As it reject the separate existence of a political party as such, the AAUD(E) advocated the development
of organizations that were half way between the party and the councils: the General Workers Union(AAU).
Pursuing this analysis to its final conclusions, some elements ended up by splitting and by disbanding
themselves on the basis of an anti-organisational analysis. In 1925, Ruhle himself was to give up all
organized political activity.”
6.2 Death of Gorter and disappearance of the German and Dutch Left
On the one hand vagueness, ambiguity and confusion of the German-Dutch left and on the other hand the
pressure from the degeneration of the Communist International that is the beginning of the counter-revolution,
resulted in its disappearance. On September 15, 1927 died Hermann Gorter. With death of Gorter, the most
important and influential militant within the German and Dutch left, disappeared on the last force that
was able to hold together KAP (Communist Workers Party).
In 1927 was held a series of discussion meeting between members of the Dutch KAP and German revolutionaries
about the problems of transition period. These discussion resulted in foundation of the “Groep van
Internationale Communisten” (the International Communist Group) GIC. Undoubtedly the International
Communist Group (GIC) was the most fruitful group within Dutch councilists. From the 30's the
German-Dutch Left disappeared as a revolutionary movement. The remaining elements are left Marxist
method and became antiparty heroes.
Another important figure in the German-Dutch left was Pannekoek. Pannekoek was a great revolutionary
and played an important role in the German-Dutch Left but then he left the Marxist method and began to
establish confusing theories in the working movement. If Gorter died as a representative of the
proletariat strength, Pannekoek died as a representative of the proletariat, weakness, confusion and
overcome of the counter-revolution.
Pannekoek could continue to defend the revolutionary positions and make an immortal historical service
not only to the proletariat and even for humanity. But he decided to leave the Marxist method in its
main points, party issue, revolution, etc. He began to disparage, discredit the revolutionaries and
the October Revolution. In short, Pannekoek was a great revolutionary who made serious mistakes in
the later period of his life
The most important group that played a role from the ruins of the disappearance of the German-Dutch
left was GIC. GIC was not a communist group in our view, but the most radical group in the councilist
Communism. ICC explains GIC's organizational view below:
"GIC made the definitive end to KAPD's confusion about the unit organizations. Although the GIC was
the creator of ‘revolutionary factories Nucleuses’ with the same orientation as ‘working groups’- they
would be propaganda organizations at the factories - they made a clear distinction between the central
factory’s organizations and revolutionary organizations.”[Our translation]
ICC describes the continuation of the GIC's fate as follows:
"GIC's theoretical work was continued by Spartacusbond which arose from a split from the party of
Sneevliett 1942. Despite a healthier approach to the revolutionary organization's function -
Spartacusbond realized the vital role that the party has to play in the revolution as an active
factor in the development of consciousness - and its operation: Spartacusbond had statutes and
central organ - so eventually became Spartacusbond dominated by GIC’s the old ideas about the
organization. Today, Spartacusbond is dying, and Daad en Gedachte (almost ‘Thought and deed’)
who left Spartacusbond 1965 - is a meteorological bulletin on strikes in progress. "[Our translation]
Finally, if we were to compare the German-Dutch left with the Italian Left, the German-Dutch Left
main problem was their non-mature to understand the revolutionary role in the counter-revolution.
Their incompatibility ripe to establish a fraction to defend the revolutionary positions and to
draw lessons from the past of the working class’ struggle, which the Italian left, was able to
establish such a fraction.
"Contrary to the Italian left who were Able to draw up a more realistic balance sheet of the period,
the Germantown left showed itself to be weak and unable to understand what would be the responsibilities
of Revolutionaries during the counter-revolution. Unlike their Italian comrades, the Germantown
Revolutionaries did not form themselves into a fraction capable of defending with tooth and nail
the gains of the past Struggles.
That is why, today, far from expressing and maintaining a clear and coherent continuity with
the past revolutionary wave, far from expressing the strength of the Germantown and Dutch left
in their critique of the CI, the present-day councilist organizations are an extreme manifestation
of all its weaknesses and confusion. "[Our translation]
6.3 Rühle and the German-Dutch Left
Rühle, the antiparty hero, which is a source of inspiration for councilists, he saw the party
as a huge machine that sought to control the fight from the top down to its last components.
Rühle did not have German-Dutch positions and he was excluded by KAPD.
KAPD in Germany and KAP of the Gorter in Holland had nothing in common with Rühle and his
tendency in Dresden was excluded from KAPD at the end of 1920. KAPD had nothing in common
with half anarchist tendencies who proclaimed that any party was counter revolutionary in
nature, that the revolution was not a question of party but a question of education.
7. Organization's view of the Italian Communist left
“The Italian Communist left's strength was its methodology, theoretical and organizational
strength, which made it passed the counter-revolution press much better, and in the mean time
made it possible to integrate its ‘balance’ in a more global approach. Although their work
process was slow but more thorough, they never rejected the basic Marxist achievements.”
The German and Dutch Left played an important role in the early 20's against the degeneration
of the Communist International, and thus became a pole to defend the
revolutionary positions. Unfortunately, after the 20's could not defend the revolutionary
positions as a pole and pride to defend Marxism and revolutionary
positions against counter-revolution ended with the Italian Communist Left.
The Italian Communist Left worked with to create an international fraction to
learn from the proletariat's past history and lay the groundwork for future rises
of the working class’ revolutionary struggle. Therefore, their theoretical publication
called Bilan (balance sheet) to make a balance sheet of the historical struggle of the
proletariat. Lessons from Bilan are extremely important for today's revolutionaries.
"... The Italian Communist Left, not only was loyal to those interests, as opposed to
those who spread myths about "socialism in one country", anti-fascism, "popular fronts”,
"United Front" and "national liberation struggle", which was prevalent, also saw it as their
task to draw lessons from the defeat of the October Revolution of 1917 and Third International
degeneration. " [Our translation]
A comparison between the German-Dutch left with the Italian left shows that why the German
Left was dissolved before it could complete its tasks while the Italian left, thanks to its
methodology, could achieve their tasks and provide extremely lessons for later generations
of the proletariat.
“The German Left, for comparison purposes, thought it was possible to create a new international,
KAI, in 1922, when it rejected the October Revolution and the Comintern as an expression of the
bourgeoisie class, the Italian Left tried in a deeper way to examine the defeat of October Revolution.”
From this preference for the Italian Left conclusion that it is necessary for the working class
to exercise close control over the state arising after the revolutionary seizure of power. It
denounced the Bolsheviks identification with the state, against the working class, as shown in
Kronstadt and the war against Mahkno.
Therefore, it is not rejected the October Revolution having once, something that the German Left
did and that led them to deny the "old" labour movement history. This meant that the German Left
quickly disbanded before it could complete the tasks of the Italian Left had been reached."
In the Italian Communist Left, comrade Bordiga played an important role. The Italian Left with
Bordiga rejected the substitution perception and the perception that the class consciousness
would have to be injected into the working class from outside. Also, on board understanding of
the role of parity and its functionality was with the Italian left's decline, and was a deviation
from the Marxist coherence yet he made an immortal historical service to the proletariat.
"The Italian Communist Left current has always, even during 1920, together with Bordiga,
rejects the view that consciousness comes to the proletariat from the outside by "bourgeois
intellectuals" - in contrast to what councilists asserts, which makes a confusion of “Leninism”
and "Bordigism"(Bordigo-Leninism). For Bordiga is the party
a part of the class
, the party is
the result of an organically emerging from the class, in which the program and a militant like
to have fused into a single whole. During the 30s Billan always rejected the view by the Communist
International Second Congress that defended the Party dictatorship. It was in the Italian left's
profound decline after 1945, under the influence of Bordiga, which meant that it went back to the
theory of substitutionism, which after 1923 was labelled as "Leninism" “.[Our translation]