The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

whereas in fact the resolution merely envisaged the practical centralisation of the work. The GIC was opposed to
any “international party work” on the “basis of an accepted programme”. The principle of the autonomy of
“national” groups was proclaimed without hesitation:
“Here we will limit ourselves to noting that such a conception of the tasks of the new worker’s movement is in
contradiction with that of the Dutch groups. Frankly speaking, it means that the Dutch groups can have nothing
to do with a common international work... In our opinion, the revolutionary workers all over the world must
form autonomous groups, with the aim of developing and orientating themselves. The recognition of a party of
council programme would hamper the development of this autonomy.” 839
The support given to the Copenhagen resolution by Mattick’s group in the USA bore no fruit. 840 The weight of
the GIC and its ‘councilist’ conceptions was such that after the end of 1935 the American group stopped calling
itself the ‘United Workers Party’. Very quickly, the council communist groups closed themselves off in their
respective national areas. Faced with major international events, such as the war in Abyssinia, the Popular
Fronts, the war in Spain, Munich, the declaration of war, there were no joint international leaflets or action. 841
Above all, the abandonment of any centralised international work, which was a matter of life or death for the
underground German groups, had catastrophic effects. Left to themselves under the heel of repression, these
groups soon fell apart. The German council communist movement disappeared.
In practise, the Theses on a new workers’ movement made no small contribution to the organisational and
political dislocation of the international council communist movement. 842
An ‘economist’ vision of the revolution? The Grundprinzipien
By rejecting as negative the political lessons of the Russian revolution, by finally rejecting the necessity for a
political organisation because it was ‘haunted’ by substitutionism, the GIC ended up seeing the future revolution
not as a political question, but as an economic one.
The means of the proletarian revolution: the committees of struggle
The proletarian revolution would be carried out by the worker’s councils, regrouping the whole proletariat. But
this was the final stage of a long and contradictory process that would pass through a whole development of
economic strikes. These would necessarily be anti-union, wildcat strikes. This position, which had been repeated
839 Idem, ‚Antwort der GIKH’.
840 P.M., ‘The Brussels Conference’, in International Council Correspondence for Theory and Discussion, No. 10, Chicago,
Sept. 1935. However, although Mattick considered that a revolutionary organisation, distinct from the general organisation
of the workers, was necessary, he also thought that the council communists should “disappear as a separate organisation as
soon as the masses were organised in councils”. See also: ‚Resolution der Brüsseler Konferenz’ (i.e. Copenhagen
Conference), in: Räte-Korrespondenz, No. 16/17, May 1936.
841 Joint work with two Belgian groups, the LCI and the IARV, was only undertaken during the events in Spain, and
continued up until 1940 (see the chapter on the GCI’s attitude to these events). The dismantling of the Rote Kämpfer by the
Gestapo in 1936 and the geographical distance between the Mattick group and the European ‘centre’ do not in themselves
explain the dislocation of the international ‘councilist movement. In 1939, Mattick defended the idea of the national
autonomy of the council communist groups: “Each group acts in the context of the national framework in which it is
situated, without any other group fixing a line of conduct for it” [Paul Mattick, Intégration capitaliste et rupture ouvrière,
(Paris: EDI, 1972), p. 79.]
842 After 1936, the Mattick group was isolated within America. It disappeared in 1943, having published reviews like Living
Marxism and New Essays. The Danish group fell apart in 1936. Andersen-Harild withdrew from political activity and
ceased being an internationalist: during the war he put his home at the disposal of the council of the Danish resistance. In
the 50s he joined the Socialist Party [Letter from Gerd Callesen (ABA, Copenhagen) to Ph. Bourrinet, dated 1 st March
1984].
221