Hypothetical question on regroupment

This question is directed towards members and former members of the ICC, ICT and possibly other organizations of the proletarian camp, but if you're not one and feel you can contribute, go ahead:

Nevermind the problems in the past, if hypothetically speaking, all of a sudden the ICC and the ICT decided to become one single organization, albeit with different internal tendencies each corresponding to the current positions of each group, what problems would arise out of this decision?

Is it absolutely necessary to overcome all political differences before any hope of regroupment or would an organization with more room for different views possibly work within the framework of the politics of these two groups?

I do not think this would work:

the ICC and the ICT decided to become one single organization, albeit with different internal tendencies each corresponding to the current positions of each group

Although it is a recurring question that pops up every now and then. I think it is the wrong way to approach the issue. I think any sort of regroupment that may occur can only really be the outcome of practical work in relation to working-class activity and movements. Therefore, regroupment and unification is not something abstract, but practically posed.

I don't think a communist organisation needs to be ultra-rigid in terms of theory, ascribing positions that members should hold and defend in 'interventions' on all sorts of questions. A strategic orientation and general perspectives, is adequate in my opinion.

I think there is a problem with raising the unification of existing left-communist groups into one organisation as an ideal or solution to their current smallness and irrelevance. In that in isolation from any real movements from within the class they will remain irrelevant, and even then in a situation where such movements emerge, it is not a given that the existing groups will be relevant and grow in line with the movements as expressions of it. That is very much an open question.

At the moment, I think it is more important to have dynamic communist groups.

Isn't the question posable the other way round though? 'isoaltion from the class', 'irrelevance' and indeed lack of 'dynamism' in part stem from the fact that all of the Left Communist groups are really tiny. If there were larger groups, they would be able to intervene more effectively; if there were more effective interventions, the groups would be less 'irrelevant'; if groups were not so small, numbered in a few comrades scattered over half a dozen cities in each country (if that) but if there were - almost unimaginable outside France or Italy - a dozen comrades in one city, even if they held different views on secondary issues (eg the cause of the crisis) how much more dynamic would the groups be?

Of course, I agree that even if the existing groups were to form one multi-tendency organisation, it might still be that that such an organisation would be irrelevant when the working class as a whole begins to struggle more massively; but the present situation seems to me to guarantee such a result.

'isoaltion from the class', 'irrelevance' and indeed lack of 'dynamism' in part stem from the fact that all of the Left Communist groups are really tiny.

'isolation from class', 'irrelevance' and lack of 'dynamism' does not in my opinion stem from tiny groups. Obviously tiny groups are irrelevant in the broad scheme of things. But there are small groups (e.g. KpK in Czech Republic for instance) that are marginally less isolated from the class because they oriented to it, and have a dynamic practice.

I do not think there is any meaningful link between smallness and lack of dynamism. It is far more important that communists organise where they are and relate to the working-class where they are, instead of this ultra-ideological orientation to people who place the same label on themselves and relate to this label wherever it is arises.

if there were more effective interventions, the groups would be less 'irrelevant'; if groups were not so small, numbered in a few comrades scattered over half a dozen cities in each country (if that) but if there were - almost unimaginable outside France or Italy - a dozen comrades in one city, even if they held different views on secondary issues (eg the cause of the crisis) how much more dynamic would the groups be?

This is purely abstract. Why is there no 'effective interventions'? I think the current state of class struggle has a determining role in this, there is not really all that much happening at the moment, when you consider the attacks on the working-class. I say this approach is purely abstract because it holds up the unification of left communists into a single organisation as an automatic step forward. As counter-inituitive as it may seem, the outcome of that could be the opposite. Thus why I take the view that regroupment is far more productive when it proceeds from practical work based in localities and related to the class struggle rather then as a abstract ideal. And in reality that is how it has occurred throughout history.

'isolation from class', 'irrelevance' and lack of 'dynamism' does not in my opinion stem from tiny groups. Obviously tiny groups are irrelevant in the broad scheme of things. But there are small groups (e.g. KpK in Czech Republic for instance) that are marginally less isolated from the class because they oriented to it, and have a dynamic practice...

I agree that there are 'small' groups that are less isolated from the working class - you mention the KpK and i've been reliably informed that they are bigger than three of the smaller national sections of the ICC combined. So there's 'small' (I guess, between 20-50 militants in a country?) and there's 'tiny' - and tiny really means a couple of militants in one or more cities in a country. And most Left Communist groups are tiny. I can't think of any UK city, for instance, where either the CWO or ICC could muster more than about 5 people and neither organisation as far as I'm aware has more than 20 members.

Recently in a meeting I was at with Jock, he admitted (i don't mean that let something slip that wasn't widely known here) that though BC is a real political organisation of the working class, which actually has a presence in the class and can take part in meaningful interventions and has an orientation towards struggles, the CWO is merely a 'propaganda group'. I think that's a reasonable assessment. What are the main differences between BC and the CWO? It may well be that the most important is that BC is located in a country where there is more struggle occurring at present, but I'd contend that the most important difference in the organisations themselves is that one is - I hesitate to use this word - 'large' (ie, in Left Comm terms, it maybe has more than 50 militants nationally) and the other is 'tiny'.

I do not think there is any meaningful link between smallness and lack of dynamism. It is far more important that communists organise where they are and relate to the working-class where they are, instead of this ultra-ideological orientation to people who place the same label on themselves and relate to this label wherever it is arises...

Thanks, I haven't been called abstract and ultra-ideological for a while. I did get called 'idealist' twice on the same day however about a week ago, once for referring to the political minorities of the working class as 'revolutionaries', and the second for claiming that wage labour wouldn't exist in a socialist society.

I see 'the Communist Left' as being a real thing. I understand the historic processes that led to different organisations existing but I don't think the existence of different organisations is justified on programmatic grounds.

I'm astonished (really, not just saying that for polemical effect) that you don't see 'any meaningful link' between dynamism and lack of size. How can a (hypothetical) organisation composed of ten people in six different cities who manage to meet in groups of 6+ say once a quarter, possibly have as much dynamic potential as an organisation of 40 people in 10 cities who manage to meet in groups of 6+ at least twice a month? Not that the numbers of people will guarantee the dynamism of the group if its politics ae shit, but then, I don't think the 'politics' as such of any of the groups of the Communist Left are the problem, and anyway, even if they were, the presence of people from different tendencies would surely mitigate against the domination of any particularly rubbish trends.

...This is purely abstract. Why is there no 'effective interventions'? I think the current state of class struggle has a determining role in this, there is not really all that much happening at the moment, when you consider the attacks on the working-class. I say this approach is purely abstract because it holds up the unification of left communists into a single organisation as an automatic step forward. As counter-inituitive as it may seem, the outcome of that could be the opposite. Thus why I take the view that regroupment is far more productive when it proceeds from practical work based in localities and related to the class struggle rather then as a abstract ideal. And in reality that is how it has occurred throughout history.

I think there are two main problems, and one minor one, with what you're saying here.

Firstly; the state of the class struggle has an ultimately determining role but it isn't the only factor. If it were, there would be no necessity for any organisations at all. One man could have elaborated the programme back in 1921 and we could all have gone to sleep until the working class bothers to have a revolution.

The main role of revolutionary minorities at the moment is in my opinion to contribute to the development of the working class's understanding of itself as the revolutionary subject - to contribute to the development of class consciousness in other words. Effective intervention and orientation towards expressions of class struggle is vital to that role I think. Effectiveness in that role depends in part on the numbers of revolutionaries involved. The smaller the numbers, the less connection between the class as a whole and the revolutionary minorities is possible.

One person can both talk and listen at meeting, but they cannot both and talk and listen at more than one meeting. One person can distribute revolutionary literature at a demo or a picket line, but 10 people can distribute revolutionary literature to many more people at a demo or at several picket lines simultaneously in different locations. The more miltants there are the more can, potentially, be done.

Secondly; I don't think 'unification' is 'an automatic step forward', it's obvious that unification can be both bodged and botched - the history of the first 10 years of the PCInt is a demonstration of that I'd contend. But that doesn't matter, I don't think any of us are actually proposing 'unification' into an homogenous organisation. Even were that necessary, it wouldn't be possible. I'm pretty sure that the most that is being proposed is an organisational framework that would bring militants together from differerent organisations (currents, tendencies...). None of us thinks that this is the world party. I doubt any of us see it as any sort of guaranteed 'fix' even in the short-term. But it would be a chance to overcome some of the problems of tiny and marginalised organisations.

Thirdly; the question of whether or not the existing groups need to take a more dynamic approach to practical work orientated towards the struggles that may or may not be happening - you seem to imply that the 'unifiers' would be opposed to this. Why do you think that there is an 'either/or' situation here? "Instead of worrying about 'unity' we should be worrying about orientating to struggles. By the way, there aren't any struggles". Well, there are, and mostly Left Communists are fairly irrelevant in them. If we weren't so fragmented, maybe we wouldn't be so irrelevant, with more co-ordination of the groups that currently exist (and their sympathisers, to be sure) maybe it would be easier to orientate to those struggles going on.

Recently in a meeting I was at with Jock, he admitted (i don't mean that let something slip that wasn't widely known here) that though BC is a real political organisation of the working class, which actually has a presence in the class and can take part in meaningful interventions and has an orientation towards struggles, the CWO is merely a 'propaganda group'.

I do not think he was admitting much. He was just stating the obvious that virtually all left-communist groups today are propaganda groups. For him, that is as much a statement of where we are and a self-criticism.

I doubt any of us see it as any sort of guaranteed 'fix' even in the short-term. But it would be a chance to overcome some of the problems of tiny and marginalised organisations.

I don't think it would overcome much at all because my assessment of the problems with the communist left is somewhat different to yours. I don't think it is simply a problem of organisational fragmentation.

there's 'small' (I guess, between 20-50 militants in a country?) and there's 'tiny' - and tiny really means a couple of militants in one or more cities in a country. And most Left Communist groups are tiny. I can't think of any UK city, for instance, where either the CWO or ICC could muster more than about 5 people and neither organisation as far as I'm aware has more than 20 members.

I think this gets at quite well what I mean by a ideological approach to communist politics. Your are focusing solely on CWO and iCC as sole point of reference and deducing from that it would be better if there were more of a formal structure between the various groups and individuals that define as 'left communists'. For me, based in Manchester if this occurred it would have zero impact, just complicate things and I imagine introduce extra hassle in my life. The people I work with locally politically come from political backgrounds in the old Wildcat/Subversion groups and anarchist-communists.

Not that the numbers of people will guarantee the dynamism of the group if its politics ae shit, but then, I don't think the 'politics' as such of any of the groups of the Communist Left are the problem, and anyway, even if they were, the presence of people from different tendencies would surely mitigate against the domination of any particularly rubbish trends.

I don't think the accumulated set of ideas and politics we have from the post-68 generation are unproblematic. And more importantly there is a lack of critical reflection upon them. That set of ideas became ossified in the experience into which that demographic entered radical politics, i.e. the post-68 experience of rediscovering of the historical communist left, and has not kept pace, and in some cases actually regressed.

the state of the class struggle has an ultimately determining role but it isn't the only factor. If it were, there would be no necessity for any organisations at all. One man could have elaborated the programme back in 1921 and we could all have gone to sleep until the working class bothers to have a revolution.

To be frank, I do not understand your point here. Particularly when you consider the second half of the bit you quoted form me, could hardly be evidence of me arguing for anti-organisationalism. I am not sure what in my post triggered this response:

This is purely abstract. Why is there no 'effective interventions'? I think the current state of class struggle has a determining role in this, there is not really all that much happening at the moment, when you consider the attacks on the working-class. I say this approach is purely abstract because it holds up the unification of left communists into a single organisation as an automatic step forward. As counter-inituitive as it may seem, the outcome of that could be the opposite. Thus why I take the view that regroupment is far more productive when it proceeds from practical work based in localities and related to the class struggle rather then as a abstract ideal. And in reality that is how it has occurred throughout history.

My point on class struggle conditioning the state of radical groups. Is only partial in explaining the current state of affairs, which was my point in the previous post, maybe poorly articulated.

Why do you think that there is an 'either/or' situation here? "Instead of worrying about 'unity' we should be worrying about orientating to struggles. By the way, there aren't any struggles". Well, there are, and mostly Left Communists are fairly irrelevant in them. If we weren't so fragmented, maybe we wouldn't be so irrelevant, with more co-ordination of the groups that currently exist (and their sympathisers, to be sure) maybe it would be easier to orientate to those struggles going on.

My counterposing your ideological approach, that it is ideal that left-communists should establish some organisational framework as a solution to its current impasse, to an orientation away from that toward an emphasis that is more outward and focused on understanding the current impasse, is what I was getting at. I do think there is an either/or choice here. As I indicated above I don't think the irrelevance stems from a purely organisational weakness, if only it did that would be a lot easier to confront.

I can keep saying that I don't think that regroupment or a closer relationship is the only thing that can overcome the irrelevance of the organisations of the communist left, that though it might be part of the answer it isn't in itself the only answer, an ideal or magical answer; and you can continue to treat my posts as if I've said that everything would be perfect if we all just got along.

Or maybe you could elaborate on "understanding the current impasse". It seems you think there is no organisational aspect to the weaknesses of the organisation of the Communist Left, which in some ways is good, I suppose, because that means we don't have to worry about those. So how do you understand the impasse, that we all seem to appreciate, but seemingly not in the same way?

OK, point of information then, Devrim's just messaged me to say that the KpK is really very small indeed.

However, what remains true is that in one city, the KpK has more members than several Left Comm groupings for whole countries, and still I think it applies that the KpK is bigger than 3 of the ICC's smallest sections combined. In very few cities outside of Italy and France can any Left Comm group call on more than about 5 members I would think. That has to impact on our ability to be anything other than 'propaganda groups'.

Only just noticed this thread. It's certainly true that the existing left communist organisations are not finding it simple or straightforward to engage with what effectively amounts to a new generation of people looking for communist positions and practice. It may well mean that the these organisations need to ask some very profound questions about themselves. But to me, this is another reason why it's important to go beyond the isolation and often mutual distrust which tends to keep groups like the ICC and the ICT from cooperating at the most basic level (let along regrouping, which most here would agree is not on the cards at the moment). A common framework of some kind (which would have to be considerably wider than between just the ICC and ICT) is important not only because it would make our intervention a bit more effective in the short term, but also because it would make it possible to engage in precisely such a 'balance sheet' of the communist left through mutual discussion. So I am in basic agreement with BB on this. But I am also interested in hearing more from Android about his analysis of the problems of the communist left.

Some of these points have been brought up in a kind of different manner on the ICC website's forum. From the perspective of a non-member of either organization, I think there may be more those of us who are sympathizers of either or both of the main organizations can do. Possibly start communicating with eachother, engaging on an informal basis or if necessary/desirable on a more semi-formal basis (i.e. without the membership requirements of either group, less necessary commitment, etc.) through something like a subsection on a forum like this; or a common website like a blog where we all post our substantive discussions; develop a common approach toward 'intervention' or 'engagement' to the class struggle, formation of an informal/semi-formal study group, etc. Especially in the US (which I think is home of the smaller sections of both the main organizations)- the layer of sympathizers globally is probably a significant bit larger than the total membership of all left communist organizations. Maybe this kind of approach would bring greater clarity to a number of these questions: How left communists with different views on specific things can still work practically together; possibly work on ways to participate more actively in the class struggle in the ways described above that the PCInt has done over the years; get to the bottom on the individual level why people with the politics of left communism remain aloof from the established organizations; promote growth and dynamism; on top of all that and maybe the most immediately realistic and beneficial would be the development of individual communists (through the practice of collaborative discussion and debate, interacting with members of left communist organizations, etc.) to a deeper level.

While I don't think a superficial merger between the 2 would be a solution, I think everyone would like to see both groups (and the other groups of the communist left and of that 'orbit') collaborate toward developing the class party in the future.

It's been a couple years since I originally asked questions about membership to the ICC, and their response about the level of commitment has really helped shape all levels of my thinking about communism, my relation to my co-workers, the development of consciousness among communists, all manner of things by posing the commitment requisite for a communist militant.

A lot of the petty stuff between the 2 printed in both of their presses and on their websites (the 'tempest in a teapot' kind of thing) has had a negative effect; I think there is what Goldner called a 'left communist mood' among other young workers effected by the crisis and looking for communist positions and maybe some new dynamic is necessary to move things along- even if it amounts to sympathizers becoming new members of both groups or developing in another direction, or a failed start; any effort in any direction seems like it'd be worth the odds that it will have potential.

I'm still on the search for better answers so the above may read as cliche 'youth thinking' trying to reinvent the wheel and expect a difference, but I'd like to see more people putting forward more ideas. There seems to be a kind of modest silence sometimes in the milieu; that thou doth protest too much if opinions or half-thought out formulations are brought up for discussion. I dunno, I think people have a lot of opinions and suggestions that aren't brought up often enough.

Personally I completely endorse what subcp is arguing for. There is just one point for the moment: it also seems to me that the structure you are proposing would have to bring in other organisations in the internationalist camp. Indeed, it's possible that other organisations might play a key role in the beginnings of such a structure.

I've been out for a while, but I'm really glad to see this thread actually evolved into this kind of ideas. I like what subcp is saying too.

There is just one point for the moment: it also seems to me that the structure you are proposing would have to bring in other organisations in the internationalist camp. Indeed, it's possible that other organisations might play a key role in the beginnings of such a structure.

I don't see why what subcp is proposing needs to include the existing groups. If I interpret him right he is talking about how people who are not interested for whatever reason in joining one of the existing groups can move from being isolated individuals towards more of a network where they can discuss and share information and experiences. I don't see how involving the existing groups would aid that process.

Well, these people (me included) would benefit from discussing with said groups besides the other individuals.

I don't see why what subcp is proposing needs to include the existing groups. If I interpret him right he is talking about how people who are not interested for whatever reason in joining one of the existing groups can move from being isolated individuals towards more of a network where they can discuss and share information and
experiences. I don't see how involving the existing groups would aid that process.

That wasn't my interpretation of what he was saying. I thought he was interested in the development of a form of associated labour between proletarian organisations of all kinds.

I don't think it'd be a problem to have both views present in the same group of people- some people have questions, comments, concerns, desire to participate, in things done by existing organizations. Some people do not want and have no plans of posing questions of membership of any existing organizations, and may have no interest in discussing or interacting with them. It doesn't seem like a barrier honestly, since we all (members and non-members of existing organizations) have varying levels of interest and commitment in different ways- I think that if we're all to participate in the things we want to participate in, discuss the topics and issues we want to discuss, and create what we want to create, the barriers of each individual wouldn't be breached- if someone doesn't want to discuss or act with 1 or all existing organizations, they shouldn't have to, same with people who may be very close to 1 organization and may, through the course of discussion and common activity, pose membership questions and join an existing organization, they ought not to be impeded from doing so.

This topic of what communists 'do' is really important. I'm still working out for myself on an individual level (trying to write about the topic now), but finding this part of a Situationist article is in the spirit of what is being discussed and it was very interesting/enlightening to see those kinds of ideas in an historical group/document:

There is no other way to be faithful to, or even simply to understand, the actions of our comrades of the past than to profoundly reconceive the problem of revolution, which has been increasingly deprived of thought as it has become posed more intensely in concrete reality. . .

It is thus necessary to leave the terrain of specialized revolutionary activity- the terrain of the self-mystification of 'serious politics'- because it has long been seen that such specialization encourages even the best people to demonstrate stupidity regarding all other questions, with the result that they end up failing even in their merely political struggles. . .

Specialization and pseudo-seriousness are among the primary defensive outposts that the organization of the old world occupies everyone's mind. A revolutionary association of a new type will also break with the old world by permitting and demanding of its members an authentic and creative participation, instead of expecting a participation of militants measurable in attendance time, which amounts to recreating the sole control possible in the dominant society: the quantitative criterion of hours of labor. A genuine enthusiastic participation on the part of everyone is necessitated by the fact that the classical political militant, who 'devotes himself' to his radical duties, is everywhere disappearing along with classical politics itself; and even more by the fact that devotion and sacrifice always engender authority (even if only purely moral authority). Boredom is counterrevolutionary. In every way.

-Internationale Situationniste #7, 1962

Trying to orient that article from the SI with Bordiga's writing on democracy, democratic centralism and organic centralism, and Damen's criticisms of organic centralism, into a kind of better vision of contemporary communist activity (answering that question "well what do left communists do?" for myself). It's a difficult question.