it will take a little longer.ALB wrote:Given that the capitalist class only own and control the means of production because they control the state, once they lose control of the state … (CUT) … capitalism can be abolished very quickly … (CUT) … I don't see why, even assuming their civil war scenario, this couldn't be implemented straightaway in the "liberated" areas.But what if the 'liberated area' is only one State?!Actually, I'm being mischievous – I realise this goes away from our view that if a large majority in favour of socialism emerges in one country, then it's likely to in others… However, for the Communist Left, (ICC/CWO etc), such a blueprint (ahem!) seems rather 'utopian' and naive. This comes down to that tricky subject of 'consciousness' – for the Communist Left, it would seem impossible that a large majority for communism could emerge within capitalism ('the ruling ideas being those of the ruling class', etc).So as Adam says, the Russian Revolution is still a fundamental reference point for the ICC. As such, they would see socialism/communism requiring a Bolshevik-type revolution in a particular state, (thus inevitably leading to bloody civil war, as Ed mentions); with the hope being that other state revolutions would soon follow.I remember there being a long debate on RevLeft about the whole issue of 'transition' between capitalism and socialism/communism. (It was our ex-member, Robin Cox, and a non-aligned Left Communist, 'Blake's Baby').Anyway, as Ed has mentioned, the ICC is opposed to the idea that 'The Party' should take power – so they see the effective merger of the Bolsheviks with The State as being as being a huge problem. For them, it's the class that needs to take power, via its councils/soviets etc, with the Party's role being to put its perspectives within these.
Found it ! It's from their 1981 pamphlet Period of Transition from Capitalism to Communism still published on their website here:
Quote:The situation in a communist society is completely different. Communism retains no economic or social remnants of old society. While such remnants still exist one cannot speak of communist society: what place could there be in such a society for small producers or slave relations, for example? This is what makes the period of transition between capitalism and communism so long. Just as the Hebrew people had to wait forty years in the desert in order to free themselves from the mentality forged by slavery, so humanity will need several generations to free itself from the vestiges of the old world.Also from the same pamphlet:
Quote:The period of transition is not a distinct mode of production, but a link between two modes of production–the old and the new. It is the period during which the germs of the new mode of production slowly develop to the detriment of the old, until they supplant the old mode of production and constitute a new, dominant mode of production.Between two stable societies (and this will be true for the period between capitalism and communism as it has been in the past), the period of transition is an absolute necessity. This is due to the fact that the sapping of the basis of the existence of the old society does not automatically imply the maturation and ripening of the conditions of the new. In other words, the decline of the old society does not automatically mean the maturation of the new, but is only the condition for it to take place.It seems, then, that all three of us are wrong about why they think it will take "forty years" to effect the transition from capitalism to communism. In fact it's worse than we thought: the claim is that conditions won't be ripe for the establishment of socialism/communism when the proletariat wins power.
ALB wrote:In fact it's worse than we thought: the claim is that conditions won't be ripe for the establishment of socialism/communism when the proletariat wins power.Good find, ta. But dare I ask again … in "only one state"? I'm not sure how much their position has evolved since this pamphlet… Nevertheless, your comment would be a logical conclusion for them to make. Assuming a new, more successful 'Russian Revolution-type' event takes place, (albeit this time with no disastrous Party/State merger), it would mean another 'holding operation' is in order – one self-declared 'communist revolution' in one state clearly means capitalism is still the world system. The proletariat in this view has much to do!I suppose that the response to what I mentioned before about how the ICC would see our position as naive and unrealistic, is that we would return the compliment – by rejecting the notion that a 'Russian Revolution-type' event can lead to socialism/communism, rather then being a doomed short-cut. (No majority support = no revolution).
I think you're right. The question of "only one state" is important. Our assumption (think Arab Spring, think fall of state capitalist regimes in East Europe) is that the world socialist revolution once it starts will be more or less simultaneous in the most industrially developed parts of the world (which already today exist on every continent), where there will be the most numerous and best organised workers movement. This is the basis for our assumption that working class use of the state need only last a few years if that, i.e. that there might be a gap of a few years between the first state being taken over and the last.The ICC civil war scenario is based on what happened in Russia 1917-1921 (though I think thety've evolved beyond the romantic idea of cavalry battles between Red and White horse-riders). A more modern version would be like what happened in ex-Yugoslavia and what is happening in Syria at the moment: battles for control of territory. I suggest this is completely unrealistic because it assumes that the capitalist class will be able to muster sufficient support to make a fight of it. It is all very well saying that in the past no ruling class has ever surrendered power peacefully (not entirely true, incidentally) but where would they recruit their fighters and why would anybody want to fight for them? If they tried it would be a walkover for the socialist workers' side.Can you imagine an ex-Yugoslavia and a Syria on a world scale? Another 'Arab Spring' or something like that (rather than formal electoral victories in all the world's states) perhaps, but civil wars all over the world in every country that could go on for 40 years or even a decade (what would be left at the end?), no. We easily win the less unrealistic stakes..
Greetings to all – I had trouble logging in for a while but this now seems to have been resolved. I will come back and respond to some of the issues posed here when i have a bit more time.
ALB wrote:(rather than formal electoral victories in all the world's states)I think that's hoping for a bit much, seeing as not all countries have a the means to seize control of the state through elections. That's not going to be possible in China or North Korea for example. Marx said something a long the lines of each revolution will take on the character of the prevailing national culture. So where there is no democracy there is no chance of peaceful revolution. And of course if the democratic route was the only one we might as well spend our time campaigning for democratic reforms in countries which do not have it. Furthermore if the democratic route looks possible or even dangerous I'm sure that some states would abolish democracy. Of course in the process this would only help to destroy the legitimacy of the state and the ruling class even more.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.