What are the differences between the ICC and IBRP? What are these internationals relationships like between eachother today? Are there any other Left-Communist intermationals?
That's a big question! I'll try to think of a way of answering it succinctly, but can't do it immediately. Hope others will pitch in as well. Meanwhile, what differences/points of agreement have you noticed yourself?
What are the differences between the ICC and IBRP? First of all, they have different historical roots. The ICC comes from the French Fraction of the Communist Left which disagreed with the formation of Partito Comunista Internazionalista in Italy for numerous reasons, among them being the differences of positions in the party (with one wing defending at least theoretical support for national liberation and participation in trade unions while opposing parliamentarianism and the other wing opposing national liberation and participation in trade unions while defending parliamentarianism) which lead to a split, the criticism made regarding the party being formed prematurely because neither Italy nor the world was about to have the revolution in the following years and because it was the counter-revolution that was prevailing at that point and the working class was very defeated. IBRP comes from the latter wing of the PCInt (while the Bordigists came from the other wing) although they changed their position in relation to parliamentarianism. The ICC and the IBRP have a different understanding of organization. The ICC is an international organization, this means that it is united internationally and that it is the same organization in every country. The IBRP is sort of like a federation of different territorial sister organizations which have different statutes and so forth. Also, the ICC and the IBRP have different economical analysis. I won't go deep into it, but basically the ICC analysis draws upon Rosa Luxemburg's theories and the writings of Mitchell, a left communist militant of the Belgian Fraction with their own contributions to it and thus has the understanding of decadence, imperialism, and the concept of 'socialism or barbarism' as we mostly know it. The IBRP position on decadence is more vague, from what I understand they partly draw the economics from Bukharin-Lenin and Grossman-Mattick and add their understanding to it. They are very critical of Luxemburg’s approach, they don’t see this ‘slide into barbarism’ aspect of imperialism thus they think capitalism can go on for hundreds of years, and also they see imperialism as something emerging strictly from direct economic interests. What are these internationals relationships like between eachother today? There have been some problems and there is an amount of antagonism between the two organization and I think the relations between the two organizations could be much better and closer (for examples I remember reading about ICC attempts to publish a joint leaflet against the war which didn’t happen because of reasons I don’t really wanna go into here) but, in the end of the day, the relations of those organizations are fraternal, the militants of the two organizations have a good personal relations, both organizations express solidarity with each other when militants pass or things like that happen, and the two organizations do criticize and discuss with each other openly through their papers and it is possible to follow this discussion in their websites. Are there any other Left-Communist intermationals? There are the many Bordigist ICPs, some of which are probably as wide-spread internationally as the IBRP. They don’t really discuss with the ICC or with the IBRP however, they don’t even discuss with other Bordigists ICPs.
[FONT=Times New Roman]Leo has made a good start by going back to the historical roots. The GCF argued in the 1940s that the PCInt was trying to maintain itself as a party in a period of defeat, and thus a period which was unfavourable to the existence of such a form of organisation; and that this attempt was inevitably giving rise to a tendency towards opportunism, ie the attempt to increase your influence by diluting your principles. Thus the PCInt participated in the elections of 1948 despite its historical references to the Abstentionist Fraction. Similarly, the attempt to build ‘transmission belts’ between party and class through the formation of ‘union factory groups’ could only result in returning to a trade unionist type activity at a ‘rank and file’ level.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]In our view, the groups of the IBRP have never made a critique of the original opportunist errors made by the PCInt and therefore we find it this same tendency towards opportunism recurring over and over again in their more recent activities. A classic case took place after they decided to scupper the international conferences of the communist left in the early 1980s. Rather than sustaining the discussion with other left communist groups they engaged in an abortive conference with an Iranian leftist group, the supporters of the UCM (‘the Communist Party of Iran’ as it later became). Many other examples could be given but it is the method behind them which is most significant. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]I am not sure that Leo is correct in saying that the IBRP think that capitalism can go on for hundreds of years. They also put forward a the alternative of socialism or barbarism. On the other hand, we do think that in recent years especially, they have shown an increasing tendency to water down the concept of decadence and make thus weaken their own defence of it. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman]That said, there is a great deal of agreement between the two organisations on the fundamental class positions. We do consider the IBRP to be a proletarian organisation and there are at least basic relations of fraternity between the two groups. To find out what we share and where we disagree, there is no substitute for studying the documents of the two organisations. There are many polemics between the ICC and the IBRP on numerous issues (party and class, nature of the historic period, decadence, etc etc) but perhaps you should indicate which questions are of most concern to you before I recommend any specific texts. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]I am not sure that Leo is correct in saying that the IBRP think that capitalism can go on for hundreds of years.[/FONT] I may be wrong, I remember reading something like that in the Libcom discussion about the IBRP. I'll try to find the quote. [FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
OK, got it. In the absence of an alternative capitalism could still carry on its mad course for centuries. http://www.ibrp.org/english/internat...t-of-decadence
I stand corrected! That article really does chip away at the basic foundations of the notion of decadence. We have answered it here: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/119_decadence_ii.html
The ICC and the IBRP have a different understanding of organization. The ICC is an international organization, this means that it is united internationally and that it is the same organization in every country. The IBRP is sort of like a federation of different territorial sister organizations which have different statutes and so forth. http://www.ibrp.org/english/internat...he-proletariat For some reason I am siding with the more "Leninist" IBRP over the overly centralized and heavily reductionist ICC on this (naturally ). One which divides the history of capitalism into two big epochs: of ascendance and decadence. Almost everything that was valid for communists during the first epoch is no longer valid in the second, for the simple fact that there is no more growth and only decadence. An example? The trades unions: before decadence they were okay and it was correct for revolutionaries to work there to take over the leadership, afterwards this is no longer valid. And that’s that. Not even a passing reference to the historical and institutional role of the unions as mediators; much less to the relationship between this role and the various phases of capitalism, or rather of the objective relationship between profit rates and bargaining space. We, with Engels, see the union for what it is: an organ of mediation between capital and labour, that has never served as a tool of revolutionary struggle. We therefore evaluate its function directly in terms of how far it gives an advantage to the price and to the condition of sale of labour power, and against how much room for negotiation and mediation capitalism can allow. In the upswing of the accumulation cycle the union, as “lawyer”, can wrest concessions on wages and working conditions (even if immediately reabsorbed by capital); in the downward swing of the cycle the opportunities for mediation are reduced to zero and the union, continuing its historical function, is reduced to mediation, yes, but in favour of preservation, operating as agents for the interests of capitalism inside the working class. The ICC instead splits history into two parts: when the unions are positive for the working class — without specifying how and on what basis — and when they have become negative. They demonstrate a similar schematic approach on the matter of national liberation wars. Hence a formal statement of positions which are undeniable and therefore apparently held in common is accompanied by a substantial divergence from, if not something outside of, historical materialism and an incapacity to examine the objective situation. Yet this is the essential condition for drawing correct lines of action for the party both now and in the future. It is no accident that for some time we have been following the current dynamic of capitalism in its various aspects, and bringing any firm conclusions into the definition of our perspectives. The law of uneven development complicates the "decadence" question, a reductionist approach to which is taken by the ICC! And more: The ICC also presents itself as centralised to internationally. In fact, during the Seventies the ICC proclaimed itself to be the pole of regroupment to which the others could only adhere without divergences. But this doesn’t mean that intermediary forms between today’s situation and the party of tomorrow will come into existence, and not just because we are excluding such formations as useful elements in the construction of the party. In any case, these specific experiences cannot hold as valid examples to follow so as to reach the point where tomorrow’s party can be built. Let’s begin, therefore, with the “theoretical” alternatives that are from time to time put forward. They are, in essence, 1. The immediate formation of an international organisation, gradually extending itself country by country. 2. A federation of the organisations from different countries on the basis of a common denominator (a minimum platform?) as diverse as the defining positions of each. 3. Leave things as they are, with no more than the circulation of information and statements of positions, with occasional convergences over this or that long term outcome of this or that problem. As far as the first case is concerned, we have already explained: this would be a movement of self-consolation and deprived of any real organisational content, therefore more counter-productive than useful as regards the problem of the real formation of the international party. This certainly obeys formal logic: if the objective is the centralised organisation, then centralise as soon as possible, that is as soon as anyone in the world supports the positions of the organisation. But formal logic is one thing, objective political dynamics are another, and they almost never coincide. Somebody else says to us (an Austrian comrade) that there appears to be a contradiction between our critical revision of the experience of the III International and our present-day resistance to “centralisation”. We deny that there is a contradiction. The III International presented itself to the world precisely as an International, complete and finished, with all the defects of a lack homogeneity and of a hasty affiliation of parties whose own development had been far from the cardinal principles of the International itself. The IBRP is not the International Party but wants to contribute to its construction and to the maturation and homogenisation of the existing revolutionary vanguard. The distinction — which we will go into more below — between members and sympathisers of the IBRP seems to us sufficiently expressive of the way in which we understand our own progress towards the centralisation of the international party. It seems here that the IBRP has helped prevent me from going too far in my "international social-proletocratic party" ideas. Sometimes stageist approaches (like this and the minimum-reformist-revolutionary program) are necessary.
