The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

een eclipsed and replaced by a “dead thing”. Mattick’s group underlined the “distinctly idealist after-taste” of
the GIC’s conception. 834 But above all, the American and German groups rejected the practical and
organisational consequences of the theses on the ‘working groups’, which could only lead to the negation of the
international work of the council communists and the abandonment of any centralisation of common activity.
Paul Mattick rejected the “false conception of the Dutch” which called for “the independence of the groups”.
This was “not only not marxist but impossible in practice”; it was necessary to centralise the work of the
different groups. 835 No less clearly, Helmut Wagner – a member of the German workers’ groups in exile – saw
the GIC’s conception as regression to federalism: “A federalist organisation cannot maintain itself because in the
current phase of monopoly capitalism, it doesn’t correspond to anything. It is a step backwards in relation to the
old movement rather than being a step forward”. 836
This disagreement on principles found full expression at the international conference of council communists, the
so-called Brussels conference, held from eighth to eleventh June 1935. In fact this was held in Copenhagen.
Brussels was mentioned in the council communist press to create a smokescreen and thus escape the vigilant
surveillance of the Gestapo. The eight delegates from Germany and Holland met in the house of Andersen-
Harild in Copenhagen. The delegation of seven from the ‘workers’ groups’ in Germany dominated the
conference: the GIC had only sent one representative, Piet van Albada. The conference passed a resolution,
written by Alfred Weiland and accepted by everyone, including the GIC delegate. This resolution implicated the
whole of the international council communist movement.
The resolution, entitled ‘Resolution of the Brussels conference’, had important political and organisational
consequences. It adopted the German theses on state capitalism (see Chapter 5) which had been criticised by the
GIC and Mattick’s group. But above all it clearly rejected the premises of Towards a new workers’ movement.
The state of clandestinity in the fascist countries spoke in favour not of the federalism defended by the GIC, but
of the strictest centralism. In Germany what was needed wasn’t ‘working groups’, but a system of groups of
three people, clandestine and rigorously centralised. The survival of the organisation, both in Germany and the
‘democratic’ countries, demanded the centralisation of all the international work. In the historic period of
totalitarian state capitalism, it was necessary to regroup the work of the internationalist council communists in a
highly centralised way, in order to build a single unified organisation. The conference proposed:
“1. To organise a more rigorous international collaboration through more frequent discussions;
2. To set up an international mouthpiece to propagate our conceptions;
3. To prepare the creation of an international committee to concentrate our work more firmly;
4. To ensure common international work through organisational and financial;
5. To take charge of international aid and publication;
6. To open a general discussion aimed at formulating an international programme for the council
communists.” 837
Alongside these six points, it was decided that the GIC would take charge of financial solidarity for council
communist emigrants.
As might have been expected, the GIC rejected any centralised international work, which in practice required the
formulation of an international programme and the setting up of an international bureau. For the Dutch, this was
a new version of the trotskyist 4 th International. “The 5 th or 6 th International is present here in broad outline”, 838
834 ‘Problems of the new labour movement’, in: International Council Correspondence, No. 2, Jan. 1936, pp. 21-35; PIC,
No. 2, Feb. 1936; Räte-Korrespondenz, No. 15, March 1936.
835 Paul Mattick, in the name of the American council communist groups, ibid.
836 PIC, No. 1, January 1936; RK, No. 15, March 1936.
837 ‚Resolution der Brüsseler Konferenz’, in: Räte-Korrespondenz, No. 16-17, May 1936.
838 Räte-Korrespondenz, idem.
220