The Internationalist Communist Group..Does anyone know anything about them?

[Palingenisis]

Hey,

A comrade recently posted a very interesting article by this group recently that though aimed at one particular organization had very valid criticisms of whats wrong with a lot of the left...Looking at their website they appear to be Left-Communist but someone on that thread which got trashed told me that they werent...So how would people classify them and what exactly is the Left Communist minimum so to speak?

Thanks.

http://gci-icg.org/english/index.html

[Devrim]

I actually wrote to the person who closed that thread and asked for it to be reopened. I didn't like criticism of us being closed down.

Anyway, I know a little about the GCI, and I am probably the only person on here who has actually met somebody who has admitted to being a member (they are very, very secretive).

They originated in a split from a split from our organisation, the ICC in the late 1970s.

Whether you call them 'left communists' or not is, I suppose, down to how you define the term. Generally one of the most basic positions of the communist left is the rejection of national liberation movements. There could be arguments about whether the GCI hold to this line. They seem to have an obsession with violence, and get a bit carried away by it. For example, they applauded the jets going into the twin towers.

The last time we wrote anything about them about four years ago:
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/124_gci_icg
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2006/groupe-communiste-internationaliste

I am quite happy to answer any questions you have about them, but be forewarned that I am not particularly sympathetic.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

Wasd the original split from the ICC down to "personality" and "attitude" differences or were there actual idealogical reasons for it? And how would you classify them if not as Left Communist?

[Leo]

Wasd the original split from the ICC down to "personality" and "attitude" differences or were there actual idealogical reasons for it?

As far as I know, the split took place over the question of the RAF and similar armed groups - the people who split around the GCI were in full support. The majority in the organization, while condemning the state repression against members of the RAF and organizations like it, maintained that the RAF was a petty-bourgeois organization, not an expression of the proletariat but of petty-bourgeois desperation.

[Palingenisis]

As far as I know, the split took place over the question of the RAF and similar armed groups - the people who split around the GCI were in full support. The majority in the organization, while condemning the state repression against members of the RAF and organizations like it, maintained that the RAF was a petty-bourgeois organization, not an expression of the proletariat but of petty-bourgeois desperation.


Thanks for replying. The armed groups that operated around Europe from the late 1960s to the early 80s were differed among each other idealogically though. The RAF's support of the East German state I would imagine would make them pretty distant from "Left-Communism"...Are you sure it was over the actual Red Army Faction and not maybe more idealogically closer urban guerilla groups that the break was over?

Is that reason that you believe that they shouldnt be considered Left Communists or is it because according to your press they reject the idea that capitalism has entered into its decadence?

[Leo]

Thanks for replying. The armed groups that operated around Europe from the late 1960s to the early 80s were differed among each other idealogically though. The RAF's support of the East German state I would imagine would make them pretty distant from "Left-Communism"...Are you sure it was over the actual Red Army Faction and not maybe more idealogically closer urban guerilla groups that the break was over? I think it would be the "second RAF" that actually supported (and more importantly was supported by) the East German state. All armed struggle groups, on the other hand, whether they are what we consider to be an expression of petty-bourgeois despair, or whether they are actually tools of cynical bourgeois states, are pretty far away from left communism anyway, which defends that the liberation of the working class is the task of the working class itself, not of an armed vanguard.


Is that reason that you believe that they shouldnt be considered Left Communists or is it because according to your press they reject the idea that capitalism has entered into its decadence?

It is neither to be fair, but much more connected to the former point than the latter. The reason we would say they aren't left communists is their support for the actions of armed bourgeois nationalists, including those of the Al Qaeda (such as the 9/11 attacks) and Iraqi sectarian organizations. It is in our opinion obvious that these positions have got nothing to do with the tradition of the communist left.

[Palingenisis]

Okay without getting into a debate basically the split was whether the use of urban guerilla tactics was in and of itself counter-productive at best and reactionary at worst or a "normal" part of class struggle? So their views on whether capitalism is decadent or not (which I dont really understand) dont enter into the question?

Do other Left Communist groups agree with you in your opinions on them and the essential nature of urban guerilla tactics?

[Palingenisis]

So its only recently that you come to see them as class enemies and you didnt see them as such in the first few years following the spilt?

[Leo]

Okay without getting into a debate basically the split was whether the use of urban guerilla tactics was in and of itself counter-productive at best and reactionary at worst or a "normal" part of class struggle? So their views on whether capitalism is decadent or not (which I dont really understand) dont enter into the question? Well, it didn't at the time.

On the point of decadence, while we think it is a key point having an analysis of the decadence of capitalism (regardless of how its worded), since it means saying it is possible and necessary to overthrow capitalism, we obviously don't think one has to agree with our analysis in order to be considered on the proletarian camp.


Do other Left Communist groups agree with you in your opinions on them and the essential nature of urban guerilla tactics? Yes, they do. The only one exception I can think of is Al Oumami, which was the Arab section (and the biggest section) of the Bordigist ICP which split on similar lines in 1982, effectively causing the explosion of the whole ICP which was quite a big organization at the time (numbering thousands of members internationally, with a much larger base of supporters). Then again, Al Oumami can't be considered left communist after the split I'd say.


So its only recently that you come to see them as class enemies and you didnt see them as such in the first few years following the spilt?

Well, they've been following the same trajectory with less obvious examples since the eighties (better people within them split at around the same time I think). They've been "critically supporting" groups like the Popular Revolutionary Bloc in the war in El Salvador, the Shining Path, the Algerian Kabilia and so forth.

[Palingenisis]

This is going a bit off topic but as far as I know Amadeo Bordiga was Italian...Did his supporters condemn the anti-fascist resistance which of course used urban guerrilla tactics, are you completely sure that none of them were involved in armed resistance to the fascists?

Also does the ICC agree with the ICG on the nature of Democracy?

Thanks for replying.

[Leo]

This is going a bit off topic but as far as I know Amadeo Bordiga was Italian...Yes, he was the founder of the Communist Party of Italy.


Did his supporters condemn the anti-fascist resistance which of course used urban guerrilla tactics, are you completely sure that none of them were involved in armed resistance to the fascists? The Italian fascist intelligence agency, according to the secret data obtained after the war when the fascist regime fell, summarized the positions of Italian left communists at the time as such:

"The only independent paper. Ideologically the most interesting and prepared. Against any compromise, defends a pure communism, undoubtedly Trotskyist, and thus anti-Stalinist. Declares itself without hesitation an adversary of Stalin's Russia, while proclaiming itself faithful to Lenin's Russia. Fights against the war in all aspects: democratic, fascist or Stalinist. Even struggles against 'the partisans', the Committee of National Liberation and the Italian Communist Party."

It is quite an accurate summary, although the Italian intelligence apparently failed to understand that the Italian left communists were not Trotskyists. They obviously had militants who were armed, but them being armed was for self-defense purposes rather than armed-struggle or armed-propaganda purposes.


Also does the ICC agree with the ICG on the nature of Democracy?The ICC is against democracy, if that is what you mean by the ICG's position. On the other hand, we are not opposed to things such as mass assemblies like the ICG is.

[Palingenisis]

Well, they've been following the same trajectory with less obvious examples since the eighties (better people within them split at around the same time I think). They've been "critically supporting" groups like the Popular Revolutionary Bloc in the war in El Salvador, the Shining Path, the Algerian Kabilia and so forth.

I think honestly that you are misrepresenting them...they say clearly in what would seem classical "Left Communist" manner..

"Our criticisms globally concern the critical support to parliament, ministries, elections,... the participation to imperialist conflicts supporting the "weakest" imperialism (Russia, Tito, Ben Bella, Khomeyni, Allende, Ho Chi Min,...) supporting national liberation struggles."

http://gci-icg.org/english/trotskyism.htm

[Palingenisis]

And on the Shining Path...

"What we tell about Sendero Luminoso is not a subjective opinion, we do not think that we are mistaking objective reality for what we wish reality should be. We are not making an apology of Sendero Luminoso; on the contrary, we think that the emergence of a group like that endangers the classist autonomy, threatens the development of proletarian positions and the organisation of a true communist vanguard (to be sure, some comrades and groups have internationalist positions, but their social practice is not very consistent at the moment) and yet we must admit to it as an objective social reality."

That doesnt seem like "critical support" to me.

http://gci-icg.org/english/communism6.htm#peru

[Leo]

"Our criticisms globally concern the critical support to parliament, ministries, elections,... the participation to imperialist conflicts supporting the "weakest" imperialism (Russia, Tito, Ben Bella, Khomeyni, Allende, Ho Chi Min,...) supporting national liberation struggles."

I am aware of what say "in principle" but their practical positions are not in line with those positions.


"What we tell about Sendero Luminoso is not a subjective opinion, we do not think that we are mistaking objective reality for what we wish reality should be. We are not making an apology of Sendero Luminoso; on the contrary, we think that the emergence of a group like that endangers the classist autonomy, threatens the development of proletarian positions and the organisation of a true communist vanguard (to be sure, some comrades and groups have internationalist positions, but their social practice is not very consistent at the moment) and yet we must admit to it as an objective social reality." That doesnt seem like "critical support" to me.

Reading between the lines, however, I think that is exactly what it is:

"We are not making an apology of Sendero Luminoso; on the contrary... and yet we must admit to it as an objective social reality."

They did see the Shining Path as proletarian, even if "the emergence of a group like that endangers the classist autonomy". Critical support, after all, is criticism of the leadership while in this or that way supporting the movement.

I do agree that the Shining Path thing is the least obvious example on the other hand.

[Palingenisis]

I actually wrote to the person who closed that thread and asked for it to be reopened. I didn't like criticism of us being closed down.



Do you think it would be possible for me to post that article again because I believe that it raises a lot of issues that are important outside of the spilt between the ICC and the ICG?

[Palingenisis]

The ICC is against democracy, if that is what you mean by the ICG's position. On the other hand, we are not opposed to things such as mass assemblies like the ICG is.

How and why are they against mass assemblies?

[Leo]

How and why are they against mass assemblies?

They see them as democracism, they called for them to be smashed in the anti-CPE movement in France, for example.

[Devrim]

Wasd the original split from the ICC down to "personality" and "attitude" differences or were there actual idealogical reasons for it? And how would you classify them if not as Left Communist?

I wasn't a member then but I would imagine that it played more of a role than we admit on both sides. It often does, doesn't it?


Do you think it would be possible for me to post that article again because I believe that it raises a lot of issues that are important outside of the spilt between the ICC and the ICG?

It is no problem with me, but then I didn't delete it in the first place. Ask the guy who did. If you can't you can discuss it with us in the left communist forum on here (where we moderate so the thread can't be closed). You have to join the group to post there but it is for people to discuss left communism, not for people who are left communists. Altenately you could do it on Libcom. You will also find lots of people who are critical of the ICC there, but for different reasons from yours (I suspect) and certainly the GCI's.

I want to comment on some of your other points, but I am a bit pushed for time, and just wanted to reply to your direct questions to me before going to work.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

Devrim are you in agreement with what your comrade Leo wrote?

[Alf]

When the GCI left the ICC in 78-79, decadence wasn't really the issue, although they later rejected it. In fact there was a very early split from the GCI (the Fraction Communiste Internationaliste) which, as I recall, wanted to go back to the positions of Bilan in the 30s, which would have meant taking up a conception of decadence. This split was very shortlived however. A later split gave rise to the Mouvement Communiste group which has headed more in the direction of 'autonomism'.
I don't think the exact issue behind the split was the RAF, but more a general idea of 'workers' terrorism', the possibility of armed actions by small minorities having a proletarian character. This later evolved towards the increasingly overt support for the actions of bourgeois gangs which Dev and Leo mention. There was also the issue of the party - the GCI rejected our view as councilist and initially had a more Leninist view of the party, although again this evolved towards the idea that the 'party' is not a formal organisation but a more diffuse proletarian vanguard.
I think they are a very dangerous group - not only do they endanger the communist left by creating 'connections' between our politics and terrorist and even Islamist gangs; they have also issued violent threats against our comrades, for example in Mexico.
Anyway, read the articles that were mentioned above and let us know what you think.

[Leo]

I don't think the exact issue behind the split was the RAF

I could be wrong, thats what I recall as the story I've been told, but maybe someone said "groups like the RAF" rather than RAF specifically. I wasn't there when it all happened obviously, actually I wasn't even born back then.

[Devrim]

Devrim are you in agreement with what your comrade Leo wrote?

We are in the same organisation, so we agree on the basic points. Sometimes we have a different slant on them though. I will try to give my point of view on your points.


Okay without getting into a debate basically the split was whether the use of urban guerilla tactics was in and of itself counter-productive at best and reactionary at worst or a "normal" part of class struggle?

I wasn't there at the time. I was born unlike 'baby' Leo though. :) My impression though is that the actual debate is whether these people should be supported in prison. Alf would know better as he was there.


Do other Left Communist groups agree with you in your opinions on them and the essential nature of urban guerilla tactics?

Yes, certainly.


I think honestly that you are misrepresenting them...they say clearly in what would seem classical "Left Communist" manner..

"Our criticisms globally concern the critical support to parliament, ministries, elections,... the participation to imperialist conflicts supporting the "weakest" imperialism (Russia, Tito, Ben Bella, Khomeyni, Allende, Ho Chi Min,...) supporting national liberation struggles."

Yes, maybe they were misrepresented a bit. To me there is a line somewhere between defending actions of workers, which however tactically wrong and misguided are a part of the class war, such as Dean Hancock and Russell Shankland in the miners strike and supporting armed groups acting 'on behalf' of the class.

Obviously dropping that slab of concrete on that Taxi driver was an action that did nothing to further the strike, and could even be said to have damaged it. I think that those two guys were class war prisoners though and as such should have been supported. In my opinion, Sanderio Luminoso are a viscous anti-working class gang. Now there must be all sorts of cases in-between. Where is the line? When did the GCI cross it? I think now when they are cheering on the attacks on the twin towers they obviously have.


I think they are a very dangerous group - not only do they endanger the communist left by creating 'connections' between our politics and terrorist and even Islamist gangs; they have also issued violent threats against our comrades, for example in Mexico.

I think that they are a group that can attract young people who are seriously thinking about communist politics and take them in a very negative direction. In that sense they are 'dangerous'. I think the thing about them issuing 'violent threats' is little more than the same sort of 'rhetoric' that they always use, and to say they issued a threat is to take them a little seriously.

Devrim

[Communist]

I think that they are a group that can attract young people who are seriously thinking about communist politics and take them in a very negative direction. In that sense they are 'dangerous'. I think the thing about them issuing 'violent threats' is little more than the same sort of 'rhetoric' that they always use, and to say they issued a threat is to take them a little seriously.

Well as the International Communist Current says here (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/282/solidarity_with_our_militants.htm) -

Faced with the succession of threats by these gangsters, which are totally alien to proletarian behaviour, what should the attitude of revolutionaries and proletarian elements be? Not to give it any importance because they are just boasts or the product of a moment of over excitement? To fall into such an appreciation would be a grave error.
In the first place, such an attitude means forgetting the historical experience of the workers’ movement. This teaches us that the killing of worker militants has been preceded - and in great part prepared - by a succession of apparently trivial acts: false accusations, threats, intimidation.

The article makes the argument that perhaps these things should be taken at least fairly seriously.

About how large is the ICG, but I doubt you or even their members know. I can only imagine they would be very small.
Devrim, what was the ICG member you met like, did this person seem all right, knowledgable or odd?

This is a good topic. I will take any excuse to read the ICC material though, which is always interesting.

.