The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

economic, rather than the political problems of the revolution. To that extent Appel embodied the conceptions of
the AAU very well. But he embodied even more the militant revolutionary spirit of the German proletariat,
bringing with him the whole experience of a great revolutionary movement, something which the Dutch council
communists did not have in concrete terms. Apart from his abilities as an editor – Appel was a member of the
editorial committee – and his organising skills, he brought above all the dynamism of a proletarian militant who
had been educated in the revolutionary struggle, something that was often lacking in the militants of the GIC.
Although suffering in Holland from many material difficulties (he was an illegal immigrant), especially after
Hitler came to power, he played a central role in the GIC, above all at the level of international work towards
Germany and Denmark.
We could refer to a number of other militants who gave their lifeblood to the GIC, some well known, others
not. 682 But this would run the risk of seeing the GIC as a sum of personalities or individuals. Unlike many
‘councilist’ groups, the GIC refused to appear in this manner. The articles in PIC were anonymous, and the
signature of Pannekoek never appeared. Like the Italian Communist Left regrouped around the review Bilan, the
GIC wanted to appear as an anonymous expression of the proletariat. But while the group tried to keep its
militants anonymous, this did not necessarily mean that it appeared as a collective body. Except for leaflets, texts
were never signed in the name of the GIC, and it was difficult to know whether this or that article represented a
particular opinion or the view of the group as a whole. The principle of anonymity did not do away with the
fragmented conception of the organisation as a sum of working groups and of individuals.
Though reduced to a small nucleus, the history of the GIC goes well beyond the confines of Holland, in the same
way that the impact of Mattick’s group and review Council Correspondence was not limited to the USA.
Especially after 1933, and up to World War II, the GIC constituted one of the rare revolutionary poles to the left
of the trotskyist current. With Mattick’s group, with Bilan, it was one of the few groups to reject any
participation in the war behind the banner of ‘democracy’ or anti-fascism. It was one of the rare groups to hold
on to the left communist positions that had been defended in the 1920s. Finally, it was one of the rare groups to
maintain a living Marxist thought, despite its isolation and the unfavourable nature of the period. More than this,
it was able to enrich the framework of Marxist theory on certain points, in particular the question of state
capitalism.
Despite its numerical weakness, but also despite weaknesses that derived from a ‘councilist’ conception of
revolutionary activity and practice (see Chap. 7), the GIC was an international current of great importance,
which found expression in a number of countries. As such, it constitutes an important link in the international
left communist current between the 1920s and the council communist tendency today.
682 Cajo Brendel (1915-) was member of the GIC one year, from 1934 to 1935; he came out to form an autonomous council
communist group in The Hague. Previously, he had briefly been trotskyist. B.A. Sijes, a Jewish student voluntarily
proletarianized, was member of the GIC since 1933, after having left social democracy. Others, the brothers Piet and Bruun
van Albada, were members of the GIC since the beginning of the Thirties and continued their political activity in the
Spartacusbond. Very representative of a combative proletariat, the worker Age van Agen, who published the
Proletenstemmen review, written to be distributed free to the unemployed. Other members of the GIC can be mentioned:
Herman de Beer, J.L. Hobijn, Leo Hagen, Mien Dekker, B. Bianchetti. [Source: letters of Cajo Brendel to Ph. Bourrinet,
2 nd January and 23 rd February 1981.]
184