Controverses: Cahier Thématique n°3, a critical appraisal

by Aníbal

Spanish, French

Controverses has published its Thematic Notebook No. 3 (April 2024), in French

Its contents are as follows (see image of the cover):

General critical comments and evaluations

In line with previous works, it questions the foundations of the Platform and the general positions of the ICC, contributing many studies and data on the dynamics of capitalism and class struggles. Likewise, it questions the sectarianism and the nasty tricks of the ICC, particularly affecting some of those evidenced by the ICC against other tendencies of the communist left, such as the current ICT (formerly BIPR), and against former militants and tendencies split from the ICC or purged by the latter.

The struggle for the clarity of positions and program is absolutely necessary for communism, as well as the confrontation against sectarianism and the effective development of non-sectarian behavior. In this regard, the practice and theory shown by Controverses are insufficient, biased, and opportunistic: Controverses privileged the ICT as a pole of reference and regrouping, but refrained from an in-depth critique of its positions and program, as well as its activities and practices, to the detriment of the necessary critique of the ICT’s sectarianism, opportunism and dogmatism.

The Thematic Notebook No. 3. Particular critical evaluations

Now Controverses publishes this Notebook, which shows the numerous theoretical errors and idealistic and anti-scientific manifestations of the ICC, as well as part of the mafia-like behaviors of this megalomaniac, destructive, and intensely neurotic sect.

In general, a good part of what it exposes is pertinent, wise, and evident, coinciding with scientifically evident knowledge. I have pronounced myself publicly on several occasions, editing texts and answers, which has not been the behavior evidenced by Controverses, which shows a clear sectarian style.

I have also sent notes to CMcl, the author of many of these texts and studies.

Despite these positive aspects of theory, there are a number of shortcomings, inadequacies, and weaknesses. In brief:

On the situation of the working class on a world scale

No figures show the situation to which the most exploited part of the proletariat is subjected. More than half of the world’s exploited class does not have unemployment benefits and labor pensions, and there are more data of this style. The analysis it develops is limited and partial, which weakens it.

About the unions

Controverses assures:

“That the ruling class was able to definitively integrate the unions into its system at the outbreak of World War I and turn them into its most ardent defenders in the face of the revolutionary impulses of the proletariat is obvious.”

This is not self-evident; it is inadequate, not allowing us to understand the process of integration of these organs born in general in the exploited class. On the one hand, in some cases, there were demonstrations before 1914, and on the other hand, after this date, there are still unions that have not been integrated, whose integration is later (CNT). There is also another series of unions that are either eliminated or extermely minorized (IWW, some revolutionary trade union tendencies, grassroots or SUT type in Spain), or left in an ambit that is not integrated (CNT),  or left in a different sphere to the big trade union centers (generally transmission belts of bourgeois left factions such as social democracy, Bolshevism or nationalist-popular lefts, or in other areas such as Catholic centers (Solidarnosc, etc.) or dependent on liberalism, (AFL-CIO type in the U.S.). To focus on 1914 is inadequate. What should be explained is the process, its lines of necessity and general determination, and its particularization, which is differentiated temporally on the scale of the planet. I raised this to CMcl at the time, who considered their gaps and should be solved. Still, he has not considered it, and the formulation is identical in its error to what Controverses questions the ICC and its theory on the decadence of capitalism since 1914 (World War I).

On the critique of the theory of decadence

Theorie shared both of the ICC and other tendencies of the communist lefts and anarchism. At the time, I pointed out to CMcl that others have elaborated criticisms before Controverses. It needs to be taken into account and should be mentioned. Likewise, today, other tendencies of the communist left continue to defend decadentist ideologies. Controverses for its part has developed one, which at the time was translated into Spanish and edited in Inter-rev together with a critique of it:

• La periodización del capitalismo, las posiciones revolucionarias y la base marxista de su obsolescencia. C.Mcl (Controverses) [Recibido]
• Dinámica internacional de la productividad laboral. Discusión sobre la decadencia del capitalismo.
• Capitalismo. La verdadera decadencia llegará en un futuro. Notas sobre situación, tendencias y condiciones desde finales del siglo XX
• Discusiones sobre la decadencia histórica del capitalismo. – Un texto reciente de Link. En español, inglés y francés. – Respuestas de Aníbal y de C.Mcl. Posteriores textos.
• Decadencia y senilidad del capitalismo en Marx, Engels y el comunismo. / Déclin et sénilité du capitalisme dans Marx, Engels et le communisme. (Aníbal & materia)

Also, in the inter-rev forum, using the search engine indicating “Controverses,” quite a few texts can be found, an expression of a non-sectarian and opportunistic attitude.

But Controverses has not done the same; neither has it edited what was sent to it nor has it edited a critical evaluation of it for the moment. It has announced that, that yes, with plenty of time and maneuvering in between :

• Sobre una parodia de Conferencia Internacional. Aníbal y Fredo Corvo (editado en varios idiomas)

Neither has Controverses publicized the books of inter-rev editions on the decadence of capitalism, nor has it even commented on them:

• Libro. CRÍTICA DE LAS TEORÍAS DE LA DECADENCIA DEL CAPITALISMO. Proceso de maduración del capitalismo, necesidades y posiciones revolucionarias.
• Dónde nos encontramos en la historia del capitalismo Hacia la decadencia del capitalismo, pero aún no en ella

All this shows the sectarian, dogmatic, and opportunistic style that Controverses maintains, although it claims to detest it. Its attitude is not a positive thing for the communist left.

About the ICC and its role as a mafia thug and megalomaniac

If an itinerary is criticized, it is necessary to mention actions developed at the time by the ICC that do not appear in the text. The sects confuse rigor and revolutionary solidity with neuro-group sectarianism, making dissident critics (varied and with very different approaches and subsequent evolutions) fulfill the role of a target on which to project the miseries and obsessions of the sect, achieving an environment in which revolutionary firmness is replaced by sectarian and rogue unanimity against what is not the sect and above all against those who question it at a given moment. This is where a reiterative and simplistic creed replaces the good theory. A stultifying denial-elimination defends this creed from the field of concerns about everything that does not fit.

About Controverses, the latter is applicable

What doesn’t fit into the theorization of what Controverses considers the actual opening period of the absolute decadence of capitalism so far is largely left out. My arguments and critical explanations have earned only a few words, claiming they would later be considered for response. Of course, links to them are not given. There have been hardly any private responses with argumentations, interrogations, and analytical and scientifically coherent development among communists. Not only the ICC is a sectarian machine.

Aníbal 8-04-2024.

Source

Aníbal, Controverses. Cuaderno Temático nº 3.Comportamientos. Valoración crítica. Translated by Deepl.com.