Never ending cycles

Credit: mckaysavage

First, a quote. 

>>>But it was above all once it ceased to be a revolutionary class, and even more when it entered its epoch of decadence, that the bourgeoisie more and more abandoned the materialist outlook of its youth and relapsed into irrational and semi-mystical world-views: the case of nazism is a concentrated example. And the final phase of capitalist decadence - the phase of decomposition - has exacerbated such tendencies still further, as witness phenomena such as the upsurge of Islamic fundamentalism and the proliferation of suicidal cults. These ideologies are increasingly all-pervasive and the proletariat can by no means escape them.>>>

Reading the above funny quip (yes, it´s from the ultraleft International Communist Current – who else?) a few things struck me. Yes, the bourgeoisie used to be “rational” et cetera. I assume all ascending classes during periods of “progress” are rational and enlightened, somehow. What the ICC is describing is presumably what Spengler would call “The Second Religiosity”. When society is no longer progressing, religion and “mysticism” does indeed increase – including in the previously rationalist ruling class. In the ancient world, I suppose we could relate this to the rational period of the early Roman Empire and then the ascendancy of Neoplatonism and, ahem, Christianity during the decline of classical civilization. Of course, parallels of this kind will never be exact, but they are certainly present. (Or in India: compare the scientific advances during the Guptas with the later period of collapse when magic, orgies and Tantrism became widespread.)

What the ICC fails to see, no doubt because their dogmatic Marxism, is that this cyclic pattern of rise, decline and fall is inevitable. It will never cease in favor of Utopia. For all we know, the ideologies of the ascent and descent are equally true: the rational ideology is needed to remake the Earth, the “irrational” or trans-rational ideology is needed to reach Heaven when Earth proves to be un-remakable. Or unite with Nature, as the case might be.

It also struck me that this analysis must be applicable to the PMC or professional-managerial class, which has shared power with the bourgeoisie since at least the 1930´s. It, too, started out as a “rational” class, often with a “socialist” ideology. But now? They too are collapsing into rank irrationality. Yes, that would be postmodernism, “identity politics”, veganism, trans-people, trans-humanism, oikophobia, whatever. The religion of these spiteful mutants is presumably some kind of bizarrely fragmented form of New Age. Or Satanism. This, however, isn´t the Second Religiosity, but the collapse preceding it. 

Somehow, I find it difficult to believe that the PMC will ever return to traditional religion (or survive at all), but who knows? Maybe Shia Islam could be something? Or, cough cough, Modern Orthodox Judaism. But many of the younger ones will probably just commit suicide rather than facing a long decline (with Russian domination) in castrated condition without the necessary medication. And oh, the trans-humanists will probably also jump into some lake, when the AI-UFO-cyborg singularity fails to show up on schedule circa 2040.

Will the masses ever learn, I wonder? Or even the ruling classes…  

Marxism and Nirvana

Some hilarious quotes from the press of the International Communist Current. I´m beginning to suspect that there is something very, very strange with the ICC, ha ha!  

>>>In his comments on the EPM, Bordiga was particularly insistent on this point: the resolution of the enigmas of history was only possible "once we have left behind the millennia-old deception of the lone individual facing the natural world, stupidly called 'external' by the philosophers. External to what? External to the 'I', this supreme deficiency,' but we can no longer say external to the human species, because the species man is internal to nature, part of the physical world." And he goes on to say that "in this powerful text, object and subject becomes, like man and nature, one and the same thing. We can even say that everything becomes object: man as a subject 'against nature' disappears, along with the illusion of a separate ego." ('Tables immuables de la theorie communiste de parti', in Bordiga et Ie passion du communisme. edited by J Camatte, 1972).

>>>Hitherto, the intentional cultivation of states (or rather stages, since we are not talking about anything final here) of consciousness which go beyond the perception of the isolated ego has been largely restricted to the mystical traditions. For example, in Zen Buddhism, accounts of the experience of Satori, which expresses an attempt to go beyond the split between subject and object into a vaster unity, bear a certain resemblance to the mode of being that Bordiga, following Marx, is attempting to describe. But while communist humanity will perhaps find elements that can be reappropriated from these traditions, it is not correct to deduce from these passages in Marx and Bordiga that communism should be described as the "mystical society" or to posit a "communist mysticism", as in certain texts on the question of nature that have been published recently by the Bordigist group II Partito Comunista. 

>>>Inevitably, the teachings of all the mystical traditions were more or less - bound up with various religious and ideological misconceptions resulting from - immature historical conditions, whereas communism will be able to take the 'rational kernel' from these traditions and incorporate them into a real science of man. With equal inevitability, the insights and techniques of the mystical traditions were almost by definition limited to an elite of privileged individuals, whereas in communism there will be no secrets to be hidden from the vulgar masses. And as a result, the expansion of awareness that will be achieved by the collective humanity of the future will be incomparably greater than the individual flashes of illumination attained within the horizons of class society.

XXXXXXXX

>>>At first sight this might seem to be a strange subject for a polemic between revolutionary groups, but it would be a mistake to think that the most advanced fractions of the proletarian movement are immune from the influence of religious and mystical ideologies. This was certainly the case in the struggle to found the Communist League, when Marx and Engels had to combat the sectarian, semi-religious visions of communism professed by Weitling and other; it was no less true during the period of the First International, when the marxist fraction had to confront the masonic ideologies of sects like the Philadelphians, and above all of Bakunin's "International Brotherhood".

 >>>But it was above all once it ceased to be a revolutionary class, and even more when it entered its epoch of decadence, that the bourgeoisie more and more abandoned the materialist outlook of its youth and relapsed into irrational and semi-mystical world-views: the case of nazism is a concentrated example. And the final phase of capitalist decadence - the phase of decomposition - has exacerbated such tendencies still further, as witness phenomena such as the upsurge of Islamic fundamentalism and the proliferation of suicidal cults. These ideologies are increasingly all-pervasive and the proletariat can by no means escape them.

 

>>>The fact that the proletarian political milieu itself has to be on guard against such ideologies has been demonstrated clearly in the recent period. We can cite the case of the London Psychogeographical Association and similar "groups", which have concocted a snake-oil mixture of communism and occultism and have been busily trying to sell it in the milieu. Within the ICC itself, we have seen the activities of the adventurer JJ, expelled for seeking to create a clandestine network of "interest" in the ideas of freemasonry.

Look who´s straddling the class line

Henri Tolain wondering about Karl Marx

Was Marx a "moderate" concerning the Paris Commune? 

Did Marx change his opinions on the Paris Commune?

Martinists in the workers´ movement?

I always laughed at these statements by the Freemason-phobic "International Communist Current" (ICC), one of the more exotic species of weed in the far left political bouqet. 

>>>>>>

"This "greeting" was lip-service. In France, already after 1968, the bourgeoisie was using its "neo-Templar", "Rosicrucian" and "Martinist" sects in order to infiltrate leftist and other groups, in collaboration with the SAC services. For example, Luc Jeuret, the guru of the "Sun Temple" began his career by infiltrating Maoist groups."

"Left-wing versions of such counter-revolutionary organisations are no less active. In France, for instance, new sects have been established in the tradition of "Martinism", a variant of freemasonry historically specialised in the infiltration and subversion of workers' organisations. Such groups put forward the idea that communism can best be achieved by the manipulations of an enlightened minority. Like other sects, they are specialised in the art of manipulating people."

>>>>>>

Yes, Martinists. The ICC is suggesting that Martinists (of all people) are infiltrating "workers´ organisations" or "leftist and other groups". Yeah, rightie!

Look what synchronistically showed up just two hours ago on Reddit: 

<<<<<<

"Martinism is about politics, yes, because many of our past masters were ardent supporters of Utopian socialism or persecuted by totalitarian governments. The magnetist and spiritualist circles of France, where martinism developed, such as that of Charles Fourier, Saint-Simon, Esquiros, and Eliphas, were all Utopian socialists. if you read the speech of Guaita to the degree of SI, you will see that it clearly says about us "- you can call us socialists, communists...". The Rosicrucian & Martinist tradition has several works that deal with the reform of society and the establishment of Utopia, such as Francis Bacon's new atlantis, Andreae's christianopolis and Yves d'Alveydre's synarchy. Chevillon, Grand Master of Lyon's Martinezist Order, was an ardent supporter of utopian socialism and was assassinated by the Nazis for his initiatory activity.

Read Chevillon's social temple, or Eliphas' bible of freedom, or Stanislas' initiatic discourse, or Leon Denis' socialism and spiritualism. Now, it is important to emphasize that we are referring to idealistic, French, Christian Utopian socialism, and not the cruel and bloodthirsty materialism of Germany and Russia. The reform of humanity has always been present in the works of the Rosicrucians, from Thomas Morus to Francis Bacon. But this social reform can only come from a change of Consciousness and Spiritual evolution - it cannot be outwardly forced. Anyway, fascism exterminated many of our brothers, most even sent to concentration chambers in Nazi Germany. Martinism is Utopist. The ideal of Utopia comes all the way through the synarchy of d'Alveydre, the christianopolis of the Rose+Croix, the new atlantis of Francis Bacon, the civitas solis of Campanella, the utopia of Thomas Morus, the republic of Plato, the assassination of C.Chevillon at the hands of the fascists, from the critique of Papus to liberal-bourgeois Freemasonry, from the speech of Guaita "call us socialists or communists, the words do not matter", through all the brothers who were persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and killed by totalitarian regimes.

French Utopian socialism, which was born idealist and spiritualist, has nothing to do with the degenerate atheist and materialist communism of Germany, or with postmodern deconstruction.

We are closer to Charles Fourier, Robert Owen and Saint-Simon.

"economist or philosopher, call it the tendency towards socialism, if you wish... to collectivism, to communism... words don't matter!" - initiatic Discourse to the degree of Superior Incognitoby Stanislas de Guaita (founder of the OKRC, before the Ordre Martiniste was established)

In short:

We are not adherents of the atheistic and materialistic communism that brought so much death and destruction to the world. But it i important to recognize that if someone is on the side of fascism, he would be along with those who persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and murdered our Past Masters. from Andrea's christianopolis, Campanella's civitas solis, Francis Bacon's new atlantis, Thomas Morus' utopia to d'Alveydre's synarchy, there has always been a link between initiation and the struggle for the Repair of the World so desired by the Rosicrucians. A world that has the Earth as its homeland, the Universe as its temple, and Conscience as its guide, without divisions of class, nation and race. that is why the lords of the world (authoritarian governments, ecclesiastical power, etc.) crushed our past brothers. Remember chevillon, murdered by the Nazis. remember Stanislas Guaita, who made it very clear in his initiation speech to the 3rd degree - "call us collectivists, socialists or communists, it doesn't matter what the words are!"; remember Eliphas, sent to jail for his socialist ideal! remember the synarchy! and, remembering all this, we cannot be on the side of those who would stain their hands with blood against your own brothers."

<<<<<<

Wtf?! 

Workers´ movement: Marxism against Freemasonry

Martinism and social justice/leftist politics

Nobody gives a damn

This is an extremely tedious Marxist booklet, published by the impressively named International Communist Current (ICC). It really does exist in about a dozen different nations, but the total worldwide membership must nevertheless be minuscule. In the United States, ICC material is distributed by a group called Internationalism. The ICC belongs to the Left Communist or “ultraleftist” tradition within revolutionary Marxism, associated with Anton Pannekoek, Herman Gorter and Amadeo Bordiga. “Communist Organisations & Class Consciousness” is dubbed “Pamphlet No 3” and contains the ICC's views on revolutionary organizing. It's undated, but was probably published circa 1980.

I won't go into the details here, except to note that it's a theoretical text. A large part of it is Marxism 101. Another section criticizes Lenin along the same lines as Rosa Luxemburg and the German KAPD, while nevertheless defending the October revolution and arguing that the Bolshevik party didn't degenerate until somewhat later (presumably around 1921-23, judging by other texts). The booklet ends with a criticism of the ICC's ultraleftist competitors, the Bordigists and the “councilists”. It calls on revolutionaries to intervene in the struggles of the working class in order to develop class consciousness, struggles which are said to be decisive for the world revolution.

Of course, since the ICC really rejected most forms of political activity (unions, labor parties, anti-racist campaigns, feminism, Third World solidarity etc), their “interventions” were limited to leafleting and discussing with workers on wildcat strike. Since ICC never raised any concrete demands, except “spread the strike” (outside the unions), they had zero influence. Most of the time, they simply chewed dogma. During the 1990's, they gave up even these somewhat narrow activities in favor of internal purges of “clans” and “Freemasons” (sic), but I'm digressing…

Supplement to world revolution

This is the third issue of International Review, the theoretical journal of a small and exotic Left Communist group, the ICC (International Communist Current). The issue is dated October 1975 and subtitled “Supplement to World Revolution and Internationalism” (two other ICC publications). Most issues of the IR should be given some kind of award for chloroform in print. Only a sense of duty could carry a non-member of the ICC through the International Review!

This early issue, by contrast, is much better written than the later issues (although its print quality, ironically, is far worse) and could even be of some interest to left-watchers, or at least ultraleft-watchers. The most interesting piece is the article “The lessons of Kronstadt”. The ICC expresses support for the 1921 Kronstadt mutiny, but with a few unusual twists. The accompanying article “The degeneration of the Russian Revolution” is a more tedious polemic against an ex-Trotskyist outfit, the Revolutionary Workers Group (any relation to the “Kollontaist” Revolutionary Workers Faction?). This issue further contains the second part of an analysis of the fascist victory in Italy, arguing that fascism and liberal democracy are twins rather than antipodes, and a reprint of a Left Communist article from 1933 discussing the character of fascism.

Not for the general reader, but perhaps of some use if ultraleftism, anarchism or Kronstadt is something you take seriously.

ICC on Poland

International Review is the publication of the International Communist Current (ICC), an organization in the Left Communist tradition. Despite being represented in at least a dozen countries, the ICC is a very small tendency. They are also extremely sectarian, rejecting virtually all forms of political activity apart from unofficial strikes and abstract propaganda for a purist socialist revolution.

This issue of International Review, dated “4th quarter 1981”, deals extensively with Poland, where massive working class struggles against the Communist regime erupted in 1980-81. The ICC, which regarded the Polish regime as “state capitalist” and “counter-revolutionary”, sided with the workers and their strike committees. The main article in this issue is titled “One year of workers' struggles in Poland” and argues in some detail that the Polish crisis confirms the ICC's worldview and political tactics. Another lengthy article, “Class struggle in Eastern Europe 1920-70”, also discusses the 1956 revolt in Hungary. “Notes on the mass strike” discusses Rosa Luxemburg's views on strike struggles and their relevance for the Polish situation.

It should be noted that the ICC didn't support the independent union Solidarnosc headed by Lech Walesa. Quite the contrary, they regarded it as an obstacle to the struggle, since Solidarnosc wanted a negotiated settlement with the regime (or at least claimed that's what they wanted). The ICC is “anti-union” and believed that the union form of organization played the same counter-revolutionary role under Stalinism as it does in Western nations. The alternative to Solidarnosc is to hold on to the independent strike committees and continue the offensive.

International Review (no 27) also contain two shorter pieces, the second part of a long criticism of Anton Pannekoek's “Lenin as Philosopher” and a leaflet against the 1981 border clashes between Ecuador and Peru, plus some comments from the editors. (Curiously, the Ecuadorean leaflet seems to have been signed “ICC” despite being printed by another group.)

This material is definitely not for the general reader, but could perhaps be useful to people who absolutely want to know how various leftist groups (including obscure ones) reacted to the Polish events in 1980-81. It should be noted that the issue was published before the suppression of Solidarnosc by General Jaruzelski.

The peaceful road to self-management

Supposed photo of Marc Chirik, ICC´s founder 

International Review is the journal of the International Communist Current (ICC). The ICC is a small group within the Left Communist tradition. Their ideas are similar in some ways to those of the Italian Left Faction, a group which existed during the 1930's and 1940's. The ICC was formed in 1975, but their elderly leader Marc Chirik had been a supporter of the Left Faction 40 years earlier. I admit that I don't really like the ICC politically, and most of their material is useless for outsiders. The sole exception seems to be the book “The Italian Communist Left 1926-1945”, reviewed by me elsewhere.

This issue of International Review (no 7, November 1976) contains translations of articles on the Spanish Civil War from Bilan, the publication of the Italian Left Faction mentioned above. The Faction opposed both the Republic and Franco (an absurd position). The other articles are much less interesting, unless you absolutely want to read the first installment in the ICC-Combate saga, which ended with Combate refusing to sell ICC's journal in their self-managed bookshop in Portugal…

I don't think they lost much money on that decision.

Unequally bound

In contrast to the three other reviewers, I'm not particularly interested in "The First 5 Years of the Communist International, Vol. II", that contains early Comintern documents written or edited by Leon Trotsky. And no, I don't deny that this two-volume work *is* interesting for students of early Communist history. It simply isn't my current cup of tea. 

The two volumes are published by Pathfinder Press. There is also an earlier edition published by Monad. Both publishers are associated with the U.S. Socialist Workers' Party.

I posted this review mostly because volume II contains one of the more curious documents in Communist history, "Resolution of the Fourth World Congress on the French Question". It can also be found in "Theses, Resolutions and Manifestos of the First Four Congresses of the Third International", published by the competing Pluto Press (at one point associated with the British Socialist Workers' Party - no connection to the American group).

"Resolution of the Fourth World Congress on the French Question" contains what might be the only official Communist attack on...wait for it...Freemasonry. Ironically, since conspiracy theorists often claim that "Judeo-Bolsheviks" and Masons somehow go together. A surprisingly large number of French Communists, including high-ranking ones, turned out to be members of Masonic lodges. This unusual state of affairs was probably due to the fact, that the Communists in France were pretty "soft" and heterogeneous - indeed, a *majority* of the old Socialist Party had joined the Communist movement. In France, Freemasonry in the form of Grand Orient lodges was anti-clerical, republican and "progressive", which may explain why even members of the Socialist Party joined it. These people subsequently found themselves inside the Communist movement.

Of course, the Communist International in Moscow wasn't amused. Communist parties, and the international itself, were based on "democratic centralism" and strict discipline. The Fourth Congress of the Comintern (1922) seems to have launched a drive towards more centralization and homogenization within the world Communist movement. The internal discipline of Freemasonry, essentially a secret society, clashed with the discipline of the Communist Party. I guess you could say that Communist Masons are unequally bound! The fact that most Masons were non-Communist and "bourgeois" simply compounded the dual loyalty problem. The solution was simple: expell all Masons, and bar them forever from re-entering the French Communist Party. Only the repentant ones were allowed to stay, but were barred from serving in leading positions for a period of two years. The anti-Masonic resolution says surprisingly little about the philosophical views of the Masons, simply brushing them aside as mysticism and saying that it's grossly immature for a Communist to believe in such things. Together with the Masons, the Comintern also expelled members of the League for the Rights of Man, another "bourgeois" organization with no mystical dimensions.

I'm not sure what happened next, although I suspect that the ban on Masonry is still enforced by most Communist parties. However, few leftist groups really give a damn, since people interested in Masonry are usually singularly uninterested in Communism and Marxism - and, I suppose, vice versa. It's a self-enforcing ban.

And then there are the exceptions... I *did* manage to find one leftist group with a very specific anti-Masonic paranoia: the ultra-small International Communist Current (ICC). The ICC believes in their own version of conspiracy theory, according to which the bourgeoisie has "Machiavellian consciousness", consciously rigs election results even in Western democracies, etc. If so, secret societies must play a prominent role, which indeed they do according to the ICC. The secret societies are also used to attack the Communist movement: witness Bakunin, Mazzini and (surprise) the Grand Orient. Apparently, Martinism is the prime conduit of occult infiltration of the revolutionary movement, etc. etc. See the ICC's article "Workers' Movement: Marxism against Freemasonry", available on the web.

So next time somebody tells you about the grand Communist-Jewish-Masonic conspiracy, slap them in the face with this book and the ICC's article! :D

OK, that was today's lesson in Ashtar Command weird-lore...

Nothing can stop the course of history

A typical punk anarcho-Bordigist 

This is issue 50 of International Review, published in 1987. International Review is the magazine of the International Communist Current (ICC), a super-sectarian Left Communist group based in France. The review is filled with impenetrable theoretical articles about "the decadence of capitalism", "the course of history", "the continuity of the proletariat's political organisations" and other somewhat esoteric subjects.

Many items are polemics against competing Left Communist groups. In this issue, the "punk anarcho-Bordigists" of the Internationalist Communist Groups are in for a good trashing due to their erroneous views of the class-nature of 19th century Social Democracy. There is also a polemic against Battaglia Communista on the course of history. Apparently, Battaglia was too pessimistic about the prospects.

As the ICC puts it: "Whether Battaglia like it or not, we are heading towards immense class conflagrations. Those currents who are not prepared for them are in danger of being swept aside by the heat of the blast".

Amen.

Labor donated

The International Communist Current (ICC) is a Left Communist or ultraleftist organization. Its political positions are similar to those of the ex-Bordigist "Left Faction of the PCI" in France during the 1930's. Indeed, the ICC was formed in 1975 by an old militant who had participated in this group, one Marc Chirik or MC. While having groups of supporters in a dozen countries around the globe, the ICC is an insignificant force even on the far left. They are simply too sectarian and theoretical to be of much interest, and seem to have spent most of the 1990's tearing themselves apart in factional struggles against "clans" (whatever that is). A slight paranoia featuring Freemasons is another trait of this rather odd group.

"Unions against the working class" is a pamphlet detailing the ICC's ultraleft rejection of trade and labour unions. The ICC does believe that unions played a certain progressive role during the "ascendant" phase of capitalism (the 19th century), when real reforms could still be wrested from the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. However, since 1914 capitalism has entered its "decadent" phase, when reforms are no longer possible. This means that *all* unions are reactionary, capitalist and part of the bourgeois state apparatus. Nor can unions be captured by revolutionaries or reformed by rank-and-file movements. Thus, the ICC rejects not only the moderate leaderships of most unions, but also the attempts by Trotskyists and other leftists to work inside the unions as a radical opposition. Attempts by even more radical leftists to set up dual unions or invent entirely new forms of shop floor organizations such as "base committees" are also rejected. All permanent, defensive workers' organizations will inevitably become part of the oppressive structures of capitalism.

During the epoch of capitalist decadence, the only solution is an immediate socialist revolution. It can only come about by industrial workers staging unofficial strikes outside the control of the unions and their leftist hangers-on. The strikes must be spread or "generalized". Eventually, a mass strike will confront the system and topple it, presumably by the striking workers taking armed action, creating a revolutionary power based on workers' councils or soviets (as in Russia in 1905 and 1917).

But what if the strikes don't spread, the strike waves subside and workers return to their jobs, perhaps happy to have gotten a new union contract? In such a situation, it seems that revolutionaries can't do anything at all, except biding their time until the next wildcat. The ICC believes that the most militant workers can form discussion groups to discuss their experiences and keep the flame alive, but this is all. Presumably, the ICC hope to be able to influence the discussions in such "workers' groups" and recruit them to its ranks.

I think it's obvious to anyone that nothing can be accomplished with this rigid, narrow and sectarian program. Indeed, Lenin criticized the original Left Communists already in 1920 in his work "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder". The Bolshevik leader, of course, called on Communists to enter the unions, participate in elections, form united fronts with Social Democrats when possible, etc. In a famous quotation, Lenin even said that Communists should use all means of subterfuge at their disposal in order to enter the "reactionary" unions and remain there! I'm not a big fan of V.I. Ulyanov, but I'd say he was a smarter strategist than Marc Chirik and the ICC...

Naturally, "Unions against the working class" comes without a union bug!

Don't show this to Uncle Charlie

"Nation or Class?" is a pamphlet published by the International Communist Current (ICC), a small and somewhat peculiar left-wing radical group. The ICC claim adherence to the so-called Left Communist or ultraleftist tradition, associated with Anton Pannekoek, Herman Gorter and (rightly or wrongly) also with Amadeo Bordiga. The ICC's most immediate ideological precursor seems to be the Italian Left Fraction in Exile, an ultraleftist group in France during the 1930's. The Left Communists were anti-Stalinist, but nevertheless rejected the Trotskyist movement. The Trotskyists, in turn, accused the Left Communists of being hopeless sectarians. This is somewhat ironic, since - of course - Trotskyism was accused of pretty much the same thing by stronger anti-Stalinist left parties such as the Spanish POUM, the British ILP or Norman Thomas' Socialist Party in the United States. Scattered Left Communist groups of rather diverse kinds still exist today, with the ICC being one of the more visible groups. Well, at least if you use a magnifying glass! The ICC has always been strongly sectarian and completely isolated from most of what counts for leftist politics, something the group apparently takes a certain pride in.

"Nation or Class?" is an ICC pamphlet arguing against any kind of support for national liberation movements. The ICC admits that national liberation could sometimes play a positive role during the "ascendant" epoch of capitalism, but with World War I capitalism definitely entered its epoch of "decadence", making genuine national liberation struggles impossible and presumably undesirable. The ICC criticizes Lenin and the Bolsheviks for their support to national liberation struggles, while arguing that Rosa Luxemburg's position on the matter was better. They make a connection between Lenin's and Luxemburg's different analysis of imperialism, and their respective positions on national liberation. To the ICC, the world of decadent capitalism has been decisively portioned between imperialist great powers. Even worse, *all* nations - even the smallest - are forced to conduct an imperialist policy. Thus, "national liberation" either means that a nation passes from the control of one great power to another, or becomes an imperialist bully in its own right, or both.

It should be noted that the ICC regards the regimes in the Soviet Union, China and elsewhere as "state capitalist" and hence just as imperialist as the United States, Britain or France. Thus, national liberation struggles during the Cold War were, to the ICC, simply a way of former Western colonies to become hirelings of Russian imperialism instead. In rare cases, the trend went in the opposite direction, as when Israel went from Soviet asset to Western ally, or when Siad Barre's regime in Somalia switched its allegiance from the Soviet Union to the United States. In even rarer instances, formerly subjugated nations managed to become imperialist great powers in their own right (China).

The ICC attacks Vietnam with special venom, presumably because most of the left supported North Vietnam and the NLF during the Vietnam War. ICC's attacks on Vietnam sound surprisingly "right-wing": peasants in North Vietnam resisted collectivization, peasants in South Vietnam fled before the North Vietnamese army, the reunited Vietnam has forced labour as in Pol Pot's Cambodia, and its bullying of Cambodia or the Chinese minority is "imperialist". Another target of the pamphlet is the Congolese rebel movement which attempted to invade Katanga from bases in Angola. Apparently, the rebels were former supporters of pro-Western strongman Moise Tshombe, temporarily allied with the pro-Soviet MPLA regime in Angola. Angola, of course, was another favourite nation of leftist solidarity activists...

Obviously, "Nation or Class?" wasn't intended to win any leftist popularity contest!

Since the ICC rejects *all* support to national liberation movements, no matter how temporary or tactical, the only alternative is a "straight" working-class revolution, during which the workers reject, once and for all, all forms of nationalism and imperialism, both domestic and foreign, and strike out on their own, with soviets and red guards, in a kind of simplistic reprise of the 1917 October revolution in Russia. Then, the revolution must be immediately spread around the world, with force of arms if necessary. National self-determination will not be granted after the revolution either. Here, the ICC supports Rosa Luxemburg's position. Luxemburg criticized the Bolsheviks for having granted national self-determination to Finland, the Ukraine and other non-Russian regions after the October revolution. The only alternative to national liberation is the "world-wide civil war" between the working class and the bourgeoisie, and the subsequent construction of a "world human community" after the victory of the world revolution.

I admit that "Nation or Class?" is somewhat more interesting than ICC texts on average, so I will therefore grant it three stars. But no, I can't say I agree with ICC's truly ultraleft position on matters national...

Nation or Clan?

This is the flag of South Vietnam (the late anti-Communist state south of the green line). Many leftists and radical-liberals also regard it as the unofficial flag of the "International Communist Current". OK, maybe not. But perhaps they should? Ha ha ha. I'm off to my Masonic lodge meeting with Chénier, comrades. Bye, bye! :P

Leon Trotsky y Wall Street

International Review is the official publication of the International Communist Current (ICC). This issue of the magazine was published in July 1977, but the political positions of the ICC have such a timeless quality about them, that the publication date doesn't really matter. I wouldn't be too surprised if some articles from this issue are on-line at the ICC's website! The ICC claims to be in political continuity with the ultraleft factions of the early Communist International: the Dutch and German Left around Pannekoek and Gorter, and the Italian Left around Bordiga. These currents are sometimes referred to as Left Communists. To make a long story somewhat shorter!

I admit that I don't really like this the ICC, and this particular issue of their journal gave me several additional reasons to dislike the group. The ICC reprints several old articles by an obscure Left Communist group in Mexico, the Marxist Workers' Group. The reprinted articles were written in 1937-38, during the Spanish Civil War. One of the members of the Mexican group was Eiffel, a former Trotskyist and Oehlerite, who had been extradited from the United States and found refuge in Mexico. Eiffel is rather scathingly mentioned in a few polemical articles by Trotsky, who denounced him as an ultraleftist sectarian. Reading the articles reprinted by International Review, I can only conclude that Trotsky was (for once) right!

The Marxist Workers' Group denounces both Franco and the Spanish Republic in such terms, that they sound virtually like fifth columnists. Republican soldiers should mutiny and fraternize with Franco's soldiers, who are just deluded peasants betrayed by the Republican government, which refuses to give them land. The fight is not against Franco's army (no?), but against "the bourgeoisie itself, fascist or `anti-fascist'". All "workers and peasants" must launch a "common struggle", including Moroccans, Italians and Germans. At the time, Morocco supported Franco, while Italy and Germany were fascist! How likely was it that German workers (in the Deutsche Arbeitsfront, perhaps?) would have launched a "common struggle" with workers in Barcelona against "the bourgeoisie itself"? Ridiculous nonsense.

The Mexican Workers' Group further states that the Mexican government should stop sending arms and ammunition to the Spanish Republic. Mexican president Cardenas (a left-nationalist populist) is supposedly an agent of U.S. imperialism, who gave Trotsky asylum only because his American masters demanded it. The United States wants to use Trotsky in its diplomatic wrangling with Stalin, etc. Somewhat contradictory, the Mexican Workers' Group nevertheless demands that Trotsky should be granted asylum...

This kind of fifth columnist drivel didn't go unnoticed. The famous painter Diego Rivera, at the time a prominent supporter of Trotsky in Mexico, denounced the Mexican Workers' Group in the magazine Excelsior, presumably the local Trotskyist publication.

The other articles in this issue of International Review are written by the ICC themselves. The contents of "From Austro-Marxism to Austro-Fascism" can be easily deduced by the title. Let's just say that the ICC doesn't like Social Democratic Austria, either! Another article is a polemic against the CWO, a perennial competitor to the ICC on the ultraleftist flank. The ICC doesn't like CWO's quasi-Leninist or crypto-Bordigist positions on War Communism, the role of the state after the revolution, etc. I suppose they do agree on Spain and Austria.

An erratic ultraleftist publication of this kind is definitely not my cup of tea, but for creating a little tempest in my tea cup, I will nevertheless award it three stars. I suppose you could call these musings "interesting", after a fashion.

The hunt for Red October

"Russia 1917: Start of the World Revolution" is a pamphlet published by the International Communist Current, a small group in the "Left Communist" tradition. The pamphlet contains two articles previously published in ICC's journal International Review.

The ICC defends the position that the 1917 October revolution in Russia had a "proletarian class character", and so had the Bolshevik Party. The degeneration of the Bolsheviks was a result of the international isolation of the revolution, rather than the inevitable product of pre-revolutionary Bolshevik theory and practice. The ICC's main target are the "councilists" (or council communists), who claimed that the October revolution had a "bourgeois" class character, and was destined to set up "state capitalism". Thus, October was degenerated from the start. The councilists seek the causes of this inevitable outcome in pre-revolutionary Bolshevik philosophy and actions. Inevitably, the councilist analysis is similar to the anarchist ditto, but - as the ICC points out several times - it's also remarkably similar to the *Menshevik* position!

A subsidiary target for the ICC's pamphlet are the Bordigists, who apparently regard the October revolution as a "double revolution", both proletarian and bourgeois simultaneously. (This was arguably also Lenin's position - see his neological formula "the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry".)

I'm not sure who could be interested in this little pamphlet (sold for six rupees in India, according to the cover). People interested in Left Communism? People with an inordinate fondness for theoretical discussions about Red October? People with six rupees to spare?

Commercially unviable?

Supposedly a photo of Miasnikov and his friends 

This is the eighth issue of International Review, the organ of the International Communist Current (ICC), one of several groups in the Left Communist tradition. Left Communism is a somewhat heterogeneous movement, comprising both anarchistic "council communists" such as Pannekoek and Mattick, and super-Leninists like Bordiga. The common denominator is a kind of "left" criticism of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. The ICC (founded in 1975) is very small and frequently erratic, but has managed to recruit supporters in a dozen different nations, including Britain, the United States and Sweden. The main section is French. This has made the ICC one of the more visible Left Communist groups, perhaps unfortunately so. In Sweden, they have always been considered more or less barking mad!

This particular issue of the ICC's publication, dated January 1977, contain two articles of interest. One is the first part of "The Communist Left in Russia", dealing with various "left" oppositions to the Bolshevik leadership: the Left Communists around Bukharin, the Democratic Centralists and the Workers' Opposition.

The other interesting piece is a heated exchange between the ICC and Onorato Damen, founder and leader of the Italian Left Communist "Internationalist Communist Party", which for a short period after World War II had a relatively large membership base. (This party is sometimes known as Battaglia Comunista, after its paper.) The ICC believes that Damen's party became large by compromising its political message, adapting itself to democratic anti-fascism in the wake of Mussolini's fall and the liberation of Italy by the Allies and the Partisans. Thus, the ICC charges Damen's party with attempting to penetrate the Partisans, something Damen actually admits that Battaglia Comunista did do. Two of their activists were murdered by the Stalinists for trying to recruit among the Partisans. The ICC regards Battaglia Comunista's actions as a form of pseudo-Trotskyist "entryism", and takes strong exception to it.

The bulk of International Review consists of documents from the second congress of Révolution Internationale, the French main section of the ICC. These articles are probably not of great interest to the general reader. But then, the International Review has never been a best-seller. This is driven home in an unintentionally funny protest by the ICC against a Portuguese chain of alternative book stores, which apparently decided not to sell ICC's publications for lack of buyers... (In a later issue, the chain partially reverses its decision in an ironical letter piquing the ICC for the super-theoretical contents of their journals!)

Well, at least *somebody* has humour around here...

I'm not sure how to rate this commercially unviable review, but in the end, it gets three stars. Just don't try to sell it in Lisbon!

A hard sell in Portugal

Supposedly a photo of the legendary Miasnikov

International Review (IR) is the publication of a small Left Communist group, the ICC. All issues of IR have a weirdly timeless quality, and are available on the ICC's website for free. They are all extremely tedious and hard to read. This is the ninth issue, published in 1977. The most interesting piece is the second part of an article on the Communist Left in Russia, dealing with Miasnikov's Workers' Group, the Workers' Truth, and the Irreconcilables within Trotsky's Left Opposition. Of course, all this information is available in scholarly sources, as well. Other articles deal with the history of the Italian Left Fraction, the Dutch Spartacusbund, and the British CWO. There is also a humorous correspondence with Combate, a Portuguese group which had stopped distributing ICC's material in its bookstores, since it didn't sell! Somehow, I do understand their position...

The ICC looses its bearings

This is issue 64 of International Review (IR), the journal of the Internationalist Communist Current (ICC). It was published shortly before the Gulf War (or rather the US attack on Iraq) in 1991. The ICC, a Left Communist group, didn't support any side in the war. The IR contain polemics against the Bordigists, the CWO and Battaglia Comunista, other Left Communist groups which also opposed both the United States and Iraq, but which the ICC feel were unclear in other ways. ICC's perspective is (as usual) super-sectarian, and really amounts to doing nothing at all. The other groups wanted to actively campaign against the war, or call for strikes against it.

Two other articles deal with something the ICC dubs "decomposition". The ICC, originally a very optimistic group, had begun to develop a pessimistic perspective after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The ICC didn't support the Soviet Union (quite the contrary - they considered "Stalinism" to be counter-revolutionary), but its collapse was nevertheless something they couldn't explain, since they had previously seen Soviet "state capitalism" as the logical end-point of the capitalist system, to which the Western powers somehow also tended. When the Soviet Union collapsed before Western capitalism, ICC's theories and perspectives lost their bearings.

To save the theory, the ICC postulated that the Western bloc, too, would collapse soon enough, taking the whole world down with it. Thus, the ICC argues that the "decadent" capitalist system has entered its final phase, "decomposition", in which the great power blocs split up and give way to a general war of all against all. This take on things looked reasonable at the time, and I admit that I had it myself, albeit from a very different angle than this strange ultraleft group. It seems we were both about 30 years to early... Well, maybe next time?

This issue of International Review also contains a polemic against Battaglia Comunista on the "Party-Fraction relationship", and an angry attack on a small group in Argentina, Emancipacion Obrera.

Not sure how to rate this voice from the past, but since we seem to have survived the decomposition back in 1991 (well, sort of), I'll give it three stars and hope for the best.

Grow up, kids

This is yet another issue (no 17) of International Review, the publication of the International Communist Current (ICC), a small and irrelevant groupuscule at the outermost fringes of political existence. The ICC's emblem shows a muscular blue-collar worker with a gigantic hammer, presumably in the process of smashing decadent capitalism. This is the only illustration in the entire publication!

Most of the articles deal with issues of interest only to ICC members or perhaps supporters of competing ultraleft groups. Thus, there is an article titled "Party, Councilism and Substitutionism", and a lengthy report from the Second Conference of groups of the Communist Left, hosted by Battaglia Comunista. Various ICC resolutions follow, and the issue is topped by a rumination on the history of the Dutch ultraleft (Pannekoek and friends).

The real world intrude in the proceedings in the form of an article on violent clashes between striking workers and riot police in France: "Longwy, Denain, show us the way". I'm sure the ICC passed out leaflets and attempted to sell International Review. If they succeeded, is another matter entirely. After all, we are dealing with a political current of the kind criticized by V. I. Lenin in his famous "Left Communism: An Infantile Disorder".

But seriously, when will the kids grow up...

In Bordiga's absence

Left Communism, the Communist Left or (usually disparagingly) the ultraleft is a relatively unknown Marxist current. It's certainly less known than, say, Maoism or Trotskyism. It's also somewhat heterogeneous.

Some of the Left Communists left the Communist International already before Lenin's death and the subsequent ascent of Stalinism. This was the case of the German KAPD and the Dutch group around Anton Pannekoek and Herman Gorter. This current eventually developed in an anarchistic/libertarian socialist direction, sometimes referred to as Council Communism. Paul Mattick and Otto Rühle were other representatives of this variety of Left Communism.

By contrast, the Italian Left Communists decided to stay inside the Comintern, criticizing Lenin and later fighting Stalin. This is hardly surprising since the Italian Left was the dominant group in the Communist Party of Italy. Its main spokesperson, Amadeo Bordiga, was simultaneously the leader of the Italian party. In 1926, the game was up as the Soviet leadership around Stalin and Bukharin moved to expel the Bordigists, replacing Bordiga with the legendary Antonio Gramsci. In contrast to the German and Dutch ultralefts, the Italian Left wasn't anarchistic, but rather the exact opposite. It upheld and even strengthened Lenin's concept of a centralized vanguard party, thereby becoming "more Leninist than Lenin".

After 1926, however, the expelled "Italian Left Faction in Exile" drifted away from Bordiga's super-Leninism, instead developing positions somewhere in between Council Communism and Bordigism. Today, at least two Left Communist groups lay claim to the heritage of the Faction, without necessarily having identical positions with it: Battaglia Comunista (founded in 1945 and often considered a direct continuation of the Italian Faction) and the International Communist Current (ICC), founded in 1975 by an old ex-militant of the Faction who had refused to join Battaglia.

The book "The Italian Communist Left 1926-45" is published by the ICC and is an extensive history of the Italian Faction in Exile, although it also mentions the Bordigist background and the later emergence of Battaglia Comunista (or, to use its full name, Partito Comunista Internazionalista). The book further deals with groups in Belgium, Mexico and the United States which had contacts with the Italian Left.

"The Italian Communist Left 1926-45" is "boring" and very political, and is probably useful only to people with a very strong, non-causal interest in Left Communism. However, it seems to be the only book of its kind, and I therefore give it four stars.