I.C.C. Day of Discussion, September 20, 2014
- This topic has 14 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“World War One: how the workers were mobilised for war, and how they put an end to it”
Date September 20, 2014
Time 11 am to 6 pm
Venue Lucas Arms, 245A Grays Inn Rd, Kings Cross, London WC1X 8QY
“In all the noisy commemorations about the First World War, some things are more or less left in silence. First, that a crucial responsibility for the war lay with the ‘Labour’ and ‘Socialist’ parties who in 1914 voted for war credits and set about mobilising the workers for the war effort; and second, that the war was ended by the revolutionary struggles of the working class.
In the first session of this day of discussion, we will look at how the majority of the parties of the Second International came to betray the fundamental principles of internationalism and integrate themselves into the bourgeois state. This treason did not come about overnight, but was the product of a long process of degeneration which still contains many lessons for today. We will focus in particular on the German Social Democratic Party, the great jewel of the International, whose capitulation in 1914 was a decisive factor in the collapse of the International.
In the second session we will begin the discussion by showing a short film about how the working class recovered from its disarray in 1914 and, after three years of slaughter, began the wave of strikes, mutinies and uprisings which forced the ruling class to end the war and, for a while, threatened the very existence of the world capitalist system.
All welcome. Comrades who envisage coming to the meeting from outside London and will need accommodation should write to us at uk@internationalism.org.”
This event is a week on Saturday – 20th September.The ICC and their supporters have produced a short video on the subject of ‘How the working class brought an end to World War I’
This was a very interesting meeting. The attendees, (approx 20), were mostly of the Communist Left, but there were also 4 SPGBers present.* It was a comradely affair – anyone could speak if they wished to, and whilst differences were sharply expressed they were never personalised. The main speaker gave a measured and unhurried overview of the response (of the 2nd International parties) to the declaration of war in 1914; (and the long-term underlying issues which brought down the German SPD as a suitable vehicle for the working class to attain communism). Plenty of food was provided (always a big plus!) and then the recent ICC film on WW1 was shown. This is a very good short film, (available on their website), whatever issues we have with it politically.For an SPGBer, it was interesting to hear the areas of disagreement from the Communist Left – the SPGB was criticised on several grounds – apparently not understanding (or agreeing with) the importance of events in Russia 1905, 1917, and the emergence of the Soviet/Workers’ Council form). As for the War ‘we’ only opposed it ‘passively’, and failed to intervene in workers’ struggles, unlike the Bolsheviks, John Maclean etc. In other words criticism which I think boils down to the usual dividing issues of socialist/communist consciousness, (how it comes about), the role of the Party/revolutionaries in general, and the nature of the revolution to come. So plenty to ponder on :>)*Two of our members spoke several times; the other two provided invaluable moral support
pfbcarlisle wrote:In other words criticism which I think boils down to the usual dividing issues of socialist/communist consciousness, (how it comes about), the role of the Party/revolutionaries in general, and the nature of the revolution to come.It seems to me it 'boils down to' fundamentally different politics.In effect, they're as different as 'reform' is from 'revolution'.I'm not saying either is reformist, but pointing out that the conceptions you mention are so different as to be unbridgeable.What's the point of attending each others' meetings? Neither side is listening to the other, because their core philosophies mean that they can't.Whatever 'similarities' they share are based upon appearances only – the same words, but totally different meanings.'Class consciousness', 'revolutionary organisation' and 'revolution'. All totally different.
Well, there's three points (maybe more) to any debate:To hone/refine and test the quality and expression of your own ideasTo seek to influence third parties/onlookers.To experiment and explore and maybe discover new argues or points of view that you may not have come across before or thought of for yourself.There's been many the time I've had what I thought was an unshackable argument, only to find it either being easily sidestepped or knocked out of hte park. I wasn't, obviously, wrong, but I still learned that I needed to put it differently and expect different responses.
I'd say the efficacy of going to other 'communist' meetings is less than it would first appear. To have come to uncommon conclusions like left communism you've generally worked a lot out already ie. the more obscure 'communists' are generally going to come with a lot of baggage
New WWI article from the Socialist Standard just added to our archive on this site, showing our position with regard to "pacifist" opposition to the war (which I think is a position that Left Bolshevik organisations have sometimes accused us of holding):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1915/no-135-november-1915/socialism-v-peacemongering
The ICC mentioned the CWO/ICT published some of their internal documents which I understood where just debates. Where can I find these? Somewhere on leftcom.org?
I got a different impression – I thought they were referring to the actions of their one-time 'Internal Fraction of the ICC' who had got hold of ICC internal docs and published them without permission. This is the ongoing issue that the ICC are having with some ex-members, and their speaker on Saturday criticised the CWO for not publicly expressing solidarity.
ah okay. any idea where I can read the documents?also for those who did not attend, one thing which the SPGB could emulate was a participant in the ICC meeting listened and contributed via Skype. Something they handled very well.
Try these…http://fractioncommuniste.org/eng/tracts/eng_crisis_ICC2013.htmlhttp://www.igcl.org/About-the-New-OrganizationalWith ICC rebutal athttp://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201405/9742/communique-our-readers-icc-under-attack-new-agency-bourgeois-stateand thenhttp://en.internationalism.org/internationalreview/201409/10330/news-our-death-greatly-exaggerated
Quote:As for the War 'we' only opposed it 'passively', and failed to intervene in workers' struggles, unlike the Bolsheviks, John Maclean etc.Quite apart from the fact that, not being vanguardists, we don't believe in "intervening" in workers' struggle (we urge them to get on with it themselves and let them do this), it is not true that we had nothing to say on the workers' struggle on the Clyde which these latter-day Left Bolsheviks presumably have in mind. Unfortunately, we have no record of what we said but it must have been "revolutionary" by Left Bolshevik standards as a column in the February 1916 Socialist Standard headed "LLD. GEORGE AND THE CLYDE WORKERS" was left blank with the following explanation:
Quote:The firm who machines this paper has refused to print the article which was set up to appear under the above heading. We are therefore compelled to withdraw the article. We congratulate the Government on the success of their efforts to preserve the "freedom of the Press."Sorry to keep on about this (well, not really) but the ICC have no excuse for their criticism of the position we took on the war and the strikes towards the end of it since our position is easily accessible on the internet and elsewhere.This article "England's Engineers" is not only available on the Socialist Standard archives section of this site but is included in our 100th anniversary publication Socialism or Your Money Back.On our archive there's in an article "Strikes for Peace" which deals with this question explicitly:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1918/no-162-february-1918/strikes-peaceHere's some extracts from the first article:
Quote:Engineers have recently fought for the repeal of the Munitions of War Amendment Bill. For that particular purpose they fought solidly and well. The masters tried their damnedest to beat and overwhelm them with lies and conquer them with hunger. They placarded the Midland towns with crafty official notices. They tried to split the strike with lies and scorn and they tried to split it with bribes and threats. Yet the engineers ignored splendidly the Government promises, official and outside opinion, together with the cowardly threats.Quote:The efforts of the engineers are making for the repeal of the Munitions of War Amendment Act, considering they have no strike pay, considering the domestic suffering, starvation almost, which must follow this state of things, is splendid.And from the second:
Quote:A resolution moved at Glasgow at a meeting where Sir A. Geddes was present struck a firmer note in the following terms :"That having heard the case of the Government, as stated by Sir Auckland Geddes, this meeting pledges itself to oppose to the very uttermost the Government in its call for more men. We insist and pledge ourselves to take action to enforce the declaration of an immediate armistice on all fronts ; and that the expressed opinion of the workers of Glasgow is that from now on, and so far as this business is concerned, our attitude all the time and every time is to do nothing in support of carrying on the war, but to bring the war to a conclusion."The supporter of the war could, of course, point out that, as far as the workers are concerned, there is as much—and as little—reason for carrying on the war now as ever there was. Better late than never, however, and if the Clyde workers realise even at this late date that they have nothing to gain but a good deal to lose by the continuance of the war it is a point to the good.We can't let the Left Bolsheviks get away with their attempt at historical revisionism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.