Economic crisis, the ICC & IBRP

I'm not at all sure whether this is the most appropriate slot in which to make this posting. I have selected it only because it has parallels with Libcom's "Economic crisis" thread.

I have pasted below a selection of comments in the Libcom forum, relating to a posting by me shortly after having read the IBRP piece on "Financial Meltdown", especially the conclusion in the final paragraph, which I fully endorse, but whose import- I am told - I may have overstretched. Nevertheless, I consider it worth pursuing, as a dialogue between the IBRP and the ICC in the present context is vital - as I hope you will agree once you read the exchanges. In the relationship between the two organisations, long memories and shortage of sight are not always conducive to the regroupment and clarity of analysis the current situation demands. Alf's acknowledgment of the strains and difficulties must be counter-balanced by the more positive tone given by Demogorgon. I should not need to remind you that sectarianism is the crucifix on which the revolutionary movement will founder. It has been suggested to me that "regroupment usually comes as the result of class movement and class action. Of course we would (all?) welcome regroupment but the vested interests and history (as well as the political differences) will require the hammer blows of class activity to be swept aside". I would argue that may well be the case, but it may additionally be the case that such a move may come too late. It would be better for all concerned to reconcile differences sooner than later.

The discussion started here:

libcom.org

Berrot:

To clarify the position, here is the conclusion drawn by the IBRP from its analysis of the current crisis (written, of course, prior to the lost vote on the US $700 billion bail-out):

In the heartlands of capitalism on both sides of the Atlantic it is time for the working class to wake up from its political lethargy and indifferentism, time for those who recognise the enormity of the present situation to join in the first steps towards the formation of a party of a new type. Such a party will have nothing to do with state intervention and “new deals” that ostensibly reconcile the interests of wage workers with those who benefit from the exploitation of wage labour.

For the world’s working class the only solution to this global crisis of historic dimensions is to embark on the revolutionary path for the overthrow of capitalism itself. For that to happen we need to have a party which spans capital’s national boundaries, unified round a revolutionary programme and capable of leading the struggle up to and beyond the overthrow of the capitalist states. It is an ambitious aim but the level of the ambition only matches the gravity of the situation. ibrp.org

Do you (ie Baboon and/or the ICC) accept:

1. the current crisis is of such a scale and intensity that the level of class struggle will massively increase?
2. that in this situation the creation of a revolutionary party is now on the agenda?
3. that it is vital that all revolutionaries cast off their differences in order to unite behind a common programme?

Or are the events of 30 years ago too recent to contemplate such a move ?

Berrot:

The years after the Wall Street crash in 1929 saw the massive, almost universal and absolute decline in living and working conditions predicted by Marxists (notably Henryk Grossman) as the outcome of the evolution of capitalism. The fact it did not result in an equally massive response by the working class was, in large measure, due to contingent factors (primarily the defeat of the revolutionary upsurge after WW1 in Germany, Russia and Italy) and to capitalist reactions to the Great depression, in their efforts to ameliorate its effects and to divert the workers’ movement from any revolutionary orientation, not to mention the effects on economies of preparations for war. Such developments may well be in prospect for the current crisis, but many of the tools used to prevent or defuse the crisis have been in place for some decades now and may have lost much of their possible impact; certainly, they have failed to prevent the outbreak of open crisis so far. It is therefore down to the “revolutionary minority” to prepare for the irruption of the working class on to the frontline of history. For example, how are contributors going to respond if Workers’ Councils are created in France in the next period on a much more significant scale than recently? “Sorry, I’m too busy developing my revolutionary arsenal” or “I’m fully engaged in deciding to what extent Marx was a Monetarist precursor”. Or do we start the process of regroupment and practical moves towards the revolutionary party? The IBRP have at least posed the question. What comes next?

Alf:

1. Ret is correct to say that there is no mechanical link between misery and class struggle. To understand the perspective arising from the current crisis, it is necessary to consider the question historically. As you probably know, in our view the working class confronted the crisis of the 30s having suffered a defeat of historical proportions. There were many militant strikes but the bourgeoisie was able to steer the working class towards enrollment in the imperialist war. The formation of the CIO in the US on the back of the auto strikes, the derailment of the struggles in Spain by anti-fascism were two key moments in this. Today we are living in a different period, opened up by the waves of struggles after May 68; despite all the difficulties of the class struggle in recent years, we don't think the class is defeated and we do think that there is a

perspective (though not an immediate one) for massive struggles; also that the current crisis is a very profound one and will have a huge impact on workers' basic living standards, making the 'option' of struggle more and more of a necessity.

2 We agree that if the massive struggles to come are to lead to revolution, a revolutionary party is vital. But this is a process contained in the evolution of the situation (and obviously revolutionaries have an active role to play in it) not a question of proclamations. The revolutionary organisations of today, even if they combined their forces, would still be a long way from being able to act as a party, ie an organism that can have a real influence on the direction of the struggle

3 We are currently seeing a real increase in interest in communist positions, the formation of new groups all round the world. This creates the basis for a process of regroupment which will pave the way for the party. It can also make it possible for much of the weight of the past to be overcome. But again, if you are looking for an immediate fusion, especially between groups which have long-standing differences, then I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

Demogorgon303:

Unfortunately, in the past, they've also consistently refused to join forces with the ICC on defending even the most basic internationalist principles against war on the grounds of the political differences between the two. Even a move on this question would be a very important step forward which I would fully support! But I'm afraid I find it hard to believe, in the absence of any specific statement to the contrary, that they're willing to change this policy.

As Alf says, I think any immediate fusion between these various groups is unlikely. But what would be a serious approach is to call for an international conference of the whole communist left milieu in order to discuss common goals and joint work. If such a gathering could happen, I would wholeheartedly support it and it could be a vital step moving towards a wider process of regroupment.

Berrot:

Alf - I fully accept what you say regarding the absence of a mechanical link between crisis and struggle. However, we do need to examine the changes that have occurred in the working class and their implications for the revolutionary movement. The first revolutionary wave may have had the huge advantage of long traditions of struggle and organisation within the working class movement which groups such as the Bolsheviks and the KAPD could tap into. In today’s environment, with the decimation of traditional, so-called smokestack industries, much of this tradition has gone, probably forever. The integration of unions and parliamentary parties into the processes of bourgeois democracy plus the impossibility of creating permanent, independent movements working towards substantive improvements for workers means a true revolutionary movement can only occur once struggle has been ignited.

All this is taken as read, and I have no wish to “proclaim” otherwise, as is no doubt true of the IBRP. However, the loss of all that tradition which developed within capitalism’s ascendancy provides the need and opportunity for innovation and daring if the working class is to develop new organs and means of struggle. I strongly suspect that any such moves will be as sudden, dramatic and total as capitalism’s collapse into chaos. When/if the working class lose their mental shackles, it will happen in a rush: the restraints, the safety valves, the diversions, the everyday routines will be pushed aside in an explosion of rage and frustration, and spread like wildfire. Whether this will be directed in a positive direction will very much depend on the existence of a group which can supply some sort of perspective. The primary constraint will be time. It would be criminal neglect if this group was unable to organise itself in time for its date with destiny.

My rhetoric may be high-flown, even grandiose, but people must accept at some stage that they have to make the necessary moves – however preliminary and tentative they may initially be. To quote the IBRP: “It is an ambitious aim but the level of the ambition only matches the gravity of the situation”. What further steps will be taken to pursue Demogorgon’s remark: “to call for an international conference of the whole communist left milieu in order to discuss common goals and joint work. If such a gathering could happen, I would wholeheartedly support it and it could be a vital step moving towards a wider process of regroupment”?

IBRP v ICC or IBRP & ICC?

I have posted this on both Libcom’s “Economic crisis” thread and on the IBRP’s “Economy” thread, having had the temerity to contribute earlier to both forums.

We are in the middle of what is rapidly turning into the most serious economic crisis since 1929, bringing major opportunities for left communism to break out of its isolation, and also to engage in a real dialogue within the movement. Yet what we have instead are pettifogging, narrow-minded sectarian re-treads trying to score points for the sake of a putative audience which either isn’t there or is completely in the dark as to their significance in the scheme of things. In the meantime, the world is striding contemptuously past.

Even so, there is hope submerged in these depths. Both Demogorgon303 and Baboon for the ICC, and Cleishbotham for the IBRP, have left the door ajar. I quote:

Demogorgon303:

But what would be a serious approach is to call for an international conference of the whole communist left milieu in order to discuss common goals and joint work. If such a gathering could happen, I would wholeheartedly support it and it could be a vital step moving towards a wider process of regroupment.

Baboon:

I think it too premature to call for the latter [ie the revolutionary party] at this moment though that doesn't mean that the ground cannot be laid for it in many respects.

Cleishbotham:

However we share your view that this crisis is something different and really serious for the future of the planet. It would be ridiculous to avoid any forum to discuss this with those …. who share at last some understanding of what a future communist world should look like.

Perhaps it may be possible for the dialogue to begin. Perhaps it could start with laying out those elements of a programme for regroupment over which there is no disagreement. I hesitate to kick off with suggestions, as I suspect that they will only constitute a nice, juicy can of worms. Nevertheless, how about:

1. The need for a party
2. The parliamentary circus
3. The poison of nationalism
4. Unions as capitalist institutions
5. State capitalism – north, east, south and west
6. Workers’ councils as the future organs of working class ascendancy

So how about it? Is there any reason why (apart from long memories and short sight) discussion should not take place? Is it at all possible that people can adopt the mind-set of those who attempted the regroupment of the 70s: a recognition of the heavy responsibilities on the shoulders of those who would claim to be revolutionaries, and a sense of the gravity of the times? Or are we destined to endlessly repeat Cleishbotham’s deplorable refrain: “any move might yet be premature since it is the class struggle (and the response of the minorities like us) which is likely to knock heads together”? Are people prepared to take on the risk that the struggle occurs without them?

Do you call the tissue of lies that Baboon posted as an "invitation"? I did not see it until you mentioned it and it took some time to find it on the libcom forum (and I agree with those who say you should have started a different thread if you want to discuss cooperation between left communists). When I saw Baboon's comment I was absolutely convinced that these people are not only hopeless but dangerous (and if you look at the way they are Jesuitically "debating" with Mikus (who I don't agree with but he has cottoned on to their method) you will see that it is not only the Bureau that is a victim of their insidious methods).

You criticised me for saying that only the class struggle wil knock heads together but I was merely putting coloquially what is a deeply held position. At the moment the economic crisis is in the realm of discussion and this allows for all kinds of divergences which have no consequence for the proletariat. Only when there is a real wave of struggle will the tasks we face become more real and then discussion is about what we do. You are however right (and this is one of our central positions) that we cannot wait until the class starts acting before we start organising and that is what we are doing in our feeble way. Entering into meaningless wordplays with the likes of the ICC is not just a diversion but positively counter-productive for the working class.

I am posting this on to both the IBRP’s Economy thread and libcom’s economic crisis thread. I suppose I must accept the verdict of all concerned that this discussion must be placed on another libcom thread; may I suggest it is a new thread (perhaps titled “Regrouping Left Communists” rather than “class struggle in the current economic crisis”)?

I am not entirely certain how much point there is in pursuing this line of argument, but my gluttony for punishment has obviously no limit. Perhaps it has something to do with the stakes involved: the fate of what left communists have aimed for in the decades that have elapsed since 1967 (and even earlier, of course). As an organisational outsider, and being a relative newcomer on to the scene, I have found the sectarianism within the left communist movement strange to behold. Understandable in the last decade or two (in view of the void within which it has operated – talking in ever-decreasing circles and hoping to preserve the faith against all attacks), it constitutes a frame of mind which must – at some stage – be exorcised. I was not being “critical” of Cleishbotham’s deeply held position (which I share) that “any move [towards forming a revolutionary party] might yet be premature since it is the class struggle (and the response of the minorities like us) which is likely to knock heads together”; what I find deplorable is its constant repetition (not just by Cleishbotham) as an excuse for taking things no further. The immediate agenda does not include the Party, but it must involve a recognition that the present dispersal of revolutionaries is unacceptable and hardly conducive to the creation of the Party at some more auspicious date.

I suggest there are/will be quite a number of people examining/recalling left communist positions in light of the current crisis. To whom are they to turn? Isn’t it the responsibility of those who have long held such positions to ensure there is a cohesive group and a coherent programme for them to snuggle up to? Now look at what is presently on offer. There is no chance of any significant expansion of left communism unless existing proponents get their act together. I am not just referring to the ICC and the IBRP. There are other organisations/groupuscules/individuals – all of whom should be looking at themselves and the futility of their existence until they coalesce into a viable group. Cleishbotham accusing Baboon of Jesuitical tendencies, Baboon making accusations about events dating back decades, parasites, effics, iffics – all are meaningless other than to insiders and almost purpose-built to deter outsiders from inquiring further.

The programme must be the unifying factor. Provided agreement can be obtained on this, everything else could/should fall into place. I repeat: what should go into the programme?

Please join in. Try to be nice. Or at least follow Alf’s quiet, gentle approach.

An unequal equation

Berrot

I think Pantaloons has put things very well from our perspective even though you will find it a disappointment. Can I ask you where you read of the sectarian polemics between the IBRP and the ICC? In the publications and libcom postings of the ICC and their supporters. There has even been a libcom forum of the IBRP which was almost totally dominated by the ICC's denigrations of the Bureau. When we write about the ICC it is about their theory/politics not about their organisation. Put that test to the ICC comments. It is not a small matter.

The ICC also tailors its behaviour to the audience. We had a public meeting in London a couple of years ago which the ICC turned up at in force (by misfortune we had only 3 people there) and there was an "audience" of about 20 people. The ICC set about systematically destroying the meeting by raising the question of their internal fraction which had split from them but which had also termed the Bureau "the pole of regroupment". We made no comment ont hese comrades and we have never sided with any of the splitters from the ICC (for the good reason that they were politically further away from us than the ICC). However nothing antagonises the ICc more than anyone questioning their right to be the pole of regroupment and their behaviour inthe meeting was so shocking that all the neutral elements (some of whom were also sympathetic to the ICC turned on the ICC). The ICC then published an article on this meeting excusing their own sectarianism and branding us as the intolerant ones (for smiling when the ICC were speaking amongst other things).

Now the ICC have decided on a be nice to everyone except the Bureau policy but this has revealed their opportunism signing up to accords with the likes of Internationalist Perspectives (in a meeting in Korea) whom they had previously condemned as "parasites". Have we polemcised against this - no. Would the ICC if the situation was reversed - you bet.

This is why we don't accept your placement of the Bureau on the same level as the ICC. If that fills you with despair I am sorry but it is a fact.

we've been more than patient with them, comrade

Berrot,

I am not engaging in any diatribes against the ICC. I was telling you the truth about them. If you think there is room for dialogue with them go ahead and talk with them but leave us out of it. Sooner or later you'll find the ICC WILL turn against you. They turn against everyone, especially their own "comrades".

It is what they do and how they treat people that makes it impossible for me to consider them a part of any "revolutionary camp". This grows out of their own conceptions that we have characterized before as idealistic. How many left-communist organizations have dialogues with the ICC today? Of all the groups that came out of the communist-left the IBRP is one of the few groups that consistently dealt with and spoke to them even while others refused to speak to them at all. The Communist-Left that the ICC writes about and claims to be a part of doesn't exist the way in the way it once did. What exists today are different tendencies moving in different directions. I don't think this is a tragedy, just normal political evolution and it shouldn't give anyone reason to despair.

The ICC's forerunner the GCF wrote of the PCInt calling it opportunist. The ICC in turn labeled the IBRP at its very inception as an opportunistic formation. The GIO in turn were also opportunists to them. They denounced working with the comrades of the GLP. They denounced us for dealing with the German GIS. If we went to speak to a group of Anarchists or Trotskyists they would denounce us as opportunists. If they went to speak to such a group they would hail it as a step forward for the revolutionary milieu. They operate according to the most hypocritical double standards. Why would the ICC, or anyone, wish to discuss any sort of program with such miserable opportunists?

To call for a dialogue to reopen is one thing but that would also require the ICC to be willing to start talking as well. However, the ICC "debates" by issuing open letters denouncing other groups and individuals, these letters are meant only to reinforce the opinions of members of their own current. After three decades of taking this from them, I don't think it is out of line to demand an apology and a change in their behavior as a precondition for dealing with them or even speaking to them.

Go back and read past issues of ICC publications if you have trouble gauging what I am saying about the ICC. In fact, I urge you to deal with them wholeheartedly and find out more about them for yourself. I'd be the last person to tell you not to. You could also try reading the IFICC's History of the ICC. It is in French. It provides a unique view of how the ICC has functioned over the years. If anything, we have HELD BACK from saying many things we could truthfully say about the ICC.

How long would you tolerate being told that you are capable of nothing but political abortions? How long would you take being called a parasite or an opportunist? Ten years? Twenty years? Now, try taking this abuse from them for thirty years--or more. We've been more than patient in dealing with them, comrade.

It was the PCInt that initiated the International Conferences and initiated those debates that the ICC still talks about in their press. Few groups on the communist-left have ever been as open to talking to other left-communist groups as we have. When we refuse to deal with them it is because we've attempted just that, again and again, for much of the last thirty years.

We've devoted four WHOLE articles in our press to the ICC. Go and see how many articles the ICC has aimed at us. There is no sectarian tit-for-tat going on. The ICC is always on the attack when it comes to our group. We either put up with it or try to answer it. I see no point in doing either anymore.

open letters

Ingram's open letter to the ICC was done back in 98. I don't think he ever had anything to do with the CBG. I could be wrong. I think the ICC makes some erroneous claims regarding the incident itself.

Note how Loren Goldner in his joint presentation in Korea with the ICC asked why the IBRP was persisting in being sectarian by not being on a forum panel with the ICC. Afterwards sometime, the ICC put an open letter on their web page attacking him. This, in a nutshell, is how the ICC operates. It is what happens when you do anything with them.

For anyone interested, an archive of the CBG's publications is now available online: cbg.110mb.com