The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

no longer valid in the 20 th century. Thus, “the old workers’ movement, to take up Gorter’s expression resembles
a paper sword brandished against an iron shield”.
This diagnosis was not unique to Canne-Meijer and the GIC. It was shared by most revolutionary groups since
the 1920s. 806 What was new in the GIC’s theses was the assertion that the narrowing of workers’ consciousness,
of the immediate level of consciousness in the class, had been concretised in a regression of class consciousness.
The latter, as a theoretical and political consciousness of revolutionary goals, no longer existed because of the
absence of class struggle. This idea was strikingly close to the one adopted by a part of the Italian communist left
at the same moment: “...in reality, the working class is saying nothing, doing nothing, adopting no point of view.
It does not exist as an active class. It exists passively like any dead thing. As a living entity it only exists when it
enters into movement and becomes conscious of itself”. 807
It followed from this that the proletariat, as at its birth at the beginning of the 19 th century, was no more than a
mere economic category, still unaware of its destiny. The defeat meant a “regression from a class for itself to a
class in itself”. Certainly, Canne-Meijer added that in the future the proletariat would not begin again from
square one, as at the very beginning of the workers’ movement; he noted that “each mass movement develops
again on the basis of the experience of previous movements”. Furthermore, each defeat for the workers was
partial and expressed an immaturity of consciousness: “Such a defeat, combined with a temporary impotence, is
also an expression of growing strength; it is the defeat of a young giant whose strength has not yet sufficiently
matured”. However, such an analysis was contradictory. It was difficult to admit that a “dead thing” could at the
same time become more and more conscious of itself without recognising a subterranean maturation of
consciousness, actively preparing future mass movements.
This conception of the defeat of the proletariat, where the class was reduced to a state of absolute passivity, was
far from sound historically. Could workers’ actions like the 1934 uprisings in Vienna and the Asturias, or the
strikes of May-June 1936, be interpreted as signs of total passivity? On the other hand, were the workers not
becoming more and more actively mobilised for anti-fascism, the Popular Fronts, and the idea of a war? In
which case, the proletariat was not ‘passive’: it was adhering ‘actively’ to anti-revolutionary ideologies. This
point was underlined by Helmut Wagner, who rejected the ambiguity of the theory of ‘passivity’:
“As ever, the workers are absolutely active in the social movement. This activity constitutes a definite element in
capitalist reality, even if it is heading in a conservative direction. A class which is passive from the revolutionary
point of view is not a ‘dead thing’. First, its activity is only relatively passive; and second, it goes in a direction
which does not lead consciously to the communist struggle.” 808
Furthermore, as Mattick pointed out, it was wrong to oppose a class in itself to a class for itself; from its birth,
the proletariat was already a conscious class, a class for itself. Class consciousness couldn’t just disappear: “The
class at every stage is both a class in itself and a class for itself: it simply expresses itself in a different way in
different situations and at different levels of development”. 809
The contradictions of the GIC on class consciousness, expressed by Canne Meijer, help to explain its conception
of organisation – both the general organisation of the class and in particular the organisation of the revolutionary
minority.
806 Thus, for example, the Italian communist left around the periodical Bilan; but also other groups like Chazé’s Union
Communistes in France, which published L’Internationale, Hennaut’s LCI in Belgium.
807 Thus the bordigist group ‘Bilan’ wrote: “Temporarily, the proletariat does not exist as a class, as the result of profound
world-wide defeats” [Jacobs, ‘L’écrasement du prolétariat français et ses enseignements internationaux’, Bilan, No. 29,
March-April 1936). During the Second World War, Vercesi (pseudonym of Ottorino Perrone) defended the idea of the
“social disappearance of the proletariat” [Cf. Ph. Bourrinet, The ‘Bordigist’ Current 1919-1999, Italy, France, Belgium, op.
cit.]
808 ‘Diskussionsbeitrag’, in: Räte-Korrespondenz, No. 10/11, July-August 1935; PIC, No. 1, Jan. 1936; ICC, No. 12,
Oct. 1935.
809 ‘Probleme der neuen Arbeiterbewegung’, in: International Council Correspondence, No. 2, Jan. 1936; PIC, No. 2,
Feb. 1936; Räte-Korrespendenz, No. 15, March 1936.
215