The withering away of the ICC

"The period of transition from capitalism to socialism: The withering-away of the state in Marxist theory" is the long title of this booklet, published in 1981 by the International Communist Current (ICC), a small group in the so-called Left Communist tradition. The booklet details an internal debate within the ICC on the nature of the post-revolutionary state during "the period of transition" from capitalism to socialism.

Interestingly, the ICC's view of the state turns out to be semi-anarchist. While not opposing the creation of a post-revolutionary state, they nevertheless believe that even such a state is fundamentally a conservative organ, with no particular plans to "wither away". Throughout the "transition period" there will be an uneasy co-existence between the state and the proletariat, with potential conflicts between them. Thus, while the working class must use the state, it cannot identify itself with it, and must at all times be independent from it. The workers' councils must not be identified with the state, which arises from the "territorial councils", organs that also regroup peasants, artisans and white collars. The workers' councils should endeavour to control the state, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is therefore a dictatorship *over* the state, which will be gradually abolished by conscious pressure, rather than automatically "wither away" when the material conditions happen to be ripe for it. The ICC is also opposed to the Leninist concept of a vanguard party, but that particular issue is not discussed in this booklet.

ICC's revision of traditional Marxism is, of course, based on the negative experiences of the Russian revolution. That an anti-Stalinist Marxist group mugged by Soviet reality questions certain aspects of Marxist theory, is hardly surprising. As a non-Marxist, I feel that the ICC's revisions don't go far enough! The ICC's goal is still an international planned economy based on complete collectivization. The "workers' councils" would need a truly gargantuan state apparatus to administer such an economy. Thus, it will necessarily be super-centralized. It's not very likely that an international planned economy can be run in anything resembling democratic fashion. Instead, power will slip away to a new class of techno-bureaucrats, presumably recruited from the white collars of the "territorial councils". Yes, there will indeed be a tremendous conflict between the state colossus and the workers' councils (which are radically democratic in ICC's scenario, due to the lack of a Leninist vanguard party). However, it's very difficult to see how the workers' councils can win such a conflict, or what their victory can even *mean*, since the ICC is opposed to self-management and decentralization. Like all Marxists, the ICC are in the end forced to wave the magic wand, envisioning a utopian society of super-abundance, which will make all social and political conflicts disappear (or "wither away", perhaps?).

At one point, the ICC writes that no revolutionary Marxist could have predicted the degeneration of the Russian revolution and the "counter-revolutionary" role of the state. Perhaps not, but anarchists, Mensheviks and "bourgeois" liberals *did* predict it. The Mensheviks even claimed to be Marxists! Of course, the ICC can't admit this, since their fundamental goal is identical to that of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Ironically, the Leninist groups are - in their own way - more realistic than the ICC. Thus, Leninists realize that the workers won't all be of the same mind, not even after the revolution, and that the workers' councils must therefore be led by a vanguard party. In ICC's scenario, the workers' councils are surprisingly politically homogenous even without tutelage from above, an unlikely scenario. The ICC also seems to believe in a relatively swift revolutionary victory, without "red terror" and with a minimum of violence against non-proletarian strata such as peasants, artisans and white collars. Indeed, their speculations in this booklet are based on a situation in which the world revolution has already succeeded, since the "transition period" can apparently only exist on an international scale. A more hard-boiled Commie would have a thing or two to say to these starry-eyed, arm-chair revolutionaries!

The problem is compounded by the ICC's super-sectarian, ultraleftist rejection of virtually all normal forms of political activity: elections, union organizing, anti-racist campaigns, even wars of national liberation. Only a mass strike leading to a pure Left Communist workers' revolution counts. I'd say these guys will wait a long time for their revolution! Ultimately, this gives "The period of transition from capitalism to socialism" a pretty surreal quality, since the ICC are discussing the conditions after a revolution they have no idea how to bring about...

It's also interesting to note that the ICC, despite its vaunted anti-Leninism, soon degenerated itself, becoming one of the more authoritarian and erratic sects on the fringe of leftist politics. But that, as they say, is another story.