Left Communism, Waddap? ICC, ICT

[Tim Cornelis]

I have been looking into different organisations other than those I'm now a member of that are closer aligned to my views on strategy. I have contacted the ICC -- not with the intent of joining as my politics are not identical, but perhaps supporting their activities if they appeal to me -- but they don't seem to be doing anything. They have some nice theory and organise discussions in Antwerp, but other than that it doesn't seem they "intervene in labour struggles."

Perhaps this is due to a lack of members in the Netherlands, so my question is, what exactly does the ICC do? And for that matter, what does the ICT do?

Might as well inquire where the ICC and ICT diverge. I assume ICC emerged out of Dutch-German left and ICT out of the Italian and thus the ICC is committed to revolutionary spontaneity, while ICT more into Bordigism.

[Sasha]

as far as i met the dutch ICC members, they are very nice, but they are also mostly very old and dont do much, sure one could take a support subscription on their paper/magazine but you are by far better off bringing a left-communist perspective into the vrijebond than try and bring activism into the ICC. the ICT doesnt exist in the netherlands as far as i know.
We already have way to many organisations in the netherlands fishing in the same small pond (vrijebond/asb/etc) yet i do think if anyone would ever decide to have a go at organizing a confrontative autonomous socialist group more like "Revolutionära Fronten" from Sweden (http://revfront.org/) there still would be room for it and we could draw in some of those many that dont see themselves as anarchists but for who groups like the IS, let alone ROOD proved a dead end.

[Devrim]

as far as i met the dutch ICC members, they are very nice, but they are also mostly very old and dont do much,

I don't think I have even met them. I would imagine you are right though. I have met Flemish speakers in Belgium, who would probably be in their 50s. It is a problem the ICC seems to have across Western Europe.


the ICT doesnt exist in the netherlands as far as i know.
Yes, this is correct.


Might as well inquire where the ICC and ICT diverge. I assume ICC emerged out of Dutch-German left and ICT out of the Italian and thus the ICC is committed to revolutionary spontaneity, while ICT more into Bordigism.

They both have their roots in the Italian left, but I wouldn't say either is Bordigist.

If you are actually interested I can explain in a bit more detail.

Devrim

[Ravachol]

I have been looking into different organisations other than those I'm now a member of that are closer aligned to my views on strategy. I have contacted the ICC -- not with the intent of joining as my politics are not identical, but perhaps supporting their activities if they appeal to me -- but they don't seem to be doing anything. They have some nice theory and organise discussions in Antwerp, but other than that it doesn't seem they "intervene in labour struggles."

Perhaps this is due to a lack of members in the Netherlands, so my question is, what exactly does the ICC do?


Arjan (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=30950) on this forum is a Dutch ICC member.

I have been in sporadic contact with the ICC, met them a few times IRL (as Psycho said they're nice and friendly old men) and have worked together with them on a few actions (surrounding the strikes and actions in the health sector for example). They choose their interventions extremely carefully as they are of the opinion that intervention by revolutionary minorities in struggles which are largely controlled by the trade unions are useless, or even counterproductive (with pro-revs and activists ending up doing the dirty work for the unionist campaign which then pulls the plug from the struggle), which is one of the reasons they didn't intervene in the cleaners' strikes except through external reflections and correspondence with some participants. I think their analysis of many issues is way sharper than most of the Dutch revolutionary milieu (many anarchists included) but I diverge from them on many matters as well, both regarding the 'role' of revolutionary militants and the nature and likely progress of the struggle for communism. I'm probably what they'd call a 'modernist'

Regarding strategy, I don't think your views (judging from revleft only, ofcourse) are in sync with those of either the ICC, ICT or ICP but they're openminded folks who like correspondence with all members of the broad internationalist pro-rev milieu.



Might as well inquire where the ICC and ICT diverge. I assume ICC emerged out of Dutch-German left and ICT out of the Italian and thus the ICC is committed to revolutionary spontaneity, while ICT more into Bordigism.


yet i do think if anyone would ever decide to have a go at organizing a confrontative autonomous socialist group more like "Revolutionära Fronten" from Sweden (http://revfront.org/) there still would be room for it and we could draw in some of those many that dont see themselves as anarchists but for who groups like the IS, let alone ROOD proved a dead end.

I tend to agree and I like RevFront's style and confrontative approach, but their politics seem to often be copy-pasted from the former Red Action, including their rather unquestioning support for national liberation struggles (with a weird focus on the irish struggle for a swedish group) and their attachment to the trade unions. If anything (and I'm afraid to bring this up :p), i'd see more potential for something like RAAN.


I don't think I have even met them. I would imagine you are right though. I have met Flemish speakers in Belgium, who would probably be in their 50s. It is a problem the ICC seems to have across Western Europe.


Yes, the Flemish speaker is also active in the Netherlands (and even mentioned you when talking to me :p) but there's some Dutch members as well.

[Orange Juche]

Seems to me that, compared to the Leninists, Left Communists and the likes have very little in the way of organizations that represent their flavor of Marxism.

[svenne]

I tend to agree and I like RevFront's style and confrontative approach, but their politics seem to often be copy-pasted from the former Red Action, including their rather unquestioning support for national liberation struggles (with a weird focus on the irish struggle for a swedish group) and their attachment to the trade unions. If anything (and I'm afraid to bring this up ), i'd see more potential for something like RAAN.

You pretty much answered your own question there (as in: i think the thing for irish liberation comes from lovin' Red Action a tad to much). While i'm personally neither fond of nor hates RF, their activity pretty much sums up to beating up nazis and sending threats to politicians and/or rich people.
I guess i could recommend starting up something in that way if you've got a problem with nazis on the streets, but else: maybe not that useful.


Seems to me that, compared to the Leninists, Left Communists and the likes have very little in the way of organizations that represent their flavor of Marxism.

I agree. Outside of ICC and ICT it's mostly people scattered here and there, and a couple of groups which mostly engage with theory (and not being strictly left communist but also leaning towards operaism and communization theory: Riff-Raff, Aufheben, Endnotes etc). While the theory production is interesting (and in the case of Endnotes: totally readable even without three semesters of philosophy behind you), there seems to be no organised "politics" or interventions.

[subcp]

Well, think of it this way. If you think the trade unions are organs of the capitalist state, that electoral politics reinforces illusions in reformism and is a dead-end, don't see the place of communists as instigators or 'leaders' of the class struggle: you aren't going to have front groups, support election campaigns (or run them), you're not going to try and get cozy with trade unions, etc.

The tasks of communists in the here and now, and in a future revolutionary crisis, are laid out from lots of lessons that have been drawn from the history of the worker's movement and revolutionary outbursts. The impulse to 'do something for the sake of doing something' is not indulged, since all of these 'things' leftist groups do (coalitions, front groups, entrism, mass recruitment, trade union work, etc.) not only don't work or advance the communist project, they get in the way (by increasing illusions in trade unions and electoral politics, by obfuscating communist positions, leading to burn-out among a high turnover membership).

It may make the members of said groups feel like they're involved or 'doing something', that dark place activists don't talk about knows that all of the trade union agitation, transitional demands, electoral coalitions, front groups, entrism, do not advance the goal of communism.

[Tim Cornelis]

If you are actually interested I can explain in a bit more detail.

Devrim

That'd be much appreciated.


It may make the members of said groups feel like they're involved or 'doing something', that dark place activists don't talk about knows that all of the trade union agitation, transitional demands, electoral coalitions, front groups, entrism, do not advance the goal of communism.

They do not. So what's the point of having the ICC at all then? "Doing something" does not mean doing it for the sake of doing it. My question is more general, what strategy do they have for advancing communism?

[subcp]

This is one of the founding documents of the ICC that spell out why they exist and what they do:

http://en.internationalism.org/node/2503

I mention the cycle of activism because you framed the question as, "they don't seem to be doing anything"- when 'doing anything' is related to all of the visible causes, campaigns and activities of leftist groups (trade union work, electoral coalitions, front groups, entrism, etc.).

From the founding the IBRP (now ICT):

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2001-08-01/the-new-international-will-be-the-international-party-of-the-proletariat


They differ on their conception of economic crisis, on the level of centralization of revolutionary organizations that precede the Party, and a number of other things. Both are descended from the Italian communist left.

[Devrim]

That'd be much appreciated.

I was afraid you would say that. :)

To give a basic outline, both of them have their roots in the Italian left, though the ICT much more directly. The Internationalist Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalist_Communist_Party_%28Battaglia_Comu nista%29) (often known as Bagtallia Communista) was founded in 1943 in Italy. Some groups of the Italian left in exile, which by this time was no longer particularlyItalian, said that this party was being founded on an opportunist basis. One of the members of these groups, Marc Chirik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Chirik), went on to be the leading light behind the founding of the ICC.

So the ICT was formed by the Internationalist Communist Party who are the same group that was formed in 1943 above. They had one major split, which was when the Bordigists left in 1952. The ICC base themselves, althouh the actually continuity is only down to one person, on those who thought that the formation of the party was premature and opportunist.

Devrim

[Dear Leader]

What is "Left Communism"? I always understood socialism/communism to be the same sort of idea.

[Blake's Baby]

The Left Communists were the groups expelled from the Communist International during the 1920s for being too 'left wing': generally, for opposing working with the social-patriot parties and/or contesting elections. There were two main currents historically, the Dutch/German Left and the Italian Left.

Modern Left Communists are part of groups that descend politically from these currents. So 'Left Communism' describes groups or politics, not the 'end goal'. We're communists; we're Marxists indeed, and therefore have the same stated end-goal as other 'communists'; but we don't see that involvement with bourgeois politics is a way for the proletariat to develop its consciousness.

There is some debate in the Left Communist camp as to whether it's time to drop the 'Left' - left of what? At one time we were the left of the CI, and the left of the CPs, but not any more. Maybe we should just call ourselves 'communists' or 'internationalists'. Though that might prove difficulat as lots of other groups call themselves 'communist' or 'internationalist' and we think many of them are neither.

[Tim Cornelis]

If it is the left communist's position that we should engage and intervene in struggles to direct them in a revolutionary direction as seems suggested, then perhaps left communists should re-evaluate the hitherto deployed strategies and tactics as they don't seem particularly fruitful. Is there any such internal debate?

[subcp]

But the task of carrying out the communist revolution is in the hands of the working-class; communists are a small minority of the class, and can't force revolutionary events. That doesn't seem like a fair way to categorize the intervention of communists in the class struggle (that because the revolution hasn't happened there must be something wrong with communist intervention).

It appears to be an ongoing analysis and discussion about the best ways to engage the class struggle, from trial and error or grounding tactics on historical experience.

[Alf]

i agree with subcp's responses on the problem of activism. In order to carry out an effective activity, you have to have a general, theoretical view of what that activity is aiming to do. And communists don't aim for the same things as groups which we would describe as part of the left of capital - such as winning positions of influence in the trade unions.

Does that mean we don't have any activity in the defensive struggles of the class? No. One aspect of this has been our participation in workers' groups which are trying to go beyond the unions. The article linked here is part of a series which looks at our experience in this area: this one looks at various examples from the 1980s in the UK, but we hope to bring the whole series up to date.

http://en.internationalism.org/worldrevolution/201303/6523/workers-groups-experience-uk-1980s-part-ii

Here's an example on an intervention we were able to make in a more massive movement, the student struggles in France in 2006

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/296_cpe_intervention

It's all very modest, but that's because we, and the communist left in general, have very modest resources. we can discuss the reasons for that, but it's not because we have a notion of abstaining from the struggles of the class.

[Ravachol]

If it is the left communist's position that we should engage and intervene in struggles to direct them in a revolutionary direction as seems suggested, then perhaps left communists should re-evaluate the hitherto deployed strategies and tactics as they don't seem particularly fruitful. Is there any such internal debate?

No, because the interventions of communists within episodes of the class struggle aren't the make-it or break-it of whether a situation 'spills over' into revolution. Revolutionaries are ants upon the levers of history and their position isn't influenced by any amount of evangelizing or apostolic activism. The idea that the intervention of communists within the class struggle is the determinant factor in whether a situation turns revolutionary or not is precisely the Leninist position: that of the injection of 'revolutionary consciousness' in the 'sleeping masses'.



Only a developing social crisis can start to bridge the gap between theory and practice, among proletarians as among "revolutionaries". In 2007, communist activity is almost restricted to theory alone, and it's no easy task to define that "almost". Though we're not looking for glorious models, we don't pretend to do any better than some of our forerunners. Marx wrote in 1860 he'd known "next to nothing" about the party since 1852, since the dissolution of the Communist League, which was an "episode in the history of the party, which is spontaneously born out of the soil of modern society" (letter to Freiligrath, February 29, 1860). In the 1930s, Bordiga and Pannekoek stayed away from public activity for about ten years - which does not mean that they did nothing for those ten years. The present situation differs from 1967, for instance, when an event like the "Strasburg scandal" made it possible for a minority (small in numbers but largely exceeding the situationist milieu) to know and understand itself thanks to a shocking "coup", the symbolic and political impact of which (however we appreciate it) could not be denied.

It's quite difficult today to take part as a communist in a strike or an event like the anti-CPE movement in France. Saying "Nothing But The Revolution" would be meaningless. Watering down what we think to stay in touch with the masses has only meaning for those who indulge in politics.

It's equally pointless to tell strikers what they ought to be doing, and to tell them that what they're doing is leading them on the way to revolution without their being aware of it yet.

We're not lecturing the proles. We're not treating them as our teachers either.

Communists get organised, that is, they organise themselves: they don't organise others.

One of the worst illusions is the belief that all the conditions would be there for a revolution, all but one: organisation...


I also suggest the following texts for a sober assessment of the impotent burnout culture that is 'revolutionary activism':

http://libcom.org/library/give-up-activism
http://libcom.org/library/anti-activism
http://libcom.org/library/giveupactivismps

[Tim Cornelis]

No, because the interventions of communists within episodes of the class struggle aren't the make-it or break-it of whether a situation 'spills over' into revolution. Revolutionaries are ants upon the levers of history and their position isn't influenced by any amount of evangelizing or apostolic activism. The idea that the intervention of communists within the class struggle is the determinant factor in whether a situation turns revolutionary or not is precisely the Leninist position: that of the injection of 'revolutionary consciousness' in the 'sleeping masses'.

No it's not:


The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

Communist Manifesto.

And the ICT:


The proletariat - the class of those exploited - is the only potentially revolutionary subject, inside the capitalist system. Proletarians, being excluded from the possession of the means of production and alienated from the product of their own work, have historical and immediate interests opposed to those of capital. But, the proletariat can be effectively revolutionary, only if it acquire the necessary class unity and the consciousness of its own intimate antagonism in respect to capital. For this purpose, it is necessary that in the sphere of the proletarian class there is an organized vanguard, able to analyze the dynamics of the relations of production, to draw lessons from the experiences of class struggle, to elaborate and advance a program to overcome the capitalist society and to guide, politically, the class on this road.

In fact, a profound difference exists between “class instinct” and “class consciousness”. The first one springs up and develops inside workers’ struggles as a patrimony of workers themselves; it is placed into existence by the antagonism of material interests and it feeds with growing economical and political contradictions, originated by the same antagonism; finally, to exist, it requires that relations between proletarians and capitalists are sufficiently tense to imply a certain generalization of workers’ struggles and a certain hardness of confrontations. The second one, consciousness, springs up from the scientific examination of class contradictions, it grows together with those contradictions; it lives and feeds with the examination and elaboration of data generated by the historical experiences of the class.

With the revolution, the power is up to the whole proletarian class, to its assembly organisms. But the party doesn’t play only a generic role of agitation and propaganda. The party sustains the revolutionary and socialist program in soviets and its militants are ready to assume responsibilities, assignments revocable in every moment, when workers’ assemblies acknowledge the slogans of the party. In conclusion, the “political direction” of the party, the relevance of the communist program, indispensible for the success of a proletarian revolution, is something which cannot be imposed on soviets, but it is to be acquired and defended through political battles.


I also suggest the following texts for a sober assessment of the impotent burnout culture that is 'revolutionary activism':

http://libcom.org/library/give-up-activism
http://libcom.org/library/anti-activism
http://libcom.org/library/giveupactivismps

Those texts are as terrible as the last time you linked to them. They "slaan de plank volledig mis"/mischaracterise virtually everything. The first text, for instance, is a recital of constant wrong conclusions upon false premises.

[subcp]

Both of the quotes you posted suggest a situation is already pre-revolutionary; the point here is that it is not conceived as the task of communists to turn day to day class struggle into a pre-revolutionary situation or revolutionary crisis. The tasks of communists in a situation of capitalist crisis that the working-class has turned into a revolutionary crisis is what the ICT appear to be talking about (which requires experiences and consciousness to occur), though their view of class consciousness is not common to all left communist groups, and Marx's quote just talks about what communists are, not that they are the bearers and instigators of revolution from normal day to day class struggle regardless of the level of consciousness and experience of the class.

[Tim Cornelis]

Both of the quotes you posted suggest a situation is already pre-revolutionary; the point here is that it is not conceived as the task of communists to turn day to day class struggle into a pre-revolutionary situation or revolutionary crisis. .

No where did I claim it was. It is of my contention that the task of communists in a non-revolutionary situation is to prepare for a pre- or potentially revolutionary situation by constructing a movement that has the ability to perform those objectives as mentioned by the ICT.

[Ravachol]

No it's not:




The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.


That's wonderful. None of this however, as subcp pointed out, says anything about the role of communists vis-a-vis the revolutionary struggle itself. It merely observes what communists are, it is not a normative prescription regarding their 'role'.



The proletariat - the class of those exploited - is the only potentially revolutionary subject, inside the capitalist system. Proletarians, being excluded from the possession of the means of production and alienated from the product of their own work, have historical and immediate interests opposed to those of capital. But, the proletariat can be effectively revolutionary, only if it acquire the necessary class unity and the consciousness of its own intimate antagonism in respect to capital. For this purpose, it is necessary that in the sphere of the proletarian class there is an organized vanguard, able to analyze the dynamics of the relations of production, to draw lessons from the experiences of class struggle, to elaborate and advance a program to overcome the capitalist society and to guide, politically, the class on this road.

In fact, a profound difference exists between “class instinct” and “class consciousness”. The first one springs up and develops inside workers’ struggles as a patrimony of workers themselves; it is placed into existence by the antagonism of material interests and it feeds with growing economical and political contradictions, originated by the same antagonism; finally, to exist, it requires that relations between proletarians and capitalists are sufficiently tense to imply a certain generalization of workers’ struggles and a certain hardness of confrontations. The second one, consciousness, springs up from the scientific examination of class contradictions, it grows together with those contradictions; it lives and feeds with the examination and elaboration of data generated by the historical experiences of the class.

With the revolution, the power is up to the whole proletarian class, to its assembly organisms. But the party doesn’t play only a generic role of agitation and propaganda. The party sustains the revolutionary and socialist program in soviets and its militants are ready to assume responsibilities, assignments revocable in every moment, when workers’ assemblies acknowledge the slogans of the party. In conclusion, the “political direction” of the party, the relevance of the communist program, indispensible for the success of a proletarian revolution, is something which cannot be imposed on soviets, but it is to be acquired and defended through political battles.


I disagree with the ICT's characterisation of a necessity for this mythical vanguard and its role(as opposed to the vanguard being merely a description of those sections of the proletariat which are most advanced in the struggle for communism), but nowhere do they say that it is the activity of pro-revolutionaries that is crucial to the elaboration of a revolutionary situation. They talk about the role of pro-revolutionaries within the unfolding of a (pre-)revolutionary situation.





Those texts are as terrible as the last time you linked to them. They "slaan de plank volledig mis"/mischaracterise virtually everything. The first text, for instance, is a recital of constant wrong conclusions upon false premises.

Great rebuttal there buddy, care to actually back that up or you gonna leave it at that? Perhaps if you actually read them, I wouldn't have to keep linking to them.

I mean, come on, be honest, how long have you been active in the whole activist/radical milieu? Anyone who makes a sober assessment of their interventions in various struggles and their effectiveness re. the development of a revolutionary situation ought to see how the whole tried-and-tired voluntarist shtick of "one more time comrades! try harder! this time it'll work!" or the endless splitting and merging of various sects seeking a 'primitive accumulation of cadres' simply does little to nothing but burn out comrades or reproduce the various little sects around which they orbit for their own sake. Don't get me wrong, there is a (modest) role besides communists organising themselves and engaging propaganda activities. A modest role for intervention activities from the radical milieu in various struggles, whether this involves the circulation of information and perspectives, the pushing of the limits of struggles and the introduction of practices. Sometimes communists participate in struggles because they are conflicts that directly relate to our lived experience (our workplaces, schools, neighborhoods), but engaging in class struggle isn't the same as engaging in revolutionary activity. Class struggle in and of itself can be perfectly immanent to the functioning of capitalism (and sometimes invigorating it, ie. wage demands increasing purchasing power, in turn expanding markets and rejuvenating capital) and has little relation to communism beyond its potential for going beyond itself, and such a spilling over isn't the unilateral product of a 'consciousness injection' by, what, two or three hundred folks in the entire country, tops?

None of this activity is the decisive or influential factor regarding the unfolding of a revolutionary situation, its impact is very meager and only peripherally related to communism and telling yourself anything else is a recipe for burnout inducing self-delusion at best and self-aggrandizing sect behavior at worst.

What you're looking for is a series of blueprints, a missing magical key (either in a particular form of struggle or organisation) that, once found, will make the masses flock to the communist position. And I'm pointing out this is bollocks and bears no relation to reality because the folks who keep chasing that perspective either end up as aging trots with a dead-end union bureaucrat job conning themselves into thinking they are "radicalizing the union", old weirdos circling activist camps shouting about the need to 'build a unified organisation of struggle' or simply leave the stage entirely and think "oh well it was all misguided utopianism anyway".

[Ravachol]

No where did I claim it was. It is of my contention that the task of communists in a non-revolutionary situation is to prepare for a pre- or potentially revolutionary situation by constructing a movement that has the ability to perform those objectives as mentioned by the ICT.

Good luck with that. If you have a hard time convincing people in the radical milieu, imagine how it'll go down with some random prole off the street...

[Tim Cornelis]

Good luck with that. If you have a hard time convincing people in the radical milieu, imagine how it'll go down with some random prole off the street...

Most organisations are already doing that in one way or another, whether they explicitly or knowingly do so or not. Often deployed false strategies and tactics, but nonetheless. The Seattle Solidarity Network is somewhat or relatively successful in engaging "random proles" so neither is that impossible.

[Ravachol]

Most organisations are already doing that in one way or another, whether they explicitly or knowingly do so or not. Often deployed false strategies and tactics, but nonetheless.


Like.... ? None of the various pro-revolutionary groups actually push towards a revolutionary situation because they are incapable of that. The are capable of reproducing themselves as small groupuscules, spreading propaganda and engaging in some actions but that's it. Besides, the more of less stable size cap on these groups ought to tell you something as well.

Its convenient you ignored my previous post though.


The Seattle Solidarity Network is somewhat or relatively successful in engaging "random proles" so neither is that impossible.

I know some people involved in SeaSol and what they're doing is admirable, but not more or less conductive to a revolutionary situation, which is what this discussion is about. You honestly think that SeaSol has divined some magical organisational form that will usher in the revolution once adopted by other pro-rev groupuscules? If so 1) why is SeaSol still a minoritarian network 2) why don't other groups adopt this model, if it is the magic key to revolution?

What various networks like this do, at most, is help a marginalized section of the proletariat (usually those without jobs, demanding redundancy payments, trying to collect outstanding wages from reluctant employers or engaged in casualised labor) put pressure in the absence of the trade unions (which neither can nor really desire to draw this segment of the proletariat into their orbit). This trend was the case with the various SolFed campaigns, with some of the FAU campaigns and with a few examples by the Dutch AGA as well. I mean, why is it, according to you, that the situation is as it currently is, and not different?

This is all fine and dandy, and not unimportant, but it doesn't have anything to do with the development of a revolutionary situation. Such a thing won't spring from 'this model, but bigger' or 'these actions, but more of them' because their limit is reached by these forms. Such networks and groups might stimulate combativeness and a certain ideological perspective within a small, small section of the proletariat (usually within their circle of friends and acquaintances) but cannot go beyond that in an expansive model that will (if only the right form of organisation is found!) envelop the majority of the proletariat. The size of the biggest radical parts of the remnants of the workers' movement (such as the Spanish CNT or the Swedish SAC) are still tiny, stagnate in size and don't have a qualitative impact upon the development of a revolutionary unfolding. Karl Marx once said that "It is generally the fate of completely new historical creations to be mistaken for the counterpart of older and even defunct forms of social life, to which they may bear a certain likeness" and this seems to be the case here too. Simply because some organisations and tendencies spring up it doesn't mean the era of mass organisations of class-unity is back.

I seriously recommend the following analyses: http://libcom.org/library/historical-production-revolution-current-period , http://riff-raff.se/texts/en/sic1-how-one-can-still-put-forward-demands-when-no-demands-can-be-satisfied

[Tim Cornelis]

It's like every time we exchange comments you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Either you don't read well or I'm not explaining myself well enough. No, this discussion is not whether we can induce a revolutionary situation by means of a small minority of activists, I never claimed this was possible and neither did you.

[Ravachol]

It's like every time we exchange comments you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Either you don't read well or I'm not explaining myself well enough. No, this discussion is not whether we can induce a revolutionary situation by means of a small minority of activists, I never claimed this was possible and neither did you.

That is completely correct, I, however, said this discussion was about whether or not the activity of pro-rev groups is "more or less conductive to a revolutionary situation". But its ok if you don't want to have that discussion since you don't seem to engage my arguments anyway. Suit yourself and good luck convincing others.