Internationalist Communists
Klasbatalo have no organizational links with the International Communist
Current and don’t share all of their political positions. We reproduce this
text because we agree with it. The text mentions committees, circles, groups, etc. We could also put
Autonomous popular Assembly of District or city.
Internationalist
Communists Klasbatalo (ICK)
*******************************************
The organisation of the proletariat outside periods of
open struggle (workers' groups, nuclei, circles, committees)
(This text was adopted by the 3rd
Congress of Internationalisme, the ICC's section in Belgium, February 1980.)
What is to be done outside times of
open struggle? How should we organise when the strike is finished? How to
prepare the struggles to come?
Faced with this question, faced
with the problems posed by the existence of committees, circles, nuclei, etc,
regrouping small minorities of the working class, we have no recipes to
provide. We cannot choose between giving them moral lessons (‘organise
yourselves like this or that’, ‘dissolve yourselves’, ‘join us’) and
demagogically flattering them. Instead, our concern is this: to understand
these minority expressions of the proletariat as a part of the whole class. If
we situate them in the general movement of the class struggle; if we see that
they are strictly linked to the strengths and weaknesses of different periods
in this struggle between the classes, then, in this way, we’ll be able to
understand to what general necessity they are a response. By neither remaining
politically imprecise in relation to them, nor by imprisoning ourselves inside
rigid schemas, we’ll also be able to grasp what their positive aspects are and
be able to point out what dangers lie in wait for them.
Characteristics of the
workers struggle in decadent capitalism
Our first concern in understanding
this problem must be to recall the general, historical context within which we
find ourselves. We must remember the nature of this historic period (the period
of social revolutions) and the characteristics of the class struggle in
decadence. This analysis is fundamental because it allows us to understand the
type of class organisation that can exist in such a period.
Without going into all the details,
let’s recall simply that the proletariat in the nineteenth century existed as
an organised force in a permanent way. The proletariat unified itself as a
class through an economic and political struggle for reforms. The progressive
character of the capitalist system allowed the proletariat to bring pressure
to bear on the bourgeoisie in order to obtain reforms, and for this, large
masses of the working class regrouped within unions and parties.
In the period of capitalism’s
senility, the characteristics and the forms of organisation of the class
changed. A quasi-permanent mobilisation of the proletariat around its immediate
and political interests was no longer possible, nor viable. Henceforward, the
permanent unitary organs of the class were
no longer able to exist except in the
course of the struggle itself. From this time on, the function of these
unitary organs could no longer be limited to simply ‘negotiating’ an
improvement in the proletariat’s living conditions (because an improvement was
no longer possible over the long term and because the only realistic answer was
that of revolution). Their task was to prepare for the seizure of power.
The unitary organs of the
dictatorship of the proletariat are the workers’ councils. These organs possess
a certain number of characteristics which we must make clear if we are to grasp
the entire process which leads to the self-organisation of the proletariat.
Thus, we must clearly show that the
councils are a direct expression of working class struggle. They arise in a
spontaneous (but not mechanical) way from out of this struggle. This is why
they are intimately tied to the development and maturity of the struggle. They
draw from it their substance and their vitality. They don’t constitute, then, a
simple ‘delegation’ of power, a parody of Parliament, but are truly the
organised expression of the whole working class and its power. Their task isn’t
to organise a proportional representation of social groupings, or political
parties, but allow the will of the proletariat to realise itself practically.
It’s through them that all the decisions are taken. That is the reason why the
workers must constantly keep control of them (the revocability of delegates) by
means of the General Assemblies.
Only the workers’ councils are
capable of realising the living identification between the immediate struggle
and the final goal. In this liaison between the struggle for immediate
interests and the struggle for political power, the councils establish the
objective and subjective basis for the revolution. They constitute, par
excellence, the crucible of class consciousness. The constitution of the
proletariat in councils is not then a simple question of a form of
organisation, but is the product of the development of the struggle and of
class consciousness. The appearance of the councils isn’t the
fruit of organisational recipes, of prefabricated structures, of intermediate
organs.
The more and more conscious
extension and centralisation of struggles, beyond the factories and beyond
frontiers, cannot be artificial, voluntarist action. To be convinced of the
correction of this idea, it’s sufficient to recall the experience of the AAUD
and its artificial attempt to unite and centralise the ‘factory organisations’
in a period when the struggle was in reflux. [1]
The Councils can only continue to
exist when the permanent, open struggle continues to exist, signifying the
participation of an ever-growing number of workers in the struggle. Their
appearance is essentially a function of the development of the struggle itself
and of the development of class consciousness.
The attempts to bridge a
gap
But we are not yet in a period of
permanent struggle, in a revolutionary context which would allow the
proletariat to organise itself in workers’ councils. The constitution of the
proletariat in councils is the result of
objective conditions (the depth of the crisis, the historic course) and
subjective conditions (the maturity of the struggle and the consciousness of
the class). It is the result of an entire apprenticeship, a whole maturation,
which is as much organisational as it is political.
We must be conscious that this
maturation, this political fermentation, doesn’t unfold in a well-designated
straight line. It expresses itself instead as a fiery, impetuous, confused
process within a jostling, jerky movement. It demands the active participation
of revolutionary minorities.
Since it is incapable of acting
mechanically in accordance with abstract principles, preconceived plans or
voluntarist schemes detached from reality, the proletariat must forge its unity
and consciousness by means of a painful apprenticeship. Incapable of regrouping
all its forces on a preordained day, it consolidates its ranks in the course of
the battle itself. It forms its ‘army’ within the conflict
itself. But in the course of the struggle it forms in its ranks
more combative elements, a more determined vanguard. These elements don’t
necessarily regroup themselves within the revolutionary organisation (because,
in certain periods, it is virtually unknown). The appearance of these combative
minorities within the proletariat, whether before or after open struggles,
isn’t an incomprehensible or new phenomenon. It really expresses the irregular
character of the struggle, the unequal and heterogeneous development of class
consciousness. Thus, since the end of the 1960’s, we’ve witnessed, at one and
the same time, the development of the struggle (in the sense of its greater self-organisation),
a reinforcement of revolutionary minorities, and the appearance of committees,
nuclei, circles, etc, trying to regroup a working class avant-garde. The
development of a coherent political pole of regroupment, and the tendency for
the proletariat to try to organise itself outside the unions, both issue from
the same maturation of the struggle.
The appearance of these committees,
circles, etc, truly responds to a necessity within the struggle. If some
combative elements sense the need to remain grouped together after they’ve been
struggling together, they do so with the aim of simultaneously continuing to
‘act together’ (the eventual preparation of a new strike) and of drawing the
lessons of the struggle (through political discussion). The problem which poses
itself to these workers is as much one of regrouping with a view to
future action as it is of regrouping with a view to clarifying questions posed
by the past struggle and the struggle to come. This attitude
is understandable in the sense that the absence of permanent struggle the
‘bankruptcy’ of the unions, and the very great weakness of revolutionary
organisations creates an organisational and political void. When the working
class returns to the path of its historic struggle, it has a horror of this
void. Therefore, it seeks to reply to the need posed by this organisational and
political void.
These committees, these nuclei,
these proletarian minorities who still don’t understand clearly their own
function, are a response to this need. They are, at one and the same time, an
expression of the general weakness of today’s class struggle and an expression
of the maturation of the organisation of the class. They
are a crystallisation of a whole subterranean development at work within the proletariat.
The reflux of 1973-77
That is why we must be careful not
to lock away these organs in a hermetic, rigidly classified drawer. We cannot
forecast their appearance and development in a totally precise way.
Furthermore, we must be careful not to make artificial separations in the
different moments in the life of these committees, getting ourselves caught in
the false dilemma: ‘action or discussion’.
This said, it must not stop us from
making an intervention towards these organs. We must also be capable of
appreciating their evolution in terms of the period, depending
on whether we are in a phase of renewal or reflux in the struggle.
Because they are a spontaneous, immediate product of the struggle, and because
the appearance of these nuclei is based mainly on conjunctural problems (in
distinction to the revolutionary organisation which appears on the basis of the
historical necessities of the proletariat), this means that they remain very
dependent on the surrounding milieu of the class struggle. They remain more
strongly imprisoned by the general weaknesses of the movement and have a
tendency to follow the ups and downs of the struggle.
We must make a distinction in the
development of these nuclei between the period of reflux in the struggle
(1973-77) and today’s period of renewed class struggle internationally. While
underlining the fact that the dangers threatening them remain identical in both
periods, we must, nonetheless, be capable of grasping what differences the
change in period implies for their evolution.
At the end of the first wave of
struggle at the end of the 1960’s, we witnessed the appearance of a whole
series of confusions within the working class. We could measure the extent of
these confusions by examining the attitude of some of the combative elements of
the class, who tried to remain regrouped.
We saw develop:
- the
illusion in fighting unionism and the distrust of anything political (OHK,
AAH, Komiteewerking [2]
). In many cases, the committees that came out of struggles transformed
themselves, categorically, into semi-unions. This was the case for the workers’
commissions in Spain and the ‘factory councils’ in Italy. Even more often they
just disappeared.
- a very strong corporatism (which
itself constitutes the basis for the illusion in ‘fighting unionism’).
- when attempts were made to go
beyond the limits of the factory, the result was confusion
and a great political eclecticism.
- a very great political confusion
was present, rendering these organs very vulnerable to the manoeuvres of the
leftists, and also allowing them to fall prey to illusions of the type held by
the PIC (cf. their ‘bluff’ about workers’ groups)[3].
Also, in the course of this period, the ideology of ‘workers autonomy’
developed, bringing with it an apology for immediatism, factoryism and
economism.
All of these weaknesses were
essentially a function of the weaknesses of the first wave of struggle at the
end of the 60’s. This movement was characterised by a disproportion between the
strength and extension of the strikes and the weakness in the content of the
demands made. What especially indicated this disproportion was the absence of
any clear, political perspective in the movement. The falling-back of the
workers, which happened between 1973 and 1977, was a product of this weakness,
which the bourgeoisie utilised to demobilise and ideologically contain the
struggles. Each of the weak points of the first wave of strikes was
‘recuperated’ by the bourgeoisie to its own profit:
“Thus
the idea of a permanent organisation of the class, at one and the same time
economic and political, was transformed later into the idea of ‘new unions’ to
end finally in a return to classical trade unionism. The vision of the General
Assembly as a form independent of any content ended up — via the mystification
concerning direct democracy and popular power – re-establishing trust in
classical bourgeois democracy. Ideas about self-management and workers’ control
of production (confusions which were understandable at the beginning) were
theorised into the myth of ‘generalised self-management’, ‘islands of
communism’ or ‘nationalisation under workers’ control’. All this caused the
workers to put their confidence in plans to restructure the economy, which
would supposedly avoid layoffs or caused them to back national solidarity pacts
presented as a way of ‘getting out of the crisis”.
(Report on the Class Struggle
presented to the IIIrd International Congress of the ICC).
The renewal of struggles
since 1977
With the renewal in struggle since
1977, we have seen other tendencies delineate themselves. The proletariat
matured through its ‘defeat’. It had drawn albeit in a confused way, the
lessons of the reflux, and even if the dangers represented by ‘fighting
unionism’, corporatism, etc remain, they exist within a different general
evolution in the struggle.
Since 1977, we have seen the hesitant
development of:
- a more or less marked will on the
part of the avant-garde of combative workers to develop political discussion
(remember the General Assembly of Co-ordinamenti in Turin, the debate at
Antwerp with the workers of Rotterdam, Antwerp, etc, the conference of dockers
in Barcelona. [4]);
- the will to enlarge the field of
struggle, to go beyond the ghetto of factoryism, to
give a more global political framework to the struggle. This will expressed
itself through the appearance of the ‘co—ordinamenti’, and more specifically in
the political manifesto produced by one of the co-ordinamenti situated in the
North of Italy (Sesto S. Giovanni). This manifesto demanded the unification of
the combative avant-garde in the factories, spelt out the necessity for a
politically independent struggle by the workers and insisted on the necessity
for the struggle to break out of factory limitations;
- the concern to establish a
link between the immediate aspect of the struggle and the final goal. This
concern was particularly expressed in workers groups in Italy (FIAT) and in
Spain (FEYCU, FORD). The first of these groups intervened by means of a leaflet
to denounce the dangers of layoffs made by the bourgeoisie in the name of
‘fighting terrorism’, and the second intervened to denounce the illusion of
parliamentarism.
- the concern to better prepare and
organise the struggles to come (cf. the action of the ‘spokesmen’ group of
dockers in Rotterdam calling for the formation of a General Assembly).
We must repeat that the dangers of
corporatism, ‘fighting unionism’ and locking-up of the struggle on a strictly
economic terrain continue to exist even within this period. But what we must take
into account is the important influence of the period on the
evolution of the committees and nuclei that appear both before and after open
struggles. When the period is one of combativity and resurgence of class
struggle, the intervention of such minorities takes on a different sense, as
does our attitude toward them. In a period of generalised reflux in the
struggle, we have to insist more on the danger of these organs becoming
transformed into semi-unions, of falling into the clutches of the leftists, of
having illusions in terrorism, etc. In a period of class resurgence we insist
more on the dangers represented by voluntarism and activism (see the illusions
expressed in this connection in the manifesto of the co-ordinamenti of Sesto S.
Giovanni), and by the illusion which some of these combative workers may have
about the possibility of forming the embryos of future strike committees, etc.
In a period of renewal in the struggle, we will also be more open to combative
minorities which appear and regroup with a view to calling for strikes and the
formation of strike committees, General Assemblies, etc.
The possibilities of these
organs
The concern to situate the
committees, nuclei, etc, in the cauldron of the class struggle, to understand
them in terms of the period in which they appear, doesn’t imply, however,
abruptly changing our analysis in the wake of the different stages in the class
struggle. Whatever the mo5ent that gives birth to these committees, we know
that they constitute only one stage in a dynamic, general
process they are one moment in the maturation of the
organisation and consciousness of the class. They can only have a positive role
when they give themselves a broad, supple framework to work within, in order
not to freeze the general process. This is why these organs must be vigilant if
they are to avoid falling into the following traps:
- imagining that they constitute a
structure which can prepare the way for the appearance of strike committees or
councils;
- imagining themselves to be invested
with a sort of ‘potentiality’ which can develop future struggles. (It isn’t the
minorities who artificially create a strike or cause a General Assembly or a
committee to appear, even though they do have an active intervention to make in
this process).
- giving themselves a platform or
statutes or anything else that risks freezing their evolution and thus
condemning them to political confusion.
- presenting themselves as
intermediate organs, half-way between the class and a political organisation,
as if they were an organisation that is at one and the same time unitary and
political.
This is why our attitude towards
these minority organs remains open, but at the same time tries to influence the
evolution of political reflection in their midst,
and this whatever the period in which we find ourselves. We must try our
hardest to ensure that these committees, nuclei, etc. don’t freeze up, either
in one direction (a structure which imagines itself to prefigure the workers’
councils) or another (political fixation). Before all else, what must guide us
in our intervention is not the interests and the conjunctural concerns of these
organs (since we can’t suggest to them any organisational recipes nor any
ready-made answers), but the general interests of the whole
class. Our concern is always to homogenise and develop class
consciousness in such a way that the development of the class struggle happens
with a greater, more massive participation of all workers, and that the
struggle is taken in-hand by the workers themselves and not by a minority, no
matter what type it may be. It is for this reason that we insist on the dynamic
of the movement and that we put the combative elements on their guard against
any attempt at substitutionism or anything that might block the later
development of the struggle and of class consciousness.
In orientating the evolution of
these organs in one direction (reflection and political discussion), rather
than another, we can give a response which will be favourable to the dynamic of
the movement. But let it be well-understood that this doesn’t signify that we
condemn any form of ‘intervention’ or ‘action’ undertaken by these organs. It
is obvious that the instant a group of combative workers understands that the
task isn’t to act to constitute themselves as a semi-union, but rather to draw
the political lessons of the past struggles, this doesn’t imply that their
political reflection is going to happen in an ethereal vacuum, in the abstract,
without any-practical consequences. The political clarification undertaken by
these combative workers will also push them to act together within their own
factory (and in the most positive of cases, even outside their own factory).
They will feel the necessity to give a material, political expression to their
political reflection (leaflets, newspapers, etc). They will feel the need to
take up positions in relation to the concrete issues that face the working
class. In order to defend and disseminate their positions, they will thus have
to make a concrete intervention. In certain
circumstances they will propose concrete means of action (formation of General
Assemblies, strike committees…) to advance the struggle. In the course of the
struggle itself, they will sense the necessity for a concerted effort to
develop a certain orientation for the struggle; they will support demands that
will permit the struggle to extend itself and they will insist on the necessity
for its enlargement, generalisation, etc.
Even though we remain attentive to
these efforts and don’t try to lay down rigid schemas for them to follow,
nonetheless it is clear that we must continue to insist on the fact that what
counts the most is the active participation of all the workers in the struggle,
and that the combative workers should at no time substitute themselves for
their comrades in the organisation and co-ordination of the strike. Moreover,
it is also clear that the more the organisation of revolutionaries increases
its influence within the struggles, the more the combative elements will turn
toward it. Not because the organisation will have a policy of forcibly
recruiting these elements, but quite simply because the combative workers
themselves will become conscious that a political intervention, which is really
active and effective, can only be made in the framework of such an
international organisation.
The intervention of
revolutionaries
All that glitters isn’t gold. To
point out that the working class in its struggle can cause more combative
elements to appear doesn’t mean affirming that the impact of these minorities
is decisive for the later development of class consciousness. We must not make
this absolute identification: an expression of the maturation of consciousness
= an active factor in its development.
In reality the influence which
these nuclei can have in the later unfolding of the struggle is very limited.
Their influence entirely depends on the general combativity of the proletariat
and of the capacity of these nuclei to pursue without let-up this work of
political clarification. In the long-term, this work cannot be followed except
within the framework of a revolutionary organisation.
But here again, we’ve no mechanism
to drop in place. It’s not in an artificial manner that the revolutionary
organisation wins these elements. Contrary to the ideas of organisations like
Battaglia Communista or the PIC, the ICC does not seek to fill-in, in an
artificial, voluntarist manner, ‘the gap’ between the party and the class. Our
understanding of the working class as a historic force, and our comprehension
of our own role prevents us from wanting to freeze these committees into the
form of an intermediate structure. Nor do we seek to create ‘factory groups’ as
transmission belts between the class and the party.
This presents us with the question
of determining what our attitude to such circles, committees, etc should be.
Even while recognising their limited influence and their weaknesses, we must
remain open to them and attentive to their appearance. The most important thing
that we propose to them is that they open up widely to discussions. At no time,
do we adopt toward them a distrustful or condemnatory attitude under the
pretext of reacting against their political ‘impurity’. So that’s one thing we
should avoid; another is to avoid flattering them or even uniquely
concentrating our energies on them. We mustn’t ignore workers’ groups, but
equally we mustn’t become obsessive about them. We recognise that the struggle
matures and class-consciousness develops in a process.
Within this process, tendencies
exist within the class that attempt to ‘hoist’ the struggle onto a political
terrain. In the course of this process, we know that the proletariat will give
rise to combative minorities within itself, but they won’t necessarily organise
themselves within political organisations. We must be careful not to identify
this process of maturation in the class today with what characterised the
development of the struggle last century. This understanding is very important
because it permits us to appreciate in what way these committees, circles, etc
are a real expression of the maturation of class consciousness, but an
expression which is, above all, temporary and ephemeral and not
a fixed, structured organisational rung in the development of the class
struggle. The class struggle in the period of capitalist decadence advances
explosively. Sudden eruptions appear which surprise even those elements who
were the most combative in the proceeding round of struggle, and these
eruptions can immediately go beyond previous experience in terms of the
consciousness and maturity developed in the new struggle. The proletariat can
only really organise itself on a unitary level within the struggle. To the
extent that the struggle itself becomes permanent, it causes the unitary
organisations of the class to grow and become stronger.
This understanding is what allows
us to grasp why we don’t have a specific policy, a special ‘tactic’ in relation
to workers’ committees, even though in; certain circumstances it can be very
positive for us to begin and systematically continue discussions with them, and
to participate in their meetings. We know that it is possible and increasingly
easy to discuss with these combative elements (particularly when open struggle
isn’t taking place). We are also aware that certain of these elements may want
to join us, but we don’t focus all our attention on them. Because what is of
primary importance for us, is the general dynamic of the struggle, and we don’t
set up any rigid classifications or hierarchies within this dynamic. Before
everything, we address ourselves to the working class as a whole. Contrary to
other political groups who try to surmount the problem of the lack of influence
of revolutionary minorities in the class by artificial methods and by feeding
themselves on illusions about these workers’ groups, the ICC recognises that it
has very little impact in the present period. We don’t try to increase our
influence among the workers by giving them artificial ‘confidence’ in us. We aren’t
workerist, nor are we megalomaniacs. The influence which we will progressively
develop within the struggles will come essentially from our political
practice inside these struggles and not from our acting as
toadies, or flatterers, or as ‘water-carriers’ who restrict themselves to
performing technical tasks. Furthermore, we address our political intervention
to all the workers, to the proletariat taken as a whole, as a class, because
our fundamental task is to call for the maximum extension of the struggles. We
don’t exist in order to feel satisfied at winning the confidence of two or
three horny-handed worker but to homogenise and accelerate the development of
the consciousness of the class. It’s necessary to be aware that it will only be
in the revolutionary process itself that the proletariat will accord us its
political ‘confidence’ to the extent that it realises that the revolutionary
party really makes up a part of its historic
struggle.
[1] AAUD: Allgemeine Arbeiter Union Deutschlands, ‘General
Workers Union of Germany’. The ‘Unions’ weren’t trade unions, but attempts to
create permanent forms of organisation regrouping all the workers outside and
against the unions, in Germany in the years following the crushing of the 1919
Berlin insurrection. They expressed nostalgia for the workers councils, but
never succeeded in carrying out the function of the councils.
[2]
These were all workers groups in Belgium.
[3]
The French group PIC (Pour Une Intervention Communiste) was for several months
convinced - and tried to convince everyone else - that it was participating in
the development of a network of ‘workers groups’ which would constitute a
powerful avant-garde of the revolutionary movement. They based this illusion on
the skeletal reality of two or three groups largely made-up of ex-leftist
elements. There’s not much left of this bluff today.
[4]
These are organised meetings regrouping delegates from different workers
groups, collectives and committees.
