Simple question about one of the ICC's positions. [Archive]

Zanthorus

31st January 2011, 21:28

What is an "official anarchist", and how is one different from an "unofficial anarchist"?

The opposite of an 'official anarchist' for the ICC is not an 'unofficial anarchist' but an Internationalist Anarchist (http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/82). The ICC's page on IA also explains the term 'official anarchism':

We use this term [Internationalist Anarchism] to distinguish between the "official anarchists", who are virtually indistinguishable from Trotskyism in their support for all the typical leftist causes (national liberation, work in the trades unions, etc), and those groups which, although they identify with the anarchist and not the marxist tradition, remain nonetheless on the internationalist side of the class frontier.

Essentially, it would be anyone who holds the positions which the ICC regard as putting groups outside of the 'proletarian political milieu'. I'm not sure where the name comes from, although it does sound similar to 'official Communism'. To me it looks like another of the unfortunate terms the ICC has a habit of concocting.

StalinFanboy

31st January 2011, 22:04

I think it came from a federation of Anarchists during one of the World Wars supporting the Allies.

Sir Comradical

31st January 2011, 23:31

In summary: "Every socialist camp is reactionary except ours."

Widerstand

1st February 2011, 01:18

In summary: "Every socialist camp is reactionary except ours."

Ah, but, you see, it is.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

1st February 2011, 09:37

I think it came from a federation of Anarchists during one of the World Wars supporting the Allies.

As I understand it, this is pretty much correct. It was the anarchists who supported Allied imperialism under the banner of anti-fascism.

'Official anarchist' I think is a direct translation from French, hence why it isn't a recognised term in English.

Nic.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

1st February 2011, 09:40

To me it looks like another of the unfortunate terms the ICC has a habit of concocting.

As I understand it, this is not the case, but none the less this point bears repeating.

Nic.

ZeroNowhere

1st February 2011, 14:42

In summary: "Every socialist camp is reactionary except ours."
Except that the whole point of the official-internationalist anarchist distinction is to distinguish between people outside of their 'camp' who are reactionary and those who aren't?

Zanthorus

1st February 2011, 15:03

In summary: "Every socialist camp is reactionary except ours."

This is not the ICC's position. Their position is that there is a 'proletarian political milieu' consisting of various currents (Bordigists, Council Communists, the ICC/ICT synthesis and Internationalist Anarchism) which have not betrayed the working-class in any way comparable to that of the Stalinists or Trotskyists. It isn't that they just decided one day to write off all other currents as reactionary, but that the course of history definitively showed certain currents to be such. In the case of the Stalinists, many militants of the Communist Left were threatened with physical violence or even murdered by 'Marxist-Leninists' for supposedly being agents of German imperialism. One of the ICC's founders in France at the time was nearly killed save for an apparently bemused French policeman who could not understand what the Stalinists issue with him was (In his naivety he assumed that handing out papers calling for the transformation of the Imperialist war into a Civil War was the kind of thing all Communists did). It is also my understanding that ICC members in countries where Maoist movements have strength are threatened by physical violence for expressing their views.

Generally when groups not only take up positions which you would regard as betraying the working-class but threaten you with physical violence and intimidation for airing those views or continued to slander your 'camp' you would be forced to conclude that they were indeed definitively reactionary and would not be particularly friendly towards them. But hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe we can all magically overcome our differences and hold hands and then the working-class will rise up because the Communists aren't being so mean to one another anymore.

ed miliband

1st February 2011, 16:22

black magick hustla

1st February 2011, 17:57

Another theory is that the ICC got so upset about their London branch being made to have an offsite stall during the Anarchist Bookfair (whilst Earth First!, various animal rights groups, etc. had 'official' stalls), that they denounced any anarchist organation that did not leave the Bookfair in solidarity. The term 'official anarchism' simply refers to the fact that the organisations that are allowed Bookfair stalls are deemed 'officially anarchist' by the Bookfair Committee.

i always interpreted "official anarchism" as anarcho leftists that are integrated somehow to the state. the cnt became "official" when it turned to the popular front, and we all remember the infamous mexican "red brigades" that were used by carranza to murder insurrecto peasants. in a lighter term, "offical anarchism" probably also means leftist anarchism like the so called neo-platformists and the other multitude of anarcho-trotskyte groups.

ed miliband

1st February 2011, 18:33

i always interpreted "official anarchism" as anarcho leftists that are integrated somehow to the state. the cnt became "official" when it turned to the popular front, and we all remember the infamous mexican "red brigades" that were used by carranza to murder insurrecto peasants. in a lighter term, "offical anarchism" probably also means leftist anarchism like the so called neo-platformists and the other multitude of anarcho-trotskyte groups.

In truth I think you're partly right and Species Being is almost wholly right.

My post was just messing though.

Sir Comradical

1st February 2011, 20:55

This is not the ICC's position. Their position is that there is a 'proletarian political milieu' consisting of various currents (Bordigists, Council Communists, the ICC/ICT synthesis and Internationalist Anarchism) which have not betrayed the working-class in any way comparable to that of the Stalinists or Trotskyists. It isn't that they just decided one day to write off all other currents as reactionary, but that the course of history definitively showed certain currents to be such. In the case of the Stalinists, many militants of the Communist Left were threatened with physical violence or even murdered by 'Marxist-Leninists' for supposedly being agents of German imperialism. One of the ICC's founders in France at the time was nearly killed save for an apparently bemused French policeman who could not understand what the Stalinists issue with him was (In his naivety he assumed that handing out papers calling for the transformation of the Imperialist war into a Civil War was the kind of thing all Communists did). It is also my understanding that ICC members in countries where Maoist movements have strength are threatened by physical violence for expressing their views.

Generally when groups not only take up positions which you would regard as betraying the working-class but threaten you with physical violence and intimidation for airing those views or continued to slander your 'camp' you would be forced to conclude that they were indeed definitively reactionary and would not be particularly friendly towards them. But hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe we can all magically overcome our differences and hold hands and then the working-class will rise up because the Communists aren't being so mean to one another anymore.

Never knew that.

Then you shouldn't you be calling out specific groups or parties, not entire tendencies? I would ask you what particularities about Trotskyism/Marxist-Leninist theory you oppose but I'm sure I can find it on this site somewhere else if you could link me.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

2nd February 2011, 06:00

NiccolÃ² Rossi

2nd February 2011, 06:10

Then you shouldn't you be calling out specific groups or parties, not entire tendencies?

The traits which distinguish stalinism, trotskyism and those so-called 'Anarchists' from communists are common to all the groups belonging to these tendencies.

I would ask you what particularities about Trotskyism/Marxist-Leninist theory you oppose but I'm sure I can find it on this site somewhere else if you could link me.

I like What distinguished revolutionaries from Trotskyism (http://en.internationalism.org/book/export/html/3310). The ICT have a pamphlet devoted to Trotskyism - it's origins, the second world war and in the post-war period. It's a good read. You can buy it from their website. I have a copy, if you want me to lend it to you next time I see you round?

But I mean the objections are fairly succinct. It boils down to class lines - internationalism, the unions, electoralism, frontism, 'single issue' struggles and activism, etc.

Nic.

Android

2nd February 2011, 13:12

The ICT have a pamphlet devoted to Trotskyism - it's origins, the second world war and in the post-war period. It's a good read. You can buy it from their website. I have a copy, if you want me to lend it to you next time I see you round?

Or, you could read it online or print it out from the llnk below.

Trotsky & Trotskyism (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/books)

Devrim

6th February 2011, 10:10

I'm not sure where the name comes from, although it does sound similar to 'official Communism'. To me it looks like another of the unfortunate terms the ICC has a habit of concocting.

Yes, it is a pretty awful term. The ICC is full of them as you know, and the majority of the organisation don't even seem to realise how problematic this sort of stuff is.

As I understand it, this is pretty much correct. It was the anarchists who supported Allied imperialism under the banner of anti-fascism.

'Official anarchist' I think is a direct translation from French, hence why it isn't a recognised term in English.

It is a direct translation from the French. I don't know if it is any more 'recognisable' in french though.

What it referred to originally was the 'official' anarchist federations FAF, and FAI.

Another theory is that the ICC got so upset about their London branch being made to have an offsite stall during the Anarchist Bookfair (whilst Earth First!, various animal rights groups, etc. had 'official' stalls), that they denounced any anarchist organation that did not leave the Bookfair in solidarity. The term 'official anarchism' simply refers to the fact that the organisations that are allowed Bookfair stalls are deemed 'officially anarchist' by the Bookfair Committee.

No, as has been pointed out the ICC platform predates the London anarchist book-fair. Personally I think that the place where they have there stall is a pretty good spot, and member even better than inside. Then again, I am not in the UK section and don't have to stand there in the cold all day. The English must be used to the cold though anyway.

Then you shouldn't you be calling out specific groups or parties, not entire tendencies? I would ask you what particularities about Trotskyism/Marxist-Leninist theory you oppose but I'm sure I can find it on this site somewhere else if you could link me.

Basically the key question for us is one of internationalism. For us, the moment where Trotskyism ceased to be a working class political current was when it supported the allies in the Second World War. Maoism is a little different in that it didn't cease to be a working class current as it never was one in the first place.

We don't think that this is just an academic historical issue, but one with relevance today. Look at any war, and you will find Trotskyists cheering on one side or the other.

Devrim

6th February 2011, 11:13

It seems that one of the fundamental theoretical failings of the ICC is that they believe that confuse tactics and strategy for class interests and politics - Any group of workers advancing their interests through workplace union organizing is using the "wrong" tactics and strategy, and are therefore not a working class group but rather "left of capital," having committed a betrayal (of themselves?).

This really goes to show how intensely solipsistic the ICC is = if its not their way, its capitalism. How also, tiny they must think the workers camp is, since it not only excludes all other leftists save a handful, but essentially all notable workers political activities. The whole world must feel like a sea of "betrayal"!

Sentinel

6th February 2011, 11:40

This really goes to show how intensely solipsistic the ICC is = if its not their way, its capitalism. How also, tiny they must think the workers camp is, since it not only excludes all other leftists save a handful, but essentially all notable workers political activities. The whole world must feel like a sea of "betrayal"!

Indeed. When I decided to move on from anarcho-syndicalism into marxism, I considered both the left communists and the trotskyists. Now, the main reason why I chose the latter was the visibility and activity of the CWI around here.

But another reason was definitely this kind of rhetoric, and generally the black/white kind of worldview of the left communists on too many issues.

Savage

6th February 2011, 11:50

Widerstand

6th February 2011, 11:57

Zanthorus

6th February 2011, 12:10

Sectarian seems to be often a useless buzzword for certain groups to dodge criticism of their politics. "Don't support the glorious struggles of the taliban to free Afghanistan? Why, you're nothing but an ultra-left sectarian dogmatist who sees everything in black and white." Most of the opposition to the ICC's concept of the 'left of capital' seems to be that they don't like the ICC expressing political differences with them.

One must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for "unity." Those who have this word most often on their lips are those who sow the most dissension, just as at present the Jura Bakuninists in Switzerland, who have provoked all the splits, scream for nothing so much as for unity. Those unity fanatics are either the people of limited intelligence who want to stir everything up together into one nondescript brew, which, the moment it is left to settle, throws up the differences again in much more acute opposition because they are now all together in one pot (you have a fine example of this in Germany with the people who preach the reconciliation of the workers and the petty bourgeoisie)--or else they are people who consciously or unconsciously (like Mühlberger*, for instance) want to adulterate the movement. For this reason the greatest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and rogues are at certain moments the loudest shouters for unity. Nobody in our lifetime has given us more trouble and been more treacherous than the unity shouters.- Engels to Bebel, 20th June 1873

Sentinel

6th February 2011, 12:15

To be honest, you all can hate on the left comm's "black/white kind of worldview" or their their "intense solipsism" or whatnot, but doesn't experience show that any kind of collaboration with bourgeois forces (whether it be a coalition, a popular front, or similar; bourgeois forces here refers to every group which is integrated into, cooperating with, dependent on, or controlled by state or capital in some sense) in the best case wins a single issue campaign, but fails to build class consciousness and often deescalates possible moments of revolt and depoliticizes the struggle?

Of course, in our opinion working in broader coalitions in single issues doesn't 'depoliticise' the struggles but rather brings our politics into them, with the intention of if possible dominating and leading them, but at least being visible and showing that we stand in solidarity with those the particular struggle is for -- for example immigrants threatened by deportation, inhabitants of a suburb whose local healthcare clinic is threatened by closure, etc, etc.

We simply can't afford to isolate ourselves for the sake of ideological 'purity' but have to be there when shit happens and take part in the fight. Because after it's over, the workers will remember who was there and who wasn't. And when you get involved in a fight it has to be wit hthe intention of winning it -- and that usually necessarily involves cooperation with other groups.

This said, I'm personally quite sceptical to certain types of coalitions/fronts -- especially with anti-democratic forces such as islamists and so forth -- which is why I prefer the CWI to certain other trotskyist groups.

Devrim

6th February 2011, 12:33

The whole world must feel like a sea of "betrayal"!

I certainly don't look at it like that.

How also, tiny they must think the workers camp is,

The number of revolutionaries today is tiny. Even by your own definition of what a revolutionary is, it would still be tiny.

It seems that one of the fundamental theoretical failings of the ICC is that they believe that confuse tactics and strategy for class interests and politics - Any group of workers advancing their interests through workplace union organizing is using the "wrong" tactics and strategy, and are therefore not a working class group but rather "left of capital," having committed a betrayal (of themselves?).

I don't think that we said workers being members of unions was a 'betrayal'. You did.

What we do say is that the unions act against the working class during the class struggle. If you'd ever been involved in a big strike, you would know that that is true.

But another reason was definitely this kind of rhetoric, and generally the black/white kind of worldview of the left communists on too many issues.

Pretty much like the Zimmerwald left in 1916. For them those who had supported the war had betrayed. It is pretty black and white.

Of course, in our opinion working in broader coalitions in single issues doesn't 'depoliticise' the struggles but rather brings our politics into them, with the intention of if possible dominating and leading them, but at least being visible and showing that we stand in solidarity with those the particular struggle is for -- be it against deportation of immigrants, the closure of the local health clinic, or whatever.

We simply can't afford to isolate ourselves for the sake of ideological 'purity' but have to be there when shit happens and take part in the fight. Because after it's over, the workers will remember who was there and who wasn't.

Of course left communists would stand in solidarity with people in those type of struggles. That doesn't mean that revolutionaries should remain silent and tail end campaigns that we see as counter-productive, such as writing letters to your MP. I would imagine that just as you say "workers will remember who was there and who wasn't", they will also remember the arguments put forward by different people, and who was right.

Devrim

Widerstand

6th February 2011, 12:48

Of course, in our opinion working in broader coalitions in single issues doesn't 'depoliticise' the struggles but rather brings our politics into them, with the intention of if possible dominating and leading them, but at least being visible and showing that we stand in solidarity with those the particular struggle is for -- for example immigrants threatened by deportation, inhabitants of a suburb whose local healthcare clinic is threatened by closure, etc, etc.

I'm of course happy that you share your opinion with me, and I hate to be blunt, but I'm more interested in facts. Now it is certainly possible that you have made vastly different experiences from me and have a different understanding of history or that we simply happen to know about different historical events. It remains however, that the opinion you express strikes me as remarkably idealist and doesn't pass a reality check.
I would be very hard pressed to find a single case where "our politics" were being brought into the coalition or where the coalition was even turned towards "our politics". I also can't get much from your examples, because, from personal experience, bourgeois-friendly groups (eg. parliamentary parties) stay as far away from immigrant issues as they can, and even should they occasionally tread these grounds by accident, they certainly don't try to prevent deportations.
As far as hospitals and community related stuff goes, I find that usually the bourgeois-friendly groups only come in once a considerably big grassroots movement exists, and that the effect is that either the grassroots movement rejects them completely (see Hamburg's RaS [Right to the City] network), or that they manage to take a lot of wind out of the movement's sails and direct resistance into legalistic and bureaucratic procedures which completely erode the movement and usually don't do shit.
Another example I had in mind were large AntiFa coalitions, as they exist all over (West-)Europe. What I can see in Germany, is that they often are spearheaded by radicals, usually Autonomous Antifa, Anarchists, Communists or Anti-Germans, and that they usually anchor Antifa work into a deeper political context. When bourgeois-friendly groups are brought in, this shifts dramatically. Groups often let go of their militant but effective forms of struggle for the sake of not "alienating" the sacrosanct "masses" (and often the bourgeois-friendly groups indeed distance themselves from and denounce all "militancy"), and that the coalitions discourse drastically moves towards "fascism is anti-democratic and Germany is a democratic state", which I would very much call a depoliticization, if not a flat out reproduction of ruling class politics/ideology.

We simply can't afford to isolate ourselves for the sake of ideological 'purity' but have to be there when shit happens and take part in the fight. Because after it's over, the workers will remember who was there and who wasn't. And when you get involved in a fight it has to be wit hthe intention of winning it -- and that usually necessarily involves cooperation with other groups.

But do the workers remember the small groups? Or do they only remember the vocal union and party speakers which are closer to their own unconscious position? I get the point about not isolating ourselves, and it is indeed repeated like a mantra in various circles, but what good has ever come out of these collaborations?

This said, I'm personally quite sceptical to certain types of coalitions/fronts -- especially with anti-democratic forces such as islamists and so forth -- which is why I prefer the CWI to certain other trotskyist groups.

Not to be an ass here, I prefer the CWI to many other groups, but I much prefer the 4th International's stance on entryism :p

Sir Comradical

6th February 2011, 20:46

Basically the key question for us is one of internationalism. For us, the moment where Trotskyism ceased to be a working class political current was when it supported the allies in the Second World War. Maoism is a little different in that it didn't cease to be a working class current as it never was one in the first place.

We don't think that this is just an academic historical issue, but one with relevance today. Look at any war, and you will find Trotskyists cheering on one side or the other.

Devrim

We've had this discussion before. For many workers in Europe entering the war against fascism wasn't a choice, it was forced on them. They didn't have the luxury of choosing to opt out of the war on ideological grounds. Look at any war? How about the Iraq war today? Is it not in the interests of the working class to support whatever resistance movement there is against US imperialism?

synthesis

8th February 2011, 01:38

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 02:11

Basically the key question for us is one of internationalism. For us, the moment where Trotskyism ceased to be a working class political current was when it supported the allies in the Second World War. Maoism is a little different in that it didn't cease to be a working class current as it never was one in the first place.Didn't the SWP in America campaign against the war?

Also, wouldn't left-coms probably not consider trotskyism to be a working class political current for it's denial of the "state-capitalism" theory applied to stalinist states?

Also, one thing that makes me lose disrespect for the ICC is their denunciation of any group who's position they consider wrong to be outright capitalist. It's as if a group can't hold a wrong position but still be communists, if they hold a wrong position they're suddenly capitalists despite no belief in capitalism and a belief in establishing communism.

Savage

8th February 2011, 08:40

Didn't the SWP in America campaign against the war?

Also, wouldn't left-coms probably not consider trotskyism to be a working class political current for it's denial of the "state-capitalism" theory applied to stalinist states?

Also, one thing that makes me lose disrespect for the ICC is their denunciation of any group who's position they consider wrong to be outright capitalist. It's as if a group can't hold a wrong position but still be communists, if they hold a wrong position they're suddenly capitalists despite no belief in capitalism and a belief in establishing communism.
I think that this is a fallacious assumption of yours about the ICC, they consider a tendancy to be capitalist if they supported the USSR, not just because they disagree with the communist left. For example I believe the ICC has been critical of De Leonism, but they obviously don't consider De Leonists to be capitalist. They consider Lenin and the Bolsheviks to have been international socialists whilst being critical of them in some areas, and I also remember the ICC criticizing Anton Pannecoek and his position.

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 12:54

Then why did trotskyism become a "left of capital" tendency due to it's support of the allies in WWII, as opposed to by it's consideration of the USSR to be a degenerated workers state?

Also, then is the American ISO capitalist? They do not consider the USSR to have been socialist.

ZeroNowhere

8th February 2011, 13:22

It's as if a group can't hold a wrong position but still be communists, if they hold a wrong position they're suddenly capitalists despite no belief in capitalism and a belief in establishing communism.They are the left wing of capital because they wish to compromise the independence of the labour movement, hence reinforce capitalism despite leftist rhetoric. This view of the ICC is based on the simply rejection of 'consciousness raising' ideology, and the recognition that, "the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society," so that communism is based around the workers' movement, not around professing belief in some ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. This is the concrete content of communism, as opposed to utopian socialism and the left wing of capital. Socialism is a result of an independent workers' movement, and political action as a class, of struggle rather than sudden enlightenment of some sort. As such, if a group seeks to compromise the independence of the proletarian movement, then despite professed aims they fall into the left wing of capital, the labour fakirs. The ICC have problems with many groups, but the left wing of capital is not simply groups which the ICC disagrees with, and indeed the ICC disagrees with other groups, such as the internationalist anarchists, without proclaiming them the left wing of capital.

Ultimately, all that the ICC's position is based on is the rejection of revisionism, which still has wide currency amongst the left, even those who would nominally attack Bernstein for 'revisionism', and then attack everybody else as well.

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 13:31

Wouldn't that put DeLeonists in the left wing of capital since they believe in electoralism?

ZeroNowhere

8th February 2011, 13:43

I shall let an ICCer answer that. My general conception of the left wing of capital is more influenced by De Leon and Marx than the left communist tradition as such, so I was just explaining the general basis of the view. I suppose that it's worth clarifying positional differences here, so I'll also note that the ICC often seem to base their rejection of revisionism on a Luxemburgian underconsumptionism, debated at length previously on Libcom, with which I would also disagree; nonetheless, as Grossman pointed out, this is still far ahead of revisionism politically.

Zanthorus

8th February 2011, 15:04

Wouldn't that put DeLeonists in the left wing of capital since they believe in electoralism?

Well, the ICC's six part series on The Legacy of De Leonism concluded in part by saying:

Despite its confusions, De Leonism never crossed the class line. In every imperialist war, perhaps saved by the very political sclerosis that prevents it from self-critiquing its own history, this tendency has always defended a proletarian internationalist position.http://en.internationalism.org/inter/118_deleon6.htm

So it would appear not.

Jock

8th February 2011, 16:31

I just wrote a long (and naturally brilliant!) reply to this and was told I had not logged in (a computer generated lie) so I lost it but TC has raised an interesting point not just for the ICC but for the entire communist left. In a sense the communist left is the result of a decantation of all the other "isms". Social democracy (I should have made that social democratism!") failed when it supported imperialist war in 1914. If you are comfortable with the fact that Stalinism murdered more real communists than Hitler or with Trotskyism's return to social democracy in the 1930s (entryism) the you might not accept this premise but otherwise history has decreed that only anarchism (largely - I leave aside the delicate task of deciding who failed and who didn't in this current) and the Communist left have emerged from the counter-revolution without betraying the working class. And this is not just a theoretical survival. TIN 1945 Togliatti issued deth warrant for the founder of our tendency (which only narrowly failed) but the Italian stalinists did succeed in murdering two of our militant workers Fausto Atti and Mario Acquaviva. I mention this to illustrate the fact hat we are not talking about a communist left which is just a set of smart (or not so smart) propagandists.

Today the challenge raised by TC remains. How to marry the strategy of opposing all bourgeois factions and institutions to the daily fight against capital. It is not enough to denounce. We have to forge our own instruments to deepen the communist acquisitions of the working class within a wider segemetn of the calss. This is why we , for example advocate and have established in Italy groups based either in factories or in neighbourhoods, amongst those who fight rent rises or amongst the "precarious" workers as part time temporary casual workers are called to fight not only capitalist condtions but the stitch up of teh offical workers' organisation. These people are made up of our comrades plus others who know what they hate but not necessarily sahring our optimism about the future. Struggle groups sponataneously arise and fall but we aim to keep people in contact with each other and the political programme even in the smallest way as participants in these groups. That is our tactical solution within our strategy of opposing all capitalist formations which stand in the way of a real fight for communism. We are, of course, open to any better ideas

Devrim

8th February 2011, 18:26

Didn't the SWP in America campaign against the war?

No they adopted something that they called the 'Proletarian Military Policy' where basically they argued for 'workers control of the war'.

Also, wouldn't left-coms probably not consider trotskyism to be a working class political current for it's denial of the "state-capitalism" theory applied to stalinist states?

No, for us the key question is the attitude towards war and internationalism. Of course, the idea of 'defence of workers' states' is intrinsically bound up in this.

Also, one thing that makes me lose disrespect for the ICC is their denunciation of any group who's position they consider wrong to be outright capitalist. It's as if a group can't hold a wrong position but still be communists, if they hold a wrong position they're suddenly capitalists despite no belief in capitalism and a belief in establishing communism.

There are lots of people who we consider to hold 'wrong positions' who we don't denounce as having bourgeois politics(not being capitalist which is a relationship to the means of production). The DeLeonists mentioned on this thread would be one of them.

Those who support imperialist wars though are for us not socialists. This is not the case of having a mistake position, but of crossing the class line, just as Kautsky and Kropotkin did in 1914.

Wouldn't that put DeLeonists in the left wing of capital since they believe in electoralism?

No, we think they are wrong but that they are internationalists. As Z quoted:

Despite its confusions, De Leonism never crossed the class line. In every imperialist war, perhaps saved by the very political sclerosis that prevents it from self-critiquing its own history, this tendency has always defended a proletarian internationalist position.

Devrim

Wanted Man

8th February 2011, 19:52

I think it came from a federation of Anarchists during one of the World Wars supporting the Allies.

How relevant is it today, then? Who are the "official anarchists" now and what are they doing wrong now? Are all modern-day attempts to start an anarcho-syndicalist organisation or union automatically part of the left-wing of capital?

Os Cangaceiros

8th February 2011, 19:57

black magick hustla

8th February 2011, 20:20

We've had this discussion before. For many workers in Europe entering the war against fascism wasn't a choice, it was forced on them. They didn't have the luxury of choosing to opt out of the war on ideological grounds. Look at any war? How about the Iraq war today? Is it not in the interests of the working class to support whatever resistance movement there is against US imperialism?

for many of us nothing is "really a choice" is it? is it a choice we have to work? is it a choice we have to pay taxes. fuck is it a choice for conscripts to fight? nothing in this rotten world is a goddamn choice, doesnt mean i am gonna start singin the national hymn (in the case of the french communist traitors, the marseillase). of course many communists were unable to opt out of the effects of war. the founder of the icc was thrown into prison by the french stalinists for calling to turn the imperialist war into civil war after all.

the whole idea of support against us imperialism on those grounds is a non sequitur anyway. virtually all the "post colonial" third world is a testament of this. you can't be independent of imperialism, and you cannot "beat" imperialism by supporting smaller factions of that thing which prop ups imperialism in the first place (capital). what you can do however, is prop un the nationalist frenzy and the ambitions of national bosses.

of course, its hard to convince those who have spent so much emotional energy on the slum of the left. i fortunately haven't spend that much of myself on it yet (just a lil) so my soul is not deformed by stupid leftist sloganeering. however this posts are good for those who are either disillusioned or are young to not have been mentally fucked up by the charade of the left

black magick hustla

8th February 2011, 20:22

part ii -

i also dont get the obsession with tiny leftist groups anyway. i mean is "sectarianism" even that important and damaging in this age today? the sectarianism between insular groups today is inconsequential

black magick hustla

8th February 2011, 20:34

part iii
-----

of course, on the question of war sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to survive. this is why barbarism eclipses the possibility of communism (in fact i would argue utter socio-economic armageddon will not bring about the communist perspective but will bring down men to the level of animals, like in prisons). maybe to survive you sometimes most kill the man of the other camp for the man of the other camp is willing to kill you. but this doesnt mean you call for the defense of the motherland. this doesnt mean you glorify your own cage and your own cops and your own bosses and sing songs about them and make everybody feel not like cannon fodder but like martyrs. fukkkkkk that. these people are traitors and these people are dead inside and these people are completely, and utterly counterrevolutionary in every sense of the fucking word.

Jock

8th February 2011, 21:48

I just wrote a long (and naturally brilliant!) reply to this and was told I had not logged in (a computer generated lie) so I lost it but TC has raised an interesting point not just for the ICC but for the entire communist left. In a sense the communist left is the result of a decantation of all the other "isms". Social democracy (I should have made that social democratism!") failed when it supported imperialist war in 1914. If you are comfortable with the fact that Stalinism murdered more real communists than Hitler or with Trotskyism's return to social democracy in the 1930s (entryism) the you might not accept this premise but otherwise history has decreed that only anarchism (largely - I leave aside the delicate task of deciding who failed and who didn't in this current) and the Communist left have emerged from the counter-revolution without betraying the working class. And this is not just a theoretical survival. TIN 1945 Togliatti issued deth warrant for the founder of our tendency (which only narrowly failed) but the Italian stalinists did succeed in murdering two of our militant workers Fausto Atti and Mario Acquaviva. I mention this to illustrate the fact hat we are not talking about a communist left which is just a set of smart (or not so smart) propagandists.

Today the challenge raised by TC remains. How to marry the strategy of opposing all bourgeois factions and institutions to the daily fight against capital. It is not enough to denounce. We have to forge our own instruments to deepen the communist acquisitions of the working class within a wider segemetn of the calss. This is why we , for example advocate and have established in Italy groups based either in factories or in neighbourhoods, amongst those who fight rent rises or amongst the "precarious" workers as part time temporary casual workers are called to fight not only capitalist condtions but the stitch up of teh offical workers' organisation. These people are made up of our comrades plus others who know what they hate but not necessarily sharing our optimism about the future. Struggle groups sponataneously arise and fall but we aim to keep people in contact with each other and the political programme even in the smallest way as participants in these groups. That is our tactical solution within our strategy of opposing all capitalist formations which stand in the way of a real fight for communism. We are, of course, open to any better ideas

black magick hustla

8th February 2011, 22:30

batagglia communista is hella sick btw

gorillafuck

8th February 2011, 22:35

Stalinism murdered more real communists than Hitler
Uhh.......no.

or with Trotskyism's return to social democracy in the 1930s (entryism)Entryism isn't a good strategy but it isn't social democracy.

Stranger Than Paradise

8th February 2011, 22:50

Entryism isn't a good strategy but it isn't social democracy.

I don't know I suppose Stalinist parties have tried in the past but in general it leads to at the most social democratic policy.

Wanted Man

8th February 2011, 22:52

I think what they mean by it now are the anarcho-trots like Wayne Price and the authors of Black Flame (http://black-flame-anarchism.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-michael-schmidt-black-flame-co.html). Incidentally the insurrectionary anarchists also have a lot of criticisms of such people, albeit mostly because they're "anarcho-partyists" (Platformists), rather than the fact that they may or may not support Hezbollah or whatever.

Then I don't see how people like that are part of the "left-wing of capital" or "reactionary" or whatever. As far as is known, these people have negligible influence on the apparatus of bourgeois politics. I can see how social-democratic parties or union bureaucrats, for instance, are part of the "left wing of capital" because they can cut deals with the government to allow mass lay-offs, they can send striking workers back to work with a wave of the hand, etc.

It seems completely hysterical to put any kind of leftist sect in the same category just because you ("you" = hypothetical in this case, since I don't know if you believe this) think that their politics are anti-worker. Almost every leftist sect basically says that the methods of other leftist sects, if put into practice, will not lead us anywhere, so if we all extended that to "left-wing of capital" we would only get even funnier shitfights.

Lyev

8th February 2011, 23:29

Then I don't see how people like that are part of the "left-wing of capital" or "reactionary" or whatever. As far as is known, these people have negligible influence on the apparatus of bourgeois politics. I can see how social-democratic parties or union bureaucrats, for instance, are part of the "left wing of capital" because they can cut deals with the government to allow mass lay-offs, they can send striking workers back to work with a wave of the hand, etc.I think partly because those who are accused of being the left-wing of capital (purportedly) give active support the union bureaucrats and all those careerists and opportunists who would give into the government at the drop of a hat. It's exclusively the influence of these parties (Trotskyist, Stalinist) that counts. An accusation levelled at, for example, a number of 'pro-revolutionary' groups in the UK is that they have called for - strategically or whatever - votes for the Labour Party. I guess the left communists would argue that the bourgeois state cannot represent worker's interests, or that, of course, social-democracy is no better any other ideology of the ruling class, whether that is liberalism, conservatism, neoliberalism etc. In this sense, some would argue, these aspects are connected to a wider bankruptcy in their theoretical network as a whole. (Not sure I agree with that though.)

NiccolÃ² Rossi

9th February 2011, 09:46

Also, wouldn't left-coms probably not consider trotskyism to be a working class political current for it's denial of the "state-capitalism" theory applied to stalinist states?

Trotsky and the nature of Trotskyism in it's genisis is not something you will find a unified position on within the left communist camp. The ICC for example defend the thesis that Trotskyism represented a proletarian reaction to Stalinism, albeit a confused one, but crossed the class line definitively with WWII. The ICT by contrast rejects Trotskyism as Stalinism loyal opposition - a bureacratic reaction to the counter-revolution (Ronan, feel free to correct me if this is not sufficiently nuanced, haha). I'm sure the Bordigists have their own things to say on the matter - Trotsky and Bordiga were in correspondance of course.

Then why did trotskyism become a "left of capital" tendency due to it's support of the allies in WWII, as opposed to by it's consideration of the USSR to be a degenerated workers state?For the ICC, the decisive question is internationalism. 'Defence of the fatherland' means the crossing of a class line - whereas there is room for ambiguities and confusions regarding other questions (the Bolsheviks being a perfect example, they were of course representative of a youthful workers' movement trying to grapple with the profound changes userd in at the turn of 20th Century.

Also, one thing that makes me lose disrespect for the ICC is their denunciation of any group who's position they consider wrong to be outright capitalist. It's as if a group can't hold a wrong position but still be communists, if they hold a wrong position they're suddenly capitalists despite no belief in capitalism and a belief in establishing communism.I think this is a crude misconception. It is not any old difference that defines the class nature of a political group. Furthermore, political groups are not 'capitalists'. They may represent a political left-wing of capital, ie. they are bourgeois in nature and defenders of capitalism. This question of class nature is regardless of the good intentions or sincerity of their members.

EDIT: Eh, Devrim beat me to it. Please note, Devrim is a member of the ICC. I am not a member or in any way affiliated with the ICC.

Nic.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

9th February 2011, 09:58

No, we think they are wrong but that they are internationalists.

I recall skimming a series on the SPGB which made the distinction between they neutrality adopted faced with the war based on a pacficist outlook with proletarian internationalism.

Not sure how relavent this is? How where the positions of the SPGB and DeLoenists different?

Nic.

ZeroNowhere

9th February 2011, 14:45

Not sure how relavent this is? How where the positions of the SPGB and DeLoenists different?De Leon certainly wasn't a pacifist, at least, defending the advocates of insurrection in Europe as being correct given European conditions in an article which I believe was titled 'Syndicalism'. Otherwise, he was quite firm that, "Migration, whithersoever, spells 'redemption' for the oppressed Jew as little as for any other creed or race: Redemption is not, cannot be in the cards that leave enthroned the international tyrant - Capitalist Domination. So, likewise, 'Zionism' spells 'redemption' for the oppressed Jew as little as similar nationalistic movements spell 'redemption' for any other and numerous oppressed races: Redemption is not, cannot be, in the cards where racial and creed vanities are made a cloak for class exploitation," and was fairly mocking of the 'anti-imperialistic kite-flying', commenting that, "Crosby overlooks all the real points in the matter, and he tries to argue onto safe ground by holding up a few of the effects of “expansion.” Those effects of expansion are only the effects of capitalism, and in order to do away with them, it is necessary to do away with capitalism," stating that this is the position of the SLP. "The capitalist class knows no country and no race, and any 'God' suits it so that "God" approve of the exploitation of the worker. Despite all seeming wranglings, sometimes even wars, among them, the capitalist class is international, and presents a united front against the working class."

As for the De Leonists, I wouldn't be entirely sure about their positions (certainly, the later SLP did take a position after the Vietnam War in favour of the Vietnamese, despite this not being their position during the war, and this lead to a few splits). It would be quite fun to see De Leonists being attacked for not being dogmatic enough, for a change.

Android

9th February 2011, 15:27

Ronan, feel free to correct me if this is not sufficiently nuanced, haha

Haha! Yeah, my contributions on here are pretty much limited to that and referring people to relative material. Guess, I should try and post more in the political discussions instead of just lurking, although some of the discussions are pretty mind-numbing.

Trotsky and the nature of Trotskyism in it's genisis is not something you will find a unified position on within the left communist camp. The ICC for example defend the thesis that Trotskyism represented a proletarian reaction to Stalinism, albeit a confused one, but crossed the class line definitively with WWII. The ICT by contrast rejects Trotskyism as Stalinism loyal opposition - a bureacratic reaction to the counter-revolution

Yeah, thats how I interpreted the respective approaches as well. So, no nit-picking from me on this.

Although, I think it is worth quoting from the CWO/ICT pamphlet Trotsky & Trotskyism (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/books) and the ICC's critical review (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/265_cwo_trotsky.htm) of it, for the sake of clarity since it seems to come up quite a bit on here:

[N]ot (...) to detract from the heroism of the Trotskyists who were slaughtered in Siberia (along with members of the Russian Communist Left) during the late 1930s. Neither do we seek to suggest that Trotsky himself was ever a conscious agent of imperialism. What we are trying to show is that the positions taken up by later Trotskyists are not aberrations. They are part of the methodology of Trotsky and Trotskyism. The move to counter-revolutionary positions was prepared and completed during Trotsky’s lifetime.

To be absolutely clear: the movement around Trotsky passed irrevocably into the enemy camp through its support for Stalinism and democracy in the second imperialist world war, but for all his opportunist slidings, Trotsky himself died a proletarian revolutionary. The ICC has explicitly recognised this in the article in IR 104 entitled 'Trotsky died as a symbol for the working class'

SocialismOrBarbarism

9th February 2011, 22:31

Or, you could read it online or print it out from the llnk below.

Trotsky & Trotskyism (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/books)

What garbage. Not even Stalinist falsification is this bad. Trotsky supported socialism in one country? Trotsky thought the USSR achieved socialism? Trotsky thought capitalism was automatically growing into socialism without revolution? Trotsky disagreed with building revolutionary parties and argued for taking over social democratic parties? Either they didn't read any of the texts they quote from or they're total idiots(which I must say seems highly likely). The main idea behind the text is that Trotsky didn't understand the "present epoch and it's driving forces." That's rich from a tendency that, in the face of neoliberalism and globalization, still clings to that ancient shibboleth of some world tendency towards "state capitalism" on the basis of a few countries like Venezuela.

zimmerwald1915

9th February 2011, 22:41

What garbage. Not even Stalinist falsification is this bad. Trotsky supported socialism in one country? Trotsky thought the USSR achieved socialism? Trotsky thought capitalism was automatically growing into socialism without revolution? Trotsky disagreed with building revolutionary parties and argued for taking over social democratic parties? Either they didn't read any of the texts they quote from or they're total idiots(which I must say seems highly likely). The main idea behind the text is that Trotsky didn't understand the "present epoch and it's driving forces." That's rich from a tendency that, in the face of neoliberalism and globalization, still clings to that ancient shibboleth of some world tendency towards "state capitalism" on the basis of a few countries like Venezuela.
Neoliberalism and state capitalism are not antithetical, as you seem to think. Neoliberalism is a specific state capitalist policy, not a new form of capitalism.

SocialismOrBarbarism

9th February 2011, 23:13

Who said it was a new form of capitalism? It's simply a ridiculous assertion in a world where this supposed tendency of the productive forces towards state capitalism has seen decades of reversal. The problem is that "state capitalism" can be used to mean anything. At one point it means the state taking over all of the means of production. Now that this is obviously not happening it means whatever state intervention they can find, in the context of more and more privatizations.

Devrim

10th February 2011, 11:11

Stalinism murdered more real communists than HitlerUhh.......no.

I'd be pretty sure that it did.

Devrim

Devrim

10th February 2011, 11:18

How relevant is it today, then? Who are the "official anarchists" now and what are they doing wrong now? Are all modern-day attempts to start an anarcho-syndicalist organisation or union automatically part of the left-wing of capital?

I don't think that it is relevant today. I don't really think that the ICC as a whole has a good understanding of anarchism, and is currently struggling with it. Actually, this is quite surprising as a fair few of the people who founded RI, the French section of the ICC, were the children of Spanish anarchist refugees.

I would say no to your question though.

Then I don't see how people like that are part of the "left-wing of capital" or "reactionary" or whatever. As far as is known, these people have negligible influence on the apparatus of bourgeois politics. I can see how social-democratic parties or union bureaucrats, for instance, are part of the "left wing of capital" because they can cut deals with the government to allow mass lay-offs, they can send striking workers back to work with a wave of the hand, etc.

I don't think that the term 'the left-wing of capital' is a good one for small leftist groups. That doesn't mean that their politics can't be fundamentally bourgeois though.

Devrim

Zanthorus

10th February 2011, 11:36

As for the De Leonists, I wouldn't be entirely sure about their positions (certainly, the later SLP did take a position after the Vietnam War in favour of the Vietnamese, despite this not being their position during the war, and this lead to a few splits).

The SLP (UK) at least took a revolutionary position on the First World War. In fact, they also supported the Bolsheviks in the Russian revolution and were involved in the talks for the formation of a Communist party in Britain. Incidentally, note the name of the publishers on this English translation of Lenin's Theses on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Lenin-slppamphlet-1920.jpg

And also incidentally, the reason the SLP as an organisation finally did not join the Communist party was because of the CPGB's policy of affiliating to the Labour party, an issue on which they were on the same side as the British Communist Left.

Sentinel

10th February 2011, 11:49

I don't know I suppose Stalinist parties have tried in the past but in general it leads to at the most social democratic policy.

It can do that but not in every case. Entryism is a feasible tactic as long as the parties or unions infiltrated are on the left side of the political spectrum, and most importantly the workers feel that they represent their interests. In such a situation it's possible to push for a radical agenda inside them.

The CWI used it until the birth of modern, rightwing 'third-way' social democracy when it was abandoned and new parties were formed instead. So in our case it didn't lead to that.

It's when comrades lack the capability to this kind analysis that there is a risk they get sucked into the swamp of bourgeois politics.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

11th February 2011, 09:46

Haha! Yeah, my contributions on here are pretty much limited to that and referring people to relative material. Guess, I should try and post more in the political discussions instead of just lurking, although some of the discussions are pretty mind-numbing.

Yeah, pretty much this. I still hang around because there's like a dozen posters I genuinely like and provide what I regard as some stimulating discussion.

But I mean revleft and other forums like it serve as a hub for young people exploring ideas and questioning the reality of capitalist society - so I suppose you come to expect this. At the end of the day it's probably not a bad idea to have some of us hanging around to help out I guess.

Nic.

Android

11th February 2011, 14:21

I still hang around because there's like a dozen posters I genuinely like and provide what I regard as some stimulating discussion.

Same here.

But I mean revleft and other forums like it serve as a hub for young people exploring ideas and questioning the reality of capitalist society - so I suppose you come to expect this. At the end of the day it's probably not a bad idea to have some of us hanging around to help out I guess.

Funnily enough I've argued the same to people offline who dismiss the importance of engaging on political forums - so I wasn't suggesting people shouldn't, fair play to people like Devrim who put the effort and time into engaging with people, I'm just bit lazy in that regard.

Alf

12th February 2011, 15:18

I agree with Zanthorus. The debate has gone past the term 'official' . The key issue is internationalism, because it makes it possible for internationalist anarchists and left communists to work together on a principled basis, despite their disagreements. This approach is also aimed at convincing the revolutionary anarchists that they have more in common with genuine marxists than with a number of currents who carry the anarchist brand, but who support openly nationalist positions.

gorillafuck

12th February 2011, 16:51

I'd be pretty sure that it did.

DevrimHow?

How can you contrast how many old Bolsheviks, Trotskyists, and other anti-Stalinists that were killed by Stalin to the amount of communists killed by Hitler and think Stalin killed more?

Devrim

12th February 2011, 17:29

How?

How can you contrast how many old Bolsheviks, Trotskyists, and other anti-Stalinists that were killed by Stalin to the amount of communists killed by Hitler and think Stalin killed more?

I don't think Hitler killed that many communists purely on the grounds that when he came to power in 1933, there weren't that many left. The communist movement had shrunk dramatically. He probably sent a few thousand to the camps, whereas Stalin sent tens of thousands.

Devrim

Devrim

12th February 2011, 17:31

BIG BROTHER

12th February 2011, 18:16

So now that we are discussing ICC's positions I wanna ask something.

Although the answer might seem obvious, what is the ICCs position on Nationalism of oppressed nationalities, such as the Chicanos and the Black in the U.S. ?

Devrim

12th February 2011, 18:54

BIG BROTHER

14th February 2011, 18:33

Does it see any difference however between Nationalism of the Oppressed and Chauvinist Nationalism?

Or how does the ICC analyse the revolutionary nature of the Nationalist movements such as the Chicanos and the Blacks challenging Imperialism?

BTW I ask this not as an attack but as a question to see how the ICC or left communists understands this things.

Android

14th February 2011, 19:03

Does it see any difference however between Nationalism of the Oppressed and Chauvinist Nationalism?

No.

Or how does the ICC analyse the revolutionary nature of the Nationalist movements such as the Chicanos and the Blacks challenging Imperialism?

Doesn't see Chicano or Black nationalism as fundamentally challenging imperialism at all. Rejects the view that they are revolutionary, since it is the working class that is the only agent of communsit revolution.

That'll have to do for now, I'm in hurry, hope others come in.

Joe Payne

14th February 2011, 23:46

You really can't lump all "platformists" together. I mean really there's no such thing as platformism or platformists. It's just a general model for an organization (which is just very lightly followed at this point, well I feel by NEFAC). Nobody believes in National Liberation in our section, and from what I know Wayne Price is slowly but surely abandoning his sympathy for it. Quite frankly there's an enormous councilist influence in NEFAC, and are politically closer to AFED than say Liberty and Solidarity despite being in the same "tendency." Black Flame doesn't give any support to National Lib either, at least from what I remember. The union question is a little different, but we have never supported union leaders in any way shape or form. A lot of us happen to be in unions, but not on principle, just cause that's where we work.

I don't want to get into a detailed discussion or anything, but I'm sayin' I don't feel most "platformists" fall into "official" anarchism in practice, and that, at least in NEFAC, we do hold an internationalist perspective of the class.

I would also like to say we do sympathise with the positions of the ICC and on a personal level see y'all as comrades. I feel many of us are closer to the ICC than say the ISO or PSL. Disagreement is disagreement and that's fine, and I understand the concept of the left-wing of Capital. And I certainly do not think that we fall into that category.

Devrim

15th February 2011, 07:57

You really can't lump all "platformists" together. I mean really there's no such thing as platformism or platformists. It's just a general model for an organization (which is just very lightly followed at this point, well I feel by NEFAC).

I think that it is generally used today to mean the groups around Anarkismo.

Nobody believes in National Liberation in our section, and from what I know Wayne Price is slowly but surely abandoning his sympathy for it.

Maybe we have misrepresented NEFAC's ideas in the past. I feel though that we are not solely to blame on this. Wayne Price is probably the most prolific writer in NEFAC, and when you read articles in support of national liberation from a member of a group which claims to have 'theoretical and tactical unity'.

I first read one of Wayne's articles, a piece on the Lebanese war, before I really had any idea what NEFAC really was, in the magazine of the now defunct AKI, the Turkish group that adhered to the Anarkismo statement.

At a time when hundreds of thousands of workers were fleeing the war in Lebanon, and tens of thousands of them pouring into this country, his call for 'independent workers' militias' seemed to us like a call for national defence and for support for the war.

Devrim