This is an important text giving an orientation for future activities of the ICC. It appears as an organisation statement that significant changes to intervention even from resolutions of recent congresses. It changes the way the organisation is to behave in the coming period. Yet it has been ignored by sympathisers and has not been elaborated by the organisation (as far as I am aware) and the promised second part of this document has not appeared.
I must say I am confused by this document as it focuses on long historical justifications without explaining and justifying the change clearly in terms of the period or of a change in the ICCs approach to intervention from relatively recently. The ICC appears to be now adopting a role as a Fraction but I am struggling to understand the reasons and the possible consequences. What does this role mean and what is the political justification for this change ie what is the analysis of current situation leading to this outcome.
I have previously made the statement on this forum that the ICC has given up on its role as ‘pole of regroupment’ and drew no criticism or rebuttal. The ICC has simply avoided explaining or clarifying its direction. It would appear however to tie in with this new role of the Fraction. Im afraid I do need this explaining further but it appears to be a role of analysing previous events to determine lessons for the future. OK not a problem, that is always a role for militants but it is presented as a primary role in the context of a downturn of struggle and the inability of a revolution organisation to have an impact on the class-
So, is it being said that the class has been defeated in the past couple of decades or is this change just a response to a downturn in struggle and if so why has it taken so long to realise this ? Im afraid it remains very unclear what analysis is being made of the current period and how that justifies this course of action. Is this going to be an extended period of balance of wc and the bourgeoisie where neither can impose its will? Is the class a defeated class and is the Bourgeoisie able to move towards war? Is the perspective of the historic course altered in some way or even rejected.
One contradiction I see is that this period of decomposition is still being called the final crisis of capitalism in the texts. However if we now enter a new period where this new role for the organisation is based on recognition of a defeat of the class, then surely for this to be the final phase, the ICC is really denying that neither a period of world war nor a period of revolution can follow. Can this current period of downturn of struggle not be followed by a revolutionary period and whats more cannot that be following either by a period of wc power or a period of restoration of capitalism (or barbarism)?
There clearly are changes in the world that need analysing but im afraid that the ideas presented in these texts do not clarify them for me. No one in the 1970s was expected such an elongated period of low class struggle, so does this result void the theory of the historic course to war or revolution or is it just a new wrinkle to analyse.
There is clearly a downturn in class struggle that, with hindsight, negates the idea of the 80s as ‘Years of Truth’. I personally would stress the current low level of struggle is a product of enormous impact of nationalist ideologies. The referendum, the hullabaloo around it and the responses to current migration levels demonstrate clearly how the Bourgeoisie has taken the initiative today and sets the agenda for events. In this content there is clearly an impact on the abilities of militants to intervene in class struggle but the text leaves me with the uncertain impression that ICC is saying the working class has now been defeated?