The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

The function and functioning of the ‘working groups’
From time to time, it still seemed that the word ‘party’ held no fear for the GIC or Pannekoek. In the text cited
above, the latter had also said: “Of course, if people with shared conceptions get together to discuss perspectives
for activity, they reach clarification through these discussions, if they make propaganda in favour of their ideas,
you could if you liked give these groups the name of parties.” 820
Here Pannekoek gives to the word party the sense of partisans of a certain conception only to reject the
centralised structure and militant function of these parties. 821 Whereas, in the revolutionary workers’ movement
since Marx the party was seen as a totality in its functions – clarification, militant intervention in the proletariat,
organisational development – the council communist groups presented themselves as an organic sum of
juxtaposed functions. 822 Theoretical and practical functions were rigorously separated. The study groups were
devoted to the theoretical elaboration of the programme. The propaganda groups – like Proletenstemmen which
was active amongst the unemployed – were specifically charged with intervention in the class struggle. The
‘working groups’ had organisational tasks: putting out reviews and international contacts. The result was a
dispersion of complementary functions in separate and distinct groups that, in the last analysis, were
autonomous: “...it is necessary for every group to form an independent unit, so that it can think for itself and put
its propaganda material out by itself. Every new working group must become a focus for independent reflection
and push for the formation of other new groups”. 823
Thus the ‘working groups’ appeared as a sum of specialised and autonomous groups. This meant that divisions
became wider and wider. Out of fear of centralism and regroupment, which were branded ‘authoritarian’, the
GIC theorised the atomisation of existing forces: “It is preferable that the revolutionary workers act on the
development of consciousness in the class in thousands of small groups rather than that their activity be
subordinated to a big organisation which has to direct and dominate it”. 824
The vagueness about the function of these groups led to a somewhat anarchic, even anarchist, kind of
functioning. 825 With no executive organs, statutes, dues, organisational discipline or collective work, militant
activity was left to the goodwill of each individual conscience, which stood above any collective consciousness.
In rejecting “the old workers’ movement where the organisation ‘leads’ like an apparatus and where the
individual member subordinates himself to this leadership”, 826 the GIC deliberately minimised its own militant
function. It inevitably appeared as a sum of individual consciousness forming an opinion group – to use
Pannekoek’s expression – and not a group for active intervention in the political and economic struggles of the
workers.
820 PIC, No. 1, Jan. 1936; R.K., No. 15, March 1936.
821 This definition of the party as a circle or group of people united by a shared conception can be found in the majority of
today’s ‘bordigist’ groups. Each group, even if it is made up of only a few people, or is no more than a marxological study
circle, sees itself as a ‘party’, if not the party.
822 See texts by Marx and Engels on the party: Le Parti de classe, 4 Vols. (Paris: Maspéro, 1973), texts presented by Roger
Dangeville.
823 Canne-Meijed, ‚Das Werden einer neuen Arbeiterbewegung’, in: Räte-Korrespondenz, No. 8/9, April-May 1935.
824 Canne-Meijer, ibid.
825 At the time of the First International the partisans of Bakunin were against any centralisation or organisational discipline,
in the name of ‘autonomy’. Engels’ 1872 critique of a circular by the (anarchist) Jura Federation could also be applied to the
organisational conceptions of the GIC in 1935: “...the International is no more than a’ free federation’ of autonomous
sections whose goal is the emancipation of the workers by the workers themselves, outside of any leading authority, even if
it derives from the free consent of all. In consequence the General Council [of the International Workers Association]
should be no more than a simple bureau of statistics and correspondence ... No question of regrouping forces or of joint
action! If, in some section, the minority adapted to the majority, it would be committing a crime against the principles of
liberty and would be approving a principle leading to authority and dictatorship! Above all, no disciplined sections, no
concentration of forces around an objective, no weapons of combat!” [Engels, Der Volkstaat, 10 Jan. 1872, cited by Roger
Dangeville. op. cit., Vol. 3, pp. 52-59.]
826 Canne-Meijer, ibid.
218