The International Communist Current (ICC) is a small, super-sectarian and
super-theoretical left-wing organization with a (surprising) presence in 16
countries around the world. The ICC's program is a version of
"ultraleftism" or "Left Communism", an ideology usually
associated with Anton Pannekoek, Herman Gorter and Amadeo Bordiga. In fact, the
ICC is probably even more sectarian!
In true ultraleftist fashion, the International Communist Current rejects all labour unions, labour parties, democratic and national liberation struggles, partial nationalizations, feminism, gay liberation and most other left-wing groups. This narrows the scope of possible activities considerably. The ICC also opposes all really existing socialist countries, seeing them as "state capitalist". Instead, the ICC fights for "the dictatorship of the proletariat on a world scale...the international power of the workers' councils...the construction of a world human community". However, it's not clear how the ICC wants to bring this happy state of affairs around. The main activity of this little group seems to be abstract propaganda. Their written material is notorious for impenetrable theoretical articles, bombastic headlines and (occasionally) home-spun conspiracy theories about police agents, Freemasons and "clans", all out to get the ICC.
International Review no. 15, published in 1978, is relatively light reading by
ICC standards. Three articles are of particular interest. "The State in
the Period of Transition" deals with the withering away of the state in
Marxist theory (and the lack of the same in Marxist practice). The author, ICC
founder Marc or MC, reaches the conclusion that the working class shouldn't
identify with the revolutionary state, but see it as a necessary and temporary
evil. The state must be controlled at all times by the workers' councils, which
are not part of the revolutionary state itself. Nor should the revolutionary
party take power "on behalf of the workers". The party should be a
current within the workers' councils, neither more nor less. Only in this
manner can the state be forced to eventually wither away. Thus, the withering
away of the state is not an automatic process, but a conscious act from the
side of the proletariat (at least according to the author). Marc's conceptions
sound council communist or semi-anarchist, and he was roundly denounced by the
more statist Bordigists for having abandoned the Marxist view of the state.
(The Bordigists are more fond of Trotsky's work "Terrorism and
Communism"!)
"On the National Question: Reply to Solidarity" is a polemic against Solidarity, a more "soft" ultraleftist group in Britain. The ICC attacks national liberation struggles, democratic revolutions and really existing socialism as "bourgeois", "capitalist" and "imperialist". Conversely, they defend the Russian revolution as proletarian, while the meeker Solidarity apparently saw it as too authoritarian!
The most interesting piece in this issue of the IR is titled "Spain 1936: The Myth of the Anarchist Collectives". The article attempts to demystify the collectives set up by the CNT during the Spanish Civil War, which play a prominent part in anarchist political mythology as a "libertarian socialist" alternative to authoritarian Communism. The ICC almost gleefully point out that the collectivized plants and farms were integrated parts of the Spanish Republic's war economy, and often had the explicit approval of the proper authorities or the former bosses. Nor were they particularly decentralized, since the economy in the Republican areas was controlled by crypto-governmental "high economic councils". Of course, the ICC also mentions the salient fact that the CNT were part of the government of the People's Front and its administration, together with the "bourgeois" republicans, Social Democrats and Stalinists.
The article on Spain also shows the murkier side of the ICC's message. That ultraleftists refuse to support the Spanish Republic against Franco is hardly surprising - they want the workers to "destroy" both the Republic and the fascists simultaneously (no less). But how is this to be concretely accomplished? The article contains a lot of complaints about low wages, overtime, rationing and corruption in the Republican zone. (Durruti is referred to as a "satrap".) Had the ICC been present in Spain in 1936-39, they would presumably have stirred up petty discontent, and all kinds of trouble-makers, on the Republican side. In other words, they would have acted in a way impossible to distinguish from fifth columnists and agent provocateurs...
International Review's article on the collectives doesn't just expose the utopian myths of the anarchists but also the real role played by the ultraleft.
Thanks for telling us in advance, "comrades".
"On the National Question: Reply to Solidarity" is a polemic against Solidarity, a more "soft" ultraleftist group in Britain. The ICC attacks national liberation struggles, democratic revolutions and really existing socialism as "bourgeois", "capitalist" and "imperialist". Conversely, they defend the Russian revolution as proletarian, while the meeker Solidarity apparently saw it as too authoritarian!
The most interesting piece in this issue of the IR is titled "Spain 1936: The Myth of the Anarchist Collectives". The article attempts to demystify the collectives set up by the CNT during the Spanish Civil War, which play a prominent part in anarchist political mythology as a "libertarian socialist" alternative to authoritarian Communism. The ICC almost gleefully point out that the collectivized plants and farms were integrated parts of the Spanish Republic's war economy, and often had the explicit approval of the proper authorities or the former bosses. Nor were they particularly decentralized, since the economy in the Republican areas was controlled by crypto-governmental "high economic councils". Of course, the ICC also mentions the salient fact that the CNT were part of the government of the People's Front and its administration, together with the "bourgeois" republicans, Social Democrats and Stalinists.
The article on Spain also shows the murkier side of the ICC's message. That ultraleftists refuse to support the Spanish Republic against Franco is hardly surprising - they want the workers to "destroy" both the Republic and the fascists simultaneously (no less). But how is this to be concretely accomplished? The article contains a lot of complaints about low wages, overtime, rationing and corruption in the Republican zone. (Durruti is referred to as a "satrap".) Had the ICC been present in Spain in 1936-39, they would presumably have stirred up petty discontent, and all kinds of trouble-makers, on the Republican side. In other words, they would have acted in a way impossible to distinguish from fifth columnists and agent provocateurs...
International Review's article on the collectives doesn't just expose the utopian myths of the anarchists but also the real role played by the ultraleft.
Thanks for telling us in advance, "comrades".
No comments:
Post a Comment