No response on ICC organization yet ("centralism")?

I haven't gotten any response on the ICC's "centralist" organization.

Anyhow, I was wondering about left-communist opinions on these:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/democratic...106/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/parliament...977/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/national-l...965/index.html



P.S. - I joined this user group only because I wish to discuss Bordiga's internationalist ideas (part of my stuff on "social proletocracy") and the ICC's particular method of "centralist" organization.

Unfortunately I haven't time to answer your questions now. But I will ask one nevertheless.

P.S. - I joined this user group only because I wish to discuss Bordiga's internationalist ideas (part of my stuff on "social proletocracy") and the ICC's particular method of "centralist" organization.

Why not discuss national liberation, trade-unions etc. as well?

^^^ I broke my disclaimer in the sectarianism thread.

Apologies to jacob as I did say I would get back to him on this. I have now gone so far as to print out the relevant threads and will try to do a reply this week.

Hi Jacob,

Apologies for our reply on th eICC's conception of centralism. There was quite a good discussion of this on Libcom recently:
http://libcom.org/forums/thought/dec...ation-31012008

On page 4 of this thread I said...

========
Firstly, as you're probably aware membership of the ICC is based on a clear understanding of our platform and statutes and a firm commitment to abide by and defend them. This doesn't mean that there isn't disagreement and discussion, but we start off from quite a high level of agreement. We have never published our statutes but our platform is widely available.
The sovereign body of the ICC is our international congress, which meets every two years. It is composed of delegations sent by the territorial sections from all over the world - from the Americas, Europe and Asia. At the last congress we also invited delegations from groups outside the ICC, from Turkey (EKS - I met Leo!), Brazil (OpOp), South Korea (SPA) and Philippines (Internationalysmo, who unfortunately couldn't attend). The size of the delegation depending generally upon the size of the section. Before the congress draft reports are written on Activities, International Situation (class struggle, imperialist tensions, economic crisis), Finances etc. which are discussed by the sections in the months before the congress and the delegations are given mandates, but these aren't necessarily binding. It depends on how the discussion develops at the congress. At the congress itself draft resolutions are presented to which ammendments can be proposed. At the end of the congress the resolutions and ammendments are voted on. These give the general orientations and perspectives that become binding on the whole organisation for the next two years. The congress nominates various central organs to ensure the continuity of the work of the organisation in between congresses. These meet regularly between congresses and sections send delegates to these meetings.
The territorial sections themselves hold congresses and conferences in the alternating years, taking the various resolutions from the international congress as their framework. The sections go through a similar process themselves of draft reports, discussions and resolutions that concretise the international resolutions, but can also develop on them as time moves on and situations change. The territorial sections themselves nominate central organs and sub-commissions that meet regularly to ensure the orientations given by the congresses are carried out. Also, delegations are invited to attens from other sections. There is a lot of international travel involved in being part of the ICC!
So, the approach we take is centralised - the central organs at the international level take precedence over those at the territorial level. But this does not mean that the individual militants are simply cogs in a machine. There is a great emphasis on militants to read, reflect, discuss and take position - to state their disagreements openly if they have them, so that they can be discussed and clarified.
Is that clear? If there's anything that isn't then I'll try to answer it.
====

Ernie also gave some relevant quotes from some of our texts. Maybe the Libcom thread can give you a better idea of where we stand on centralism. If you haven any quesions in the mean time then fire away...

B.

[FONT=Times New Roman]Another ICC comrade, Beltov, has already sent a reply about our approach to organisation and internal debate, but here are a few more points.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]First of all, I welcome your interest in left communism, your evident search for clarification, and your willingness to study the work of left communists like Bordiga. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Secondly, I think there is a healthy concern to identify the organisational practices of a proletarian organisation, with the aim of ensuring both maximum unity and the widest possible debate within the organisation. We fully share these concerns: for us, debate is the life-blood of a revolutionary organisation, indeed of any working class organisation, as we have tried to develop here: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/131/culture-of-debate[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]At the same time, we think that there is no contradiction between centralisation and debate: on the contrary: only a centralised organisation can organise debates that include the whole organisation and not just a part of it (in the ICC, for example, we have since our inception published international internal bulletins which are a key focus for discussion in all sections). By the same token, without debate there can be no centralised unity of the organisation because it would be impossible for the whole organisation to develop a homogenous understanding and position – it will either be lacking entirely, as in anarchist groups, or it would be merely imposed from ‘above’ as in leftist groups, but it would not be a real homogeneity based on conviction and in-depth understanding. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Very likely you agree with the above. Regarding your term ‘circumstantial discussive unity’, I cannot say that I fully understand its meaning, even if we do seem to share some basic concerns. I am not sure about the term ‘circumstantial’ as an alternative to ‘traditional schematism’ We are evidently against schematism, but as Trotsky once remarked, Marxists are necessarily part of a tradition. Even if we don’t think either ‘traditional’ organisational terms – democratic and organic centralism – are adequate, nevertheless they both represented attempts by the workers’ movement to develop the clearest understanding of the organisation question, and in that sense, both are part of our tradition. Furthermore, in the present proletarian movement, which is strongly influenced by anarchist and councilist fears of all organisation as ‘Stalinist’, I think that it is necessary to reaffirm that we are not localists or federalists but in favour of centralisation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]However, I don’t want to get into a debate about terminology or semantics, and perhaps will leave it to you to say what you think our agreements and disagreements are. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]One last point: I don’t really understand the category of ‘revolutionary marxist’ which you use to define yourself and which is a basis for another discussion group on Revleft. Is there a kind of marxism that isn’t revolutionary? More to the point, it isn’t clear how far you differentiate yourself from or identify with the groups and tendencies which, for us, are part of the left wing of capital – Trotskyists, Maoists, Hoxhaites, etc etc. In the end, the internal structure of political groups can be more or less ‘democratic’, oppressive, or even anarchic, but it doesn’t alter the fact that a political organisation which defends the existing capitalist state and calls on workers to participate in imperialist wars is a bourgeois organisation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]I note that you have raised the questions of parliamentarism and national liberation, as well as Bordiga’s views on the transition period, in other posts, so I will try to get back to them another time. [/FONT]

^^^ My question on the ICC organization is this: after a decision has been made, can public criticism of said decision be made by party members, even if they willingly carry out that decision?

That's the main problem of Trot groups today, and why they split. Their version of democratic centralism says that debates should occur only "within the party." Then again, Lenin would've been booted out for his pre-October criticism.

We are evidently against schematism, but as Trotsky once remarked, Marxists are necessarily part of a tradition. Even if we don’t think either ‘traditional’ organisational terms – democratic and organic centralism – are adequate, nevertheless they both represented attempts by the workers’ movement to develop the clearest understanding of the organisation question, and in that sense, both are part of our tradition.

The thing is that what I said above existed for only so short a time, and that a distorted application of democratic centralism is used by Trot and Stalinist groups.

Regarding your term ‘circumstantial discussive unity’, I cannot say that I fully understand its meaning, even if we do seem to share some basic concerns. I am not sure about the term ‘circumstantial’ as an alternative to ‘traditional schematism’

"Circumstantial" refers to the material circumstances at hand. If the circumstances allow for broader discussion and less representation for decision-making (the Internet can facilitate such decision-making, mind you, and Kautsky as quoted by Lenin hoped for ), so be it. If the circumstances are pressing enough to adopt the Trot distortion (no public criticism of decisions made), so be it. If secret discussions amongst a select few are needed, like the rather "organic-centralist" October decision, so be it.

I don’t really understand the category of ‘revolutionary marxist’ which you use to define yourself and which is a basis for another discussion group on Revleft. Is there a kind of marxism that isn’t revolutionary?

David Harvey may be an outstanding Marxist, but for all his contributions regarding capital accumulation by dispossession, he isn't a revolutionary Marxist (lack of political activity). Pre-renegade Kautsky was THE FOUNDER of "Marxism," but he on the whole wasn't revolutionary.

More to the point, it isn’t clear how far you differentiate yourself from or identify with the groups and tendencies which, for us, are part of the left wing of capital

Wouldn't you consider this "social-proletocrat" to be "left of capital" because of his stance on the post-revolution multi-economy, "republican-socialist" national-liberation, and globalizing labour unions?

[I'm as "left" as Bordiga on some issues (international party, labour-time as socialist economics, etc.), "right" as pre-renegade Kautsky on some other issues (MERGER between Marxism and the broader workers' movement), and everything in between for the rest.]

My question on the ICC organization is this: after a decision has been made, can public criticism of said decision be made by party members, even if they willingly carry out that decision?


Yes


On Kautsky: he was a revolutionary in his earlier days. The more he tended towards opportunism, the less he contributed anything to marxism. There are some very serious bourgeois academics who make contributions which can be appropriated by the marxist movement, but I wouldn't consider them to be part of it, even if they call themseleves marxists. Marxism does not exist as a theory divorced from engagement in the class struggle.

Regarding the left of capital, and people influenced by it, the key issue is their trajectory, the direction they are heading, and their willingness to engage in discussion. And in any case what goes for organisations doesn't mechanically apply to the people who join them.

^^^ So much for CdL's PoWR organization...

http://www.powr-prm.org/guidelines.html

PoWR is organized on the basis of organic centralism, which means that adherence to our program and principles takes precedence over everything else.

When differences of opinion arise as to the correct course of action, a decision must be made beforehand within the Party. No member, or members, of the Party may publicly take positions which differ from those of the Party. The analyses, positions, slogans and overall outlook put forward in our press, leaflets, pamphlets, speeches, etc., and through our other political work, belong to PoWR. If a member, or members, feel any or all of these do not correspond with our program and principles, it is their responsibility to struggle within the Party to set it on the right track, rather than separating themselves from the Party in the interest of ‘saving their purity.’

It's no different from the sectarian Trot parties on this issue.

However, I do like this "social-welfare" stuff:

The Party conducts social-welfare work, including, but not limited to mass feedings, dinners, disaster relief, raising money for striking workers, etc., in the interests of the working class. This is done to reinforce and establish new organic ties with a continually widening section of the working class, to demonstrate to working people that the Party acts in their interests and to help bring working people into political life by taking their mindw off of their immediate needs (it’s hard for a person who is starving to think of anything but food while a person with a full stomach can more easily look at the larger picture).

On Kautsky: he was a revolutionary in his earlier days. The more he tended towards opportunism, the less he contributed anything to marxism. There are some very serious bourgeois academics who make contributions which can be appropriated by the marxist movement, but I wouldn't consider them to be part of it, even if they call themselves marxists. Marxism does not exist as a theory divorced from engagement in the class struggle.

The problem is that most working-class folks don't see that today. What is the difference between "Marxism" and "revolutionary Marxism," or is the latter as redundant as "democratic centralism"?

Even to me, mere "Marxism" reminds me only of my posts in the Theory forum, most of which deal with economic questions. Contrast those with the posts in the Revolutionary Marxists user group, which deal more with political questions (but with a clearer economic picture considered, too).

Also, "Marxism" is very much prone to reductionism (and to a lesser extent revisionism and sectarianism), as per my "Internal Challenges" thread. Now-reductionist concepts such as minimum-maximum and base-superstructure are revisited there, while binary class relations finally has an article!



P.S. - While I consider Kautsky to be the founder of "Marxism," I consider Lenin, Luxemburg, and Connolly to be the founders of revolutionary Marxism.

Jacob, what on earth does this have to do with CdL's party?

The problem is that most working-class folks don't see that today.

True, of course. But regardless it is a part of the historical struggle of the proletariat, just like communist organizations. The popularity of marxism among the working class is, just like the strength of the communist organizations, rather determined by the strength and consciousness of the working class in a specific period.

P.S. - While I consider Kautsky to be the founder of "Marxism," I consider Lenin, Luxemburg, and Connolly to be the founders of revolutionary Marxism.

So where does Marx and Engels fit into this? How about August Bebel and William Liebknecht? How about William Morris? They were sort of older than Kautsky, and both marxists.

As for the Lenin and Luxemburg, there were lots of other revolutionaries who opposed the war, including Gorter and Pannekoek, Bordiga, Trotsky, Pankhurst etc. Why only Lenin and Luxemburg?

Lastly Connolly, I think he ended up dead together with some very nasty people, proto-fascists who obviously supported Germany during the war, and thus he tragically lead the Irish workers militia into destruction as far as I know. Why Connolly?

Marx and Engels merely founded "scientific socialism."

While you did mention Bebel and the elder Liebknecht, wasn't it Kautsky who first "systemized" scientific socialism, political socialism (that of Bebel and Liebknecht), and the dialectical philosophy of one Joseph Dietzgen into what is known today as "Marxism"?

As for the Lenin and Luxemburg, there were lots of other revolutionaries who opposed the war, including Gorter and Pannekoek, Bordiga, Trotsky, Pankhurst etc. Why only Lenin and Luxemburg?

They founded revolutionary Marxism (free from reductionism, revisionism, and sectarianism) long before the war, though.

Lenin talked about the vanguard party and the need for "freedom of discussion and criticism, unity in action" / circumstantial discussive unity, while Luxemburg talked about spontaneity, organization, and mass strikes.

Lastly Connolly, I think he ended up dead together with some very nasty people, proto-fascists who obviously supported Germany during the war, and thus he tragically lead the Irish workers militia into destruction as far as I know. Why Connolly?

Connolly was a late comer, but talked some key stuff about unions ("One Big Union" can be reinterpreted as "one big workers' organization") and national liberation. Anyhow, he brought into question the standard definition of national liberation.

Gorter and Pannekoek, Bordiga, Trotsky, Pankhurst etc.

With the possible exception of Bordiga, all of them (even Trotsky) had reductionist holes in their ideas ("Internal Challenges").