Our Differences with the ICC - Discussion

This discussion developed originally under the article Marxism or Idealism - Our Differences with the ICC


I lelieve there is No different/s between ICT & ICC.

Shah: it would be more useful to explain your reason(s) not just to expect readers to "believe" you on such an important issue!

Next time, try a little bit harder to contribute ...

Comrade Shaw,

I believe comrade Fardin poses a legitimate question. But comrade, if there are no differences, please explain how we can unite.


Firstly I think its only right and correct practivc for revolutionary groups to engage in discussion and its through shared experiences and interventions the working class moves forward and practice becomes informed by theory and itself by practice.

Regrettable interventions can draw blood both metaphoricaly and physically, the ICC stands as the quoted 'largest' grouping on the communist left although as the article correctly points out it is no more than a man and a photocopier in its many far flung claimed locations. This is a replication of the failed and discredited trotskist left in the 1980's and 1990's, division after division and the old joke - its one man and a dog and the dogs not sure!

Having digested the article I write in support, and admire the clarity you present of our history within the working class of which I am a member and the communist left the ICT is now the only element. The ICC as you point out has through its own devices of being merely a propaganda machine (photocopier) is now totally out of touch with the workers they seek to influence. The ability of the ICC to change what does not fit and to then define the 'mileu' as curently only being themselves and then to accuse real activists, vested and routed and definete in our history, theory and practice, outside of an academic discussion around the historcial positions that are just that history.

The ICC defend their position in interesting mannerisms and language and as such are oft the focus of cult watching groups and the vitriol you can mop up from just a cursory glance at the numerous splits make the american trots look like Cameron and Clegg, two like minded capatalists in a pod.

In conclusion as you note, the ICC has more photocopiers and parrots than us at present, this won't last and on a note of historical certainty, they will be swept away as their untethered (unhinged?) approach fails, and lets hope we can offer olive branches to some of the 'elements' or 'citizens' as they call themselves before its too late and they sail off into another 'parasitic' 'sectarian' nightmare.

First, I have to object to the language in which comrade Red Digger is using. It is as "hysteric" & "questionable" as suggested that ICC uses in its rhetoric.

Second, I believe the differences are very real, but, not of separate & antagonistic class lines.

Third, due to the development of Left Communism in other regions of the world, now, ICC & ICT are not alone any more. Even though we have passed a different ideological route, but we are standing at the same positions as these two groups. However, due to this different route, we may not be as sensitive to some points of differences between ICC & ICT, and more sensitive to some other points that these two groups have in common.

I believe, now more than ever, a platform of Communist Left must be developed through a series of conferences & ideological struggle pointing to a world congress in future. These conferences will make the ranks closer to each other,& may end up in factions with very clear lines of separation. Hopefully, some of these factions will unite in a party necessary to lead the working class in the upcoming battles.

Firstly I welcome the comments from the comrade from the Communist Workers of Iran, and respect their platform and have enjoyed and learned immensely from their website, and certainly the spirit of commonality is to be upheld where you have chosen to have feeds from both the ICC and the ICT on your homepage.

However I would take exception to a criticism of my use of language as 'hysteric', peoples from different regions and cultures have different uses of English and having met comrades from around the world I have never made a criticism of their use of language, unless the political inferences are suspect or insulting, and to call a fellow revolutionary an 'element' as the ICC do is just one example of belittling language pushing the individual into a subserviant postion to the organisation which is nothing without the individual.

Marxists uphold the human spirit as the saviour of the planet and cherish the creative spark, and the resilience of life itself in the face of unspeakble barbarity, the urge to do better, be better. Also the language I use is formed by struggle and being a part of revolutionary organisations for a number of years, I speak from experience, but do not wish to offend. The article we comment on has been written by a german group, perhaps translated, but there are errors of grammar and syntax that belie comment as I welcome the communication as any other from a fellow revolutionary with open eyes, mind and heart. To critique the form rather than the content is anathema.

Secondly, you speak of 'not of separate & antagonistic class lines', I seem to have missed the inference, perhaps you might elaborate?

Thirdly, you say there are now more than two left communist groupings, of course as you probably realise, the histories of the british, russian, german, dutch and italian traditions of the communist left have their own origins, and have groups still in existence, some publishing locally, organised, active, that have their very own orbit, influenced by others still further from our trajectory, an example that springs to mind is 'aufeben'

Finally beware of factions! The idea of factions moving towards a greater and more coherent whole may be at best wishful thinking and at worst a failure to learn from the horrendous history of internecine battles between tiny groups with all in common but fighting and fighting over tinier historical points that have consigned the groups to a postion of being unable through size and intelectual stubborness to relate to the working class through street interjections and stalls, workplace interventions and demonstrations, and to purely try to poach existing revolutionaries from other organisations by pointing out the error of their position over eg. afghanistan in 1967. Try Grants history of Militant Tendency book, its far from warts and all but useful and still online I think.

Theory informs practice and Marxism is a living analytical body. Debate is the lifeblood of our organisations, fractions are often intelectual puffery and point scoring from a bruised ego, we have lost too many theoriticians in this manner, look at the many ICC fractions in and outside the mileu, very active at first, but only in publishing and in that only on the internet, then less and less..............the losses to our side are immense and self inflicted.

In conclusion, and in full agreement, I too feel that now more than ever, a platform of Communist Left organisations aiming towards international confererences and onward to the creation of the proletarian party by and of the working class to smash the capitalist tyranny is a necessity and we must work on joint platforms that speak of revolution and the future communist society we will forge together, indeed only possible by working together, reaching out and celebrating our tradtions with workers all over the world.

"However I would take exception to a criticism of my use of language as ‘hysteric’, peoples from different regions and cultures have different uses of English and having met comrades from around the world I have never made a criticism of their use of language,"

I think it that you should take your own words to heart here. Ahmad from the CWI is not a native English speaker either and his words may come across as harsher than they were intended to be. The internet is a place where we can not see people's faces or hear their tone of voice, and I believe that we should be especially careful not to misinterpret people. We should also be careful to remember that people aren't all native English speakers here, and that they also come from political cultures where the language used may be different from in our own. It is important to recognise this I think, and to reflect on it before 'taking exception'.

I think that the above article tries to express the differences that the ICT has with the ICC. I also think that it too contains exactly the same sort of distortions that it accuses the ICC of making. It is no secret that relationships between the two organisations have not been at their best for many years. many people in both organisations are, in my personal opinion, locked into the minutae of events that happened in the past, and this serves to act as a barrier to open discussion. I would like to give one example from this article:

"Here, we only mention the changing of our Wikipedia entry by members of the ICC."

Now maybe all of the members of the ICT aren't aware of what this incident is about, and probably most members of the ICC aren't either. I am aware of the facts though, and as trivial as it may seem, I would like to clear them up.

The IBRP wikipedia entry was not changed by a member of the ICC. It was changed by a, then, 16 year-old member of the EKS (Internationalist Communist Left in Turkey) about four years before our organisation joined the ICC. He was young and enthusiastic, and at the time genuinely thought that he was helping. Nobody else in our organisation knew anything about this until the point was raised by a member of the CWO with us as an example of the behaviour of the ICC, at which point the comrade red facedly admitted that actually it had been him who had done it, and of course he apologised perfusely.

What more can we do about this. A genuinely enthusiastic young boy made a mistake and later apologised for it. Incidentally the same comrade is the one who translated the IBRP platform into Turkish, which is now on your website.

Did we make a mistake? Certainly yes, but it was an honest one, for which we have since apologised. I don't really know what more we can do to redress the situation. I don't think that it is fair to use it as a stick to beat the ICC with though.

I think we have to be very careful not to let small incidents assume more importance than they really deserve.

"unless the political inferences are suspect or insulting, and to call a fellow revolutionary an ‘element’ as the ICC do is just one example of belittling language pushing the individual into a subserviant postion to the organisation which is nothing without the individual."

There are many examples of the ICC's language which I don't personally like. Perhaps, bearing in consideration my earlier point, you should reconsider whether this is language used deliberately to 'belittle' people, or whether it is a translation from the French, which has been taken up by other sections, the members of whom are not native English speakers. I personally don't like this term, and have heard members of our section, speaking in English use it, and have said something like "people please, not elements". I do know though that I have the best english in our section and that the members who have used it have done so merely copying the English that they have heard from others, and certainly don't mean to 'belittle' people. In my opinion the English language sections of the ICC have a responsibility to be very careful about the language they use. Things directly translated from French may sound awful in English, and people may end up talking in a sort of political 'jargon'. This is a real problem in that it hinders our communications with people, but I don't think that you can just use it as an example of us " pushing the individual into a subserviant postion to the organisation".

Incidentally you use exactly the same language yourself:

"Having digested the article I write in support, and admire the clarity you present of our history within the working class of which I am a member and the communist left the ICT is now the only element."

Finally, I don't think that phrases like the following one go any way to helping to develop the debate, which as you correctly say "is the lifeblood of our organisations".

"In conclusion as you note, the ICC has more photocopiers and parrots than us at present,"

I don't in anyway try to claim that I personally believe that the ICC has been in the past, or is even today, above these sort of cheap insults. I do sincerely believe though that they do nothing to help creating a climate of real discussion.


Devrim Valerian

Thanks for your reply Devrim and fraternal greetings to you.

In making exception for the comrade from the communist workers of Iran regarding linguistics my point was clearly made:

'I have never made a criticism of their use of language, unless the political inferences are suspect or insulting'

and continuing.. 'I welcome the communication as any other from a fellow revolutionary with open eyes, mind and heart. To critique the form rather than the content is anathema.'

Having said this I fail to see how any further critique of my language could be made, Incidentaly, the use of language and element this and citizen that is an observation made over years and heard and read in many occasions, settings and with groups both inside and outside of the communist left, and for the sake of brevity if nothing auger no further comment.

I admire and congratulate you on ownership of the wikipedia incident of which I admit to knowing nothing and again feel this requires no comment, the history of the left is littered with many incidents of over enthusiastic members actions resulting in problems and have witnessed some myself just shy of sending in the burglars.

In conclsion you and I are in firm agreement that the use of such comic licence as 'photocopier and parrots' does little to advance the communist revolutuon, it must be noted that everyone has the right to expression in the manner they see fit and comfortable and having made accord to never infringe comrades who have english as their second language it seems no such accord is given to someone you seem to fell has english as their first language, however it may of course be left to be just that, a joke.

Again I congratulate the author (s) of the article above and support the spirit of its argument and agree with the need for clarity of history, programme and action of the ICT and other communist left organisations working together across the world towards the next international conferences and towards a proletarian party in the traditions of the many and vital strands of left communism.


Sorry - I should have put a note into explain what Devrim has just explained about the wikipedia business as I was the one who met the comrades and reported the mea culpa of the young Turkish comrade. The German comrades did not obviously pick this up but had printed their text by the time we translated it. I saw it and intended to explain all this but forgot. My apologies to everyone.

The only thing I would add is that the atmosphere created by the ICC (which we said to them publicly was "hysterical" at the time - 2004) must have encouraged this action by the young comrade.

The only thing I would add is that the atmosphere created by the ICC (which we said to them publicly was “hysterical” at the time — 2004) must have encouraged this action by the young comrade.

As explained at the time, it had nothing to do with any such athmosphere, as I was not simply editing the IBRP website on wiki but other websites such as the page on the International Communist Party (I think I made that one from scratch) and so on. What was considered "sabotage" of the IBRP wiki was an inclusion of a link to the criticisms made by the ICC on the ICC website. Even now, I personally have no problem whatsoever linking to the criticisms of the ICC made by the ICT in general.

Besides again as it was explained at the time, I personally wasn't even convinced of the ICC's line when I was woring on wiki or anything, and was enthustiastic about the communist left in general - hence trying to improve pages about left communism on wiki in general.

What was considered "sabotage" was the false history, lies, put forward in a series Wikipedia entries.

Lies on Wikipedia like this one...

The Internationalist Communist Party (Battaglia Comunista) is a left communist party in Italy. It was founded in 1952 by the wing of the International Communist Party led by Onorato Damen, which opposed Amadeo Bordiga's advocacy of a "return to Lenin". [This is a lie, the PCInt was founded in 1945, Bordiga's own ICP was founded in 1952 and split the PCInt, not the other way around]

Damen instead supported holding on to the theoretical developments of Bilan [Here is a classic ICC distortion. Contrary to the ICC's official history "Bilan" wasn't all that important except to the forbears of the ICC] and the Italian left in exile in the thirties. Battaglia Comunista took part in a series of conferences of the communist left in the late 1970s and early 1980s. As a result of these, in 1983 they established the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party with the British Communist Workers Organisation.

Battaglia Comunista claims to be the largest international tendency originating in the ICP. [This is an insulting lie. Battaglia Comunista certainly didn't "originate" in Bordiga's ICP. Further I cannot recall such a claim to organizational size. The PCInt is however the oldest extant group of the communist left. Fondato 1945]

Mind you that this above was only one of many such entries. Things like this create a lack of trust and foster open and unapologetic hostility, which makes any attempt at unity of action impossible. I'd also be willing to believe that the ICC really did discuss at one of their conferences how the IBRP/ICT must be "destroyed". In the standard ICC defense for their actions--they blamed it on one of their comrades.

I'm not in any organisation myself but I do read leftcom, the ICC site and Libcom from time to time. Leftcom not so much as the other two it has to be said. However, this text and the comments seem to petty and quite embarrassing for supposed serious revolutionairies. Bearing in mind other discussions between the IBRP as it was then and the ICC on libcom.org. One thing that particularly stands out is this issue of editing a Wikipedia article. I mean come on, for fuck sake - how tiny must your World be to get into an argument over something so trivial. And it's worse because the comrade apparently apologised at the time and it was mentioned again here by another comrade but someone still goes on about it! I would like to finish by just simply making a general point that I think a lot of these so-called differences and disputes are a pretty unavoidable consequence of the period we live in. Competition being an unavoidable tendency in general and the ebb of class struggle over a protracted period turns everyone and everything inwards etc It is my opinion that groups like the ICT and ICC should be one organisation but remain with healthy differences, dabate etc Likewise for the Anarchists, AFED and SOLFED should be one organisation with the same approach. I find it interesting that an organisation the above groups will no doubt dislike and probably all regard as counter-revolutionary (the CPGB) seem to be the only organisation around which are genuinely looking to unite workers and have a level of genuine debate and differences within their organisation, in their press, at meetings etc. You can disagree with them all you like but I think something can be learned from some of the things they are trying to do. Unless of course you think it's all a cover act, but I don't think so at all (some Anarchists seem to have this impression).


The thing is proletarian, as it is made clear in the article, the premises that the ICC starts from leads to conclusions that are completely different and can complicate organizational work. Do wars happen because of the gears within capitalism, or is it because capitalism has adopted a new personality called "decadence." Should we avoid going to gatherings or protests of the working class because it was organized by the unions or the bourgeoisie? Examples are given in the article, specifically about Argentina. Another example would be the immigrant protests in the USA in 2006, where the ICC rendered whole protests and action by immigrant workers as "bourgeois" because it was advertised by the Spanish speaking press. Even if such things are organized by the bourgeoisie does not mean there are real class interests being expressed. So how do we approach such a thing? If we see activity by working class people within the confines of bourgeois organizaton, do we say that because it is organized by the bourgeoisie that we should just avoid it because workers are being tricked, or do we recognize that real class demands are being expressed and it is the role of the revolutionary to expose the bourgeois ideology and develop a class political line with class organs?

I see very little with this article that is 'embarrassing', in fact I suspect it will be very much welcomed by people trying to figure out the differences. It is amusing that the ICT publishes texts critiqueing the politics of the ICC and the ICT is thus considered sectarian but the ICC can say things like the whole of the ICT's politics is composed of "opportunistic abortions" and create fantasy stories like the whole IFICC-'pole of regroupment' tale they concocted. What it really comes down to though is the fact that the ICT is not a part of the ICC and it is for that reason why the ICT is subjected to insults and misrepresentation. Of course though, the ICT are the ones who are sectarian.

Thanks for the reply. I will just look at one point you mention as I probably don't appreciate fully the wider differences and histories of your divergences etc

I assume you are refering to the ICC article:en.internationalism.org

Where they say:

It is certainly true that the immigrants threatened by the legislation are a sector of the working class that confronts a particularly harsh and brutal exploitation, suffers a harrowing existence, denied access to social services and medical treatment, and that their situation demands the solidarity and support of the working class as a whole. This solidarity is all the more necessary because in classical fashion the bourgeoisie uses the debate over legal and illegal status of the immigrants as a means to stir up racism and hatred, to divide the proletariat against itself, all the while that it profits from the exploitation of the immigrant workers. This could indeed have been a struggle on the proletarian terrain, but there is a big difference between what could be and what actually happens in any given movement.

From my limited knowledge of the ICC I didn't think they were abstained from struggle (strikes, demos etc) and they don't suggest that here either. Haven't they participated in strikes in Turkey and student protests and occupations in Britain more recently? Howevere they do go on to say:

Wishful thinking should not blind us to the actual class nature of the recent demonstrations, which were in large measure a bourgeois manipulation. Yes, there have been workers in the streets, but they are there totally on the terrain of the bourgeoisie, which provoked the demonstrations, manipulated them, controlled them, and openly led them. It is true that there have been some instances, such as the spontaneous walkouts by Mexican immigrant high school students in California – the sons and daughters of the working class – that implied certain similarities to the situation in France, but this movement was not organized on the proletarian terrain or controlled by immigrant workers themselves. The demonstrations that brought hundreds of thousands into the streets were orchestrated and mobilized by the Spanish-language mass media, that is to say by the Spanish-speaking bourgeoisie, with the support of large corporations and establishment politicians. The fact that the demonstrations announced for May 19 during the May 1 protests never materialized is testimony to the bourgeois control of the movement.

Notice they say 'large measure' not wholly a bourgeois manipulation which I think is important. However they do seem to contradict that by then saying or implying that in no way was any of it proletarian but they they need to explain why it wasn't proletarian and what is, more clearly. It does get all a bit confusing. Were the spontaneous walkouts proletarian, it seems to suggest they were but then relent.

To be fair to the ICC though they do go on to comment about other factors and not just the media, nationalism etc as another reason why it wasn't proletarian. Did the ICC abstain from these events? Do the ICC pick and choose 'events' based on whether things are being manipulated etc. I'm asking genuine questions here.


I don't know if the ICC participated in it. The ICC has intervened in struggles on the class terrain in the past. Your confusion is really my answer. Did the fact that thousands came out to the street, largely immigrant and largely undocumented, not have an embryo of class character? The ICC says no, that all these demonstrations and their participation by migrant workers was due to "manipulation" by the Spanish speaking press.

Communists should take it for granted that workers are going to possess nationalistic ideas and will suffer from bourgeois "manipulations." This is talked about in the Communist Manifesto. The ruling ideas of every epoch are the ideas of the ruling class.

Your question is very serious and is a question I have as well. The ICC's politics, as you have shown, are often very confusing and sometimes contradictory. It should be no surprise that such a confused group has suffered as many splits as it has.

Mind you that this above was only one of many such entries. Things like this create a lack of trust and foster open and unapologetic hostility, which makes any attempt at unity of action impossible.


This is a lie, the PCInt was founded in 1945, Bordiga’s own ICP was founded in 1952 and split the PCInt, not the other way around

This is a mistake made by a young and enthustiastic person trying to edit and bring forth wiki pages about left communism rather than a lie, unless you think there is was an EKS-ICC-Bordigist conspiracy against the IBRP.

Here is a classic ICC distortion. Contrary to the ICC’s official history “Bilan” wasn’t all that important except to the forbears of the ICC

Is this why the ICT still has a publication named "Bilan & Perspectives"? Or do you deny that Damen and his comrades and the publication Bilan had lots of common positions, including the national question?

This is an insulting lie. Battaglia Comunista certainly didn’t “originate” in Bordiga’s ICP. Further I cannot recall such a claim to organizational size.

As uninterested as I personally am about the arguements of who split from whom, I do think it is a fact that Damen's current was a majority, Maffi's current was a minority and it was in general recognized as Bordiga's new party even if he supported the minority. Is an insulting lie to be identified with Bordiga? I personally would be proud rather than insulted for being identified with Bordiga's as well as Damen's tradition, regardless of my criticisms of both of them.

But in general, it seems whatever tendency I ended up with as someone who enthustiastically tried to do something on wiki would have ended up with being saboteurs of the IBRP, regarldess of whether it is the ICC, the Bordigists or whoever. And of course, no one is talking about the Onotaro Damen page started at the same time, entirely based on IBRP articles.

Perhaps comrades should try to understand the logic of the internet in general and wikipedia in particular less in the lines of evil lies, horrible attacks, disgusting slanders and so forth and more in the lines of, you know, an open encyclopedia. I am not saying that such prevelant mentality not just on the internet but generally is the fault of the ICT alone - quite the contrary it is to different extents unfortunately shared by other organizations including my own, but on this issue, seriously, wow...

The ICC denounced the Internationalist Workers Group for being an opportunistic formation and declared us dead. This was because of sharing a forum with some Anarchists. Now of course they find common ground with them, even going beyond what they previously denounced us for. This same ICC in NYC put out a massive four part article just to attack the old Socialist Labor Party in its press. They denounced Battaglia for working with the Gruppi di Lotta Proletaria. This was standard behavior and treatment the ICC meted out to everyone. They have an established pattern of such behavior that goes back decades and there is little reason reason to think that this will change.


Of course all these comments are ok. However, how about the actual article published by our German comrades? I think the discussion would be more helpful if we speak on the substense of it, no?


This article made a much better impression on me when I read it in German. Rereading it now I can agree with what first poster shah wrote: in this article the difference between ICT and ICC appears as good as zero. Also I find the sharp tone against "Bordigism" surprising.

On the content of the article.

I agree that we should reject the idea of 'latent' class consciousness:

The ICC traces the present lack of class struggle back to confusion-sowing and deceptive manoeuvres carried out by the bourgeoisie

But I disagree with what the ICT puts instead with its quote from the first chapter (the weakest one) of the German Ideology.

The section about the state in transitional society uses the hardest words:

For us, this puts them outside the tradition of the Communist Left. Ultimately, it is obvious that this transitional state conceived by the ICC, and standing beyond all classes, will necessarily imply counter-revolutionary developments. A state structure separated and set free from the working class and its Soviet organs would escape all control from below, take a life of its own and, in an instant, would not give a toss about the decisions of the Soviets.

However, I think the ICC would agree with this. The state ideally should exercise force on behalf of the proletariat. And I see no problem with the distinction made by the ICC between soviets and the state which they control.

I should correct myself; I agree there is an important difference on crisis (-Luxemburgist vision) and decomposition, where I side with the ICT.

According to this tirade above, the ICC are bizarre, delusional, hysterical, have a distorted world picture, have already destroyed or are about to destroy left communism, and use weird words like decadence and decomposition, and even weirder phrases like 'the historic course' whilst accusing more or less all who oppose them of being parasites. Can all of this be true? To take one (easy) example, the comrades tirading say the crisis reached it's final phase in 1973 - if it's in it's final phase then what's wrong with saying that it's decomposing? From the frantic actions of the bourgeoisie around the world, and the daft things they say and do, it is clear they are decomposing on their very feet. But the real problem is that the ICC don't know the REAL reason that capital is decomposing as a system. They think, like poor old Rosa Luxemburg, that it's because the markets are saturated, (laugh-out-loud) they don't know that it's because the rate of profit is declining! Conclusion: they can't be proper leftcoms they must be idealists. NB. I suppose anyone who believes in the possibility of revolution at the current juncture must be a bit of an idealist, or else a bit mad. But what about the workers. Do they know about the rate of profit or the saturated markets? Probably not. (This won't matter to the ICC though, because, as Red Digger points out, they're out of touch with workers anyway) The working class only knows that it is suffering an increasingly hellish existence at the hands of the current system, and there's a chance that it may come to identify 'the system' with capitalism. In which case we may be on the way with or without a party - for the would-be party may be so busy having childish squabbles, or even jealous, envious lovers' quarrels, that they don't have time to organize themselves for the fight. I agree with the first post above, by Shah. There are no genuine significant differences between the ICT and the ICC, it's all a matter in the end of infantile posturing. Comrades: All power to the working class in it's coming struggles.

(1) In this way, the ICC considers it necessary “to discredit [our organisation] so that it disappears from the political scene”. Furthermore, the ICC views as its “most important international priority” to “counteract, especially in Germany” our “negative influence on the milieu” (Resolution on activity of the 16th Congress of the ICC).

Oddly enough I don't consider this a "childish squabble". We have militants of a left-communist organization openly discussing how to destroy another political organization of the communist-left. This is without precedent in the history of the tendency and places such militants outside the political tendency altogether. I feel it is perfectly reasonable to be offended by such statements. Maybe people in other political tendencies consider this to be "normal", but in the history of the organizations of the Communist-Left it is NOT normal. This is "normal" behavior for the ICC, and has been mostly directed at their own former comrades who have split from them: IFICC, EFICC, ICG and others. As strange as it may seem we don't spend our time discussing how to "discredit" the ICC or "counteract" their influence. The only things I ever remember discussing in regards to the ICC were why are they attacking us, if should we respond, and how should we respond. I'd like to see the ICC grow and become more active and more rooted in the class, if they are growing then the chances are that we are as well. In a larger sense these "squabbles" wouldn't even be taking place if our organizations weren't both growing.

If the statement from the ICC's Resolution on the Activity of the 16th Congress of the ICC is an indication of the ICC's general posture towards the ICT, we have every reason and right to respond in a negative manner.

"This is a lie, the PCInt was founded in 1945, Bordiga’s own ICP was founded in 1952 and split the PCInt, not the other way around

This is a mistake made by a young and enthustiastic person trying to edit and bring forth wiki pages about left communism rather than a lie"

having been accused of lying (in bold type, no less) on another board i express some sympathy with The Boy here

This same ICC in NYC put out a massive four part article just to attack the old Socialist Labor Party in its press. They denounced Battaglia for working with the Gruppi di Lotta Proletaria.

i read that series of articles, and while a person may think that there are bigger fish to fry than the SLP, the ICC are within their remit to critique. i don't know the second situation, but can we who are not in either organization be sure that 'denounc[ing]' is not actually 'expressing disagreement in clear terms'? i ask becuase there is much exaggeration of language about.

I'll finish by saying that the SLP related groups, like the New Union Party in Minnesota, had for years helped to distribute the ICC press around the US, which is why I mentioned it as a classic example of an established pattern of behavior—friendly one minute and attacking the next. As the comrades' article above addresses quite clearly, it is behavior that is rooted in an idealistic perspective that has resulted in the growth of a self-sabotaging organizational behavior.

Should we avoid going to gatherings or protests of the working class because it was organized by the unions or the bourgeoisie? Examples are given in the article, specifically about Argentina. Another example would be the immigrant protests in the USA in 2006, where the ICC rendered whole protests and action by immigrant workers as “bourgeois” because it was advertised by the Spanish speaking press. Even if such things are organized by the bourgeoisie does not mean there are real class interests being expressed.

I think that there is an important point here. I can't really comment on whether the ICC was correct on these particular movements because they are events in far away countries which I know little about. Personally I think that the ICC has made mistakes in the past in how it understood certain movements. One which I feel able to comment on as I was working in the UK at the time was the pole tax movement. For me this certainly was a class movement.

However there are movements which draw masses of workers into the street which are in no way working class movements. There was a good example in this country, Turkey a few years ago when there were a series of massive 'secularist' demonstrations which attracted millions of workers (the largest one in İzmir attracted over two million people). For us these were completely reactionary nationalist demonstrations which we wanted nothing to do with. Yet many of the people there were workers with very real concerns about growing Islamicisation.

Today and yesterday there have been mass demonstrations in this country over Kurdish candidates being banned from standing in the upcoming general elections:


The ICC in Turkey decided that this is not a place where communists can intervene. So where were the ICC whilst all of the leftist groups in the country were fighting with the police on the streets? Outside hospitals standing on picket lines and at demonstrations with striking health workers arguing for communist politics and giving out leaflets (1,000 in our city, am not yet sure about other cities) arguing for workers to take control of their own struggles ( only in Turkish: tr.internationalism.org)

Can we make mistakes about the nature of movements? Well yes certainly. Are there movements which involve masses of workers which are completely bourgeois movements? Yes I think so too.

These are things that communists have too judge. Making a basic mistake on these sort of questions is terrible, but it can happen.


pantaloons, please can you provide a link to the ICC document you mention about the 16th Congress, I've looked and looked but can't find it. Thanks.

It seems obtuse to suggest that the ICC sees 1914 as a moment in history when capitalism underwent some kind of metamorphosis. Rather, the suggestion seems to be that this date marks the end of the ascendant period of capitalism.

As far as the ICC being merely a theoretical organ, only participating in workers' activities that they deem worthy, I can say from personal experience that the ICC was visible at the recent public worker protests in Wisconsin long after the workers' demands had been gutted by AFSCME. I don't know what kind of presence the ICT has in the USA, but the ICC and the Wobblies were the only radical organizations I came across.

I think what the author perceives as the ICC discounting worker activity that doesn't conform to its ideal notion of such is simply sober analysis after the fact in an effort to learn from our mistakes.

pantaloons, please can you

Submitted by proletarian (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-21 04:52.

pantaloons, please can you provide a link to the ICC document you mention about the 16th Congress, I’ve looked and looked but can’t find it. Thanks.

I would like to second this. And can you provide a link to the text where the ICC says you are parasites? Please.

The document in question from the ICC's 16th Congress isn't posted online, they officially disavowed it or so I heard. If I can find the text of it I can post it for you.

I should say here that last fall I was out of work and my options for finding employment here in Madison were running out so I ended up taking a half-time job as an office manager for an AFSCME local here. Ironically, it is a non-union job. It was either that, or the priesthood, or the army, seriously. I sent out the email bulletins that helped get the local workers out in the streets in the first place. I'll be one of the 20,000+ people getting laid of as the result of this. While I have no middle-class income or resources to put out or distribute propaganda I was out there from the beginning. The workers who are being affected by this austerity measures are my family and friends. Financially speaking I'm going down for the last time with this one. Maybe I can get work through the temp agencies still, if there is work to be had at all. So if I sound a little tense, angry and on edge in my postings it is for a good reason and for that I apologize. I never once saw the ICC here in Madison--where I live. I would've been more than willing to show them around and help them understand on a deeper level what was happening. They probably showed up to sell a few papers and then left, like every other leftist outfit.

The IWW, on the other hand was here from the beginning. Many of the Wobs are members of the AFSCME locals on campus. One of them works in the union office next to the one I work in. The local left here consists of the ISO and the IWW they usually work together on lots of things, they are pulling together the upcoming MayDay rally here.

I think ICT comrades when they are criticising ICC they being like publishing house they have something other in their mind. But apart from distributing leaflets -which is I thing one of the most primitive act of publishing in terms of the depth of the positions that can be developed in a leaflet- what can be done? Do comrades suggest an alternative strategy?

As far as I know -AND I KNOW FAIRLY LITTLE- ICT has a strategy of forming internationalist nuceluses in factories. Do comrades think that this strategy be applied in countries in countries where there are few and scattered left communists?

I really think talking about the practical aspect of the strategies is more helpful, since I don't really think there are not many serious theoretical differences between the two organisations - Of course I am not trying to minimalize the existing ones but this side of the debate can be helpful to overcome some problems arising out of discourse and language. Moreover it can also help to clear the steps of future vital cooperation between the two comrade organisation.

The document for the 16th Congress is at this link. The quote in question is in the very last paragraph. It is translated differently but it says the same thing: en.internationalism.org

"Submitted by RS on Thu, 2011-04-21 23:37.

The document for the 16th Congress is at this link. The quote in question is in the very last paragraph. It is translated differently but it says the same thing:en.internationalism.org"

This is the full text of the last paragpraph link above:

22 Faced with the perspective of the politicization of the struggle, revolutionary political organisations have a unique and irreplaceable role. However, the conjunction of the growing effects of decomposition with long-standing theoretical and organizational weaknesses and opportunism in the majority of proletarian political organizations have exposed the incapacity of the majority of these groups to respond to the challenge posed by history_. T_his is illustrated most clearly by the negative dynamic in which the IBRP has been caught up for some time: not only in its total inability to understand the significance of the new phase of decomposition, compounded by an abandonment of a key theoretical concept like that of the decadence of capitalism, but even more disastrously in its flouting of the basic norms of proletarian solidarity and behaviour, via its flirtation with parasitism and adventurism. This regression is all the more serious in that the premises are now being laid for the construction of the world communist party. At the same time, the fact that the groups of the proletarian milieu are more and more disqualifying themselves from the process which leads to the formation of the class party only highlights the crucial role which the ICC has been called upon to play within this process. It is increasingly clear that the party of the future will not be the result of the ‘democratic’ addition of the different groups of the milieu, but that the ICC already constitutes the skeleton of the future party. But for the party to become flesh, the ICC must prove itself equal to the tasks imposed by the development of the class struggle and the emergence of the new generation of searching elements.

Could someone explains to me the differnce of the ICT's text written in 2001 from the 16th Congress of ICC point 22? (leftcom.org)

"We think we have explained the reasoning behind the phrases in the document “War and Revolutionaries” that has so vexed the comrades of the ICC.

Not one of the components of these currents has provided an analysis of the situation of capital and its relationship to the working class that takes into account the real dynamics of the situation and thus they are all way behind — above all, when it comes to method and appropriate analytical tools — current and prospective events (6). That’s why we deem the period in which it was permissible to think that the Party could come from that “political proletarian camp” is definitively closed. As with any other category, its validity is limited to the historical circumstances in which it is being defined. Change the circumstances, then its potential could also change radically.

As it is, the whole of what we defined as the “proletarian political camp” has been a failure. Given what has happened to that camp over the past twenty years, there should have been a process of convergence by those who claim to be part of the revolutionary vanguard, if only they had lived up to their task. Armed with a critique of political economy and historical materialism (Marxism), the massive impact of the crisis in the accumulation cycle and the corresponding violent attack of capital on the proletariat, would have necessarily found such a vanguard on the same analytical and critical ground and with a similar programmatic perspective. They would have moved closer towards each other. Instead the opposite occurred: the components of what was once a “unitary” proletarian political camp are today effectively on different planets."

"Why do we maintain that the IBRP is the only possible “intermediary” form of organisation today between the scattered revolutionary organisations in the world and the future party?

We begin by saying that it is — or it should be — evident that there is a substantial difference between the situation of today and that of tomorrow and that it would be foolish to claim at all cost that the party of tomorrow is prefigured in the organisms of today. True, there are those (in particular the Bordigists) who claim — each group enclosed with its own followers — to represent the future “international party” and, in keeping with their formulation present themselves as centralised internationally (in the rare cases in which detachments of the same parish exist in more than one country). The ICC also presents itself as centralised to internationally. In fact, during the Seventies the ICC proclaimed itself to be the pole of regroupment to which the others could only adhere without divergences.

But this doesn’t mean that intermediary forms between today’s situation and the party of tomorrow will come into existence, and not just because we are excluding such formations as useful elements in the construction of the party. In any case, these specific experiences cannot hold as valid examples to follow so as to reach the point where tomorrow’s party can be built."

Last question: when was the ICC 16th Congress? Was it before 2001?

I never once saw the ICC here in Madison—where I live. I would’ve been more than willing to show them around and help them understand on a deeper level what was happening

i was there. i am not icc though but i been a supporter for years and i recently asked formally to join. cut em some slack though, the icc in the us is on diresome conditions and its based mostly in nyc. i didnt certainly go there to "sell papers", i went there to discuss with some people and to check out what was happening in general (i went with a small communist group i am part of). i even posted in the forum of the icc to see if anybody was there.

frankly, i think a lot of left communist polemics reduce to "nobodies denouncing nobodies". i think its embarrassing. i dont think any young workers or 20somethings or whatever care about grandpa attacks between two groups that have almost identical positions. i think both groups are p. bad at this and i think they need to gain some outside perspective. to give some perspective. i been in discussion with some people in michigan for a while (we are now in process of discussing the icc platform).a lot of these kids are college aged and have interests outside political theory, like you know, doing average 20something shit, like drinking beer, socializing, going to work etc. imagine in what position i am if i ever bring up this dumb "storm inside a cup" to them. how do i even start talking about it? i dont think they would understand it until theyve read atleast a year worth of ancient communist tracts.

although the icc is a centralized organization, i think there is also a difference between sections. it seems to me the icc takes a regional color for each section. i think a lot of the problems people seem to have are with the overtly "french" vibes the icc gives off, because the french section is so big and dominant. jargon, academicism, etc. i think it is easier to understand the icc if people take into account that its not a totally uniform organization (from what i gathered).

Firstly, I want to express solidarity with Pantaloons' situation and say that I'm very sorry to hear you're in such a precarious situation (although I know solidarity on an internet forum doesn't do a lot).

I also am new to the communist left--I've only known the ICC for 2.5 yrs, and worked with the ICC as a sympathizer for less than that. I knew that DeLeonists knew the ICC and visa-versa, and I was surprised when I read their response to one of the articles because I thought the whole thing was more of a debate (that's how it was characterized to me) or polemic (which the ICC used to do a lot) to spark conversation, but it was probably worded in a pretty confrontational way and could likely have been the ICC shooting themselves in the foot. I didnt' think it was an attack though, and I kinda wish communists in general were a lot more wary to say they were "under attack" by other communists. I have to agree with Maldoror that the mutual hostility is quite embarrassing. While I'm glad for the above article to get a better sense of what the ICT comrades see as differences with the ICC, a lot of what's written here seems to understand the ICC's ideas quite differently than I do. I assume there's probably a good deal of that going back the other way too , as it seems there are very different perceptions of what actually happened during all the events that get mentioned on the laundry-list of why the communist left or the groups inspired by it are suspicious of each other.

I didn't know the communist left in the early 2000s, when I think the 16th Congress was. If that quote was the actual resolution of the congress (it's not online anymore), then I think it's crazy and all I can say is they don't operate like that anymore. I didn't know the ICC during the heyday of the "parasitic attacks" either but they don't seem to write about them anymore really, and they seem to have changed their mind about the groups that they said were parasitic. Unfortunately, these changes, which to me represent a step forward (I'm not in the group), have not been accompanied by apologies or retractions, which is pretty embarrassing too.

We could probably fill a library with poorly understood polemics from the different groups that each have interpretted as an attack and taken it upon themselves to defend their group, but I wonder how great the differences are, and I wonder if the people who are in the ICT and ICC in 20 or 30 years can really be convinced of the importance of everything that makes these groups mistrust each other. I'm not a militant and so I don't know what it's like to be one and I don't mean to be insensitive about things that happened between these organizations of which cdes were a part while they were happening, but as a newcomer to the communist left, one does sometimes feel like a child mediating his parents' divorce because they refuse to speak to each other.

-Soyons Tout

The ICT says:

Not one of the components of these currents has provided an analysis of the situation of capital and its relationship to the working class that takes into account the real dynamics of the situation and thus they are all way behind — above all, when it comes to method and appropriate analytical tools — current and prospective events (6). That’s why we deem the period in which it was permissible to think that the Party could come from that “political proletarian camp” is definitively closed. As with any other category, its validity is limited to the historical circumstances in which it is being defined. Change the circumstances, then its potential could also change radically. If the party won't come from the proletariat camp, then we won't have the party at all, will we? And the whole of the proletariat 'camp' and 'milieu' has been a failure! So you deem. At times you sound like the pope denouncing some heretical sect - yet one of your criticisms of the ICC is that they make the communist left look like a collection of religious loonies (this in a personal email). You could be right though, with the ICC above talking about 'the party becoming flesh'. Both your organizations - remarkable, amazing and invaluable as you both are - do sometimes, when criticizing each other, come across as fanatical dogmatists. You get carried away by words. NB. I didn't say you are fanatical dogmatists, far from it, only that you can come across as such. This must have dire effects on some younger militants looking for clarification. Have you considered that? If you haven't then read Soyons Tout above. When the European proletariat is forced into a new era of mass, international strikes, then I guess these unhappy exchanges between two remarkable organizations will dissipate quickly. Either that or we will all succumb to capitalism's plans for mass destruction of everything. In fact let's have a new slogan: MASS STRIKES not MASS DESTRUCTION!

What common ground that can be achieved when a "revolutionary" organization decides that it is the future communist international, an embryo of the future world party, to which everyone will just have to accept? This doesn't constitute some minor difference. It should be noted that the proletarian camp is a phrase originating with the ICC. The milieu was theirs to start with, it is understandable that they would want to dispose of it when, over the years, it failed to respond to their overtures in the manner in which they had wished. This is the essence of the idealistic approach that the article above addresses.

This is mainly a reply to 'rs' referring to the question about the ICC practice with regards to interventions, consciousness and bourgeois ideas.

Of course we work with people who don't agree with us completely, or even on many very important questions. Many of the people we worked with during the TEKEL strike were Kurdish nationalists, including the guy who wrote the article that was translated to English on 15,000 cops, and the speaker in the Germany tour. I remember discussing late one night with one guy who thought that we were completely wrong on the national question, but that the PKK should adopt the ICC position on trade unions! Obviously there is no question of people with these ideas being members of a left communist organisation. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't work together with workers with all sort of ideas during struggles.

I read this comment by an ICC militant here:libcom.org

I'm not a member of ICT or ICC but I have a lot of sympathies for Left Communism and recently I started to read both websites on a regular basis. I could say that I’m some kind of anarchists in transition towards Left Communism, but I don’t think that these “tags” are important to this discussion.

Regarding this article I have to agree with first post of proletarian and say that this article and discussion (especially first few comments here!) are disgrace for both organisations. This looks like some kind of Trotskyite "whose more right" competition. I doubt that any of you want to sound ridiculous as that.

I’m not so well know of history of Left Communism, as I said I’m still “discovering” this tendency, but still I don’t see much of a point in discussing something trivial as “who’s more important in history”.

We are living in 21st century and the “movement” do not exist. That is the fact. ICT and ICC are almost invisible organisations. Same thing goes for the organisation I’m the member of (it’s an anarcho-syndicalist organisation). So, our (yours especially ;)) energy shouldn’t go on such discussions but on how can we create movement, how can we introduce libertarian communist (or LeftCom – you get the picture) ideas to the working class people, how can we create “fighting spirit” inside of people, how can we do something important.

There will be no revolution without a revolutionary movement and to create this movement it’s not really important how many books and shit you read but what you do in practice. And I would like to emphasise that I don’t mean on some kind of “riot port” or “reformist” shit, but on a real life practice. (I’m not from English speaking area so I have little bit of a problem with articulation of my thoughts in English.)

I think that you have a lot of problems with that, because I really read about your actions and mostly I read about your analyses and theoretical debates.

First of all, we agree 100% with those comrades who have posted on the absurdity of the fact that the ICC and ICT are unable to work together. This does no good to the credit of the communist left or the principles we defend.

Over the years, the ICC and the ICT have published polemics on a whole series of subjects. We think that the subjects themselves are important ones - the question of communist organisation, of the class struggle, etc. It's unfortunate if the language used ends up obscuring the political argument - and we take it very seriously that comrades are saying this.

We do try to get our facts right in these polemics, and also to source the facts with references and quotations - but we also sometimes make mistakes (everybody's human). In that case, the ICT need only mail us to correct them. We commit ourselves to correct anything in our articles that is factually wrong and not only to correct the text in question but to announce the correction publicly, as we have done in the past. Accuracy and honesty are a precondition for healthy discussion, in our view.

All that said, in answer to the comrades who ask why we can't work together, we can only repeat what we said at the beginning: we absolutely agree that left communists - and indeed internationalists in general - should be able to work together. How can we make this possible as far as the ICC and the ICT are concerned? In the short term we have to be realistic: apart from the issues of principle involved (these do exist for us, but we won't go into them here), it is obvious that there is too much bad feeling and mistrust for this to be possible in the immediate (just look at some of the posts on this thread). The ICC therefore proposes - and the ICT comrades can take this as a formal proposal on our part - that a meeting should be organised between the two organisations, with the aim of airing our differences, laying old issues to rest, and generally clearing the air.

I think everyone who is posting should know that we have been in discussion with the ICC since last October about the nature and purpose of any meeting between the two groups. This was occasioned by our receipt of the Internal Bulletins 310 and 312 of the ICC whic contain the paragraphs referred to by Pantaloons and RS above. Obviously as this is the May Day weekend most of our comrades are engaged on oterh activities but we will respond in short order.

In the meantime I would like to thank soyons tout, maldoror Devrim and "The Boy" for their contributions and honesty. What is noticeable though is that they are all by recent (compartaively) adherents to the Communst left and there is a tendency to see the ICT and ICC equally guilty in the establishment of current relations. The honest commentator King Lear also shares this view. We don't. When "anonymous" writes that our article on "The New International will be the International party of the proletariat" is the same as the ICC's resolution at its 16th Congress he omits to say that the first is a discussion article (written by our generous and much loved comrade Mauro who died 6 years ago today) whilst the second is a resolution binding (presumably) on all members. The ICT does not pass such resolutions nor do we spend time discussing other Left communist organisations. As the IFICC, who split from the ICC in 2000 have complained publicly, our attitude has been one of "live and let live" in the expectation that the development of the class struggle itself will resolve many issues. Our longer term perspectives, and our understanding of the low level of class struggle in relation to the crisis we face, means that we don't view the matter of ideological debate or recruitment with the same urgency as the ICC. Hence we have no need for Theses on Parasitism (are these still binding on ICC members? If they are what would the purpose of a meeting be?).

The present discussion could yet be positive but we will shortly make clear the full context in which the GIS article was written.

"whilst the second is a resolution binding (presumably) on all members. _...Theses on Parasitism (are these still binding on ICC members? "_ Adherence to the ICC is based on its platform and statutes, not on resolutions or theses. "there is a tendency to see the ICT and ICC equally guilty in the establishment of current relations. The honest commentator King Lear also shares this view. We don’t." I think that you sort of miss the point here. It is not about determining who is 'guilty' for the current state of affairs. To me the whole idea of attributing 'guilt' goes exactly back to the root of the problem. The impression that I get is that the point people are making is that it is not really important which side shoulders which proportion of 'guilt' in what seem to many to be absolutely petty incidents many years ago. Devrim


You are missing the point. We have no resolutions or policies on the ICC or anything else (and this is the premise of all their accusations). However if the ICC Congress votes a resolution then is this not the "policy" of the ICC? If not, why do they have them? That said we do not want to dwell on "archaeology" either and your final paragraph would be shared by most of us.

I seem to have lost paragraphing in my last post and the two points weren't supposed to appear related.

The first point was that people join the ICC based on its platform and statues and are free to disagree with specific positions it takes besides that and are not asked to personally defend them.

The second point was that attributing blame isn't a way forward. I think that accepting our own mistakes can be a part of it, but going on about others won't really help.


Devrim said: "The first point was that people join the ICC based on its platform and statues and are free to disagree with specific positions it takes besides that and are not asked to personally defend them." I do not think it is as simple as that though. Anytime an opposition has emerged within the ICC it doesn't seem to have fared too well, which would indicate in my opinion something about internal regime etc. Since it can't just be a reflection on the opposition that they were not prepared to accept a majority decision and hence split off prematurely as seemed to be the case with Controvereses from what I know. Maybe I am just too cynical - which is quite possible as anyone who knows me will testify to. Also I think there the ICC relationship today to the Theses on Parasitism is not clear. Like I am glad it is not a recurring features of articles in the ICC's press like it was in the past and the untold damage that done to the communist movement. It seems in practice the ICC has moved away from the Theses on Parasitism, but the organisation relationship to them as a whole is not clear. I know the Turkish section has rejected those Theses.

On this Forum, the ICC explain that ‘the ICC and the ICT can work together’ (LoneLondoner, 2011-04-30) and “therefore proposes — and the ICT comrades can take this as a formal proposal on our part — that a meeting should be organised between the two organisations, with the aim of airing our differences, laying old issues to rest, and generally clearing the air” (LoneLondoner, 2011-04-30).

But, on another website, the ICC explain the contrary : « C'est la raison pour laquelle nous n'entreprendrons avec lui [le BIPR] aucune coopération politique du type de celle qu'implique l'organisation en commun d'un forum de discussion tant qu'il [le BIPR] n'aura pas fait la preuve qu'il [le BIPR] a compris avoir commis une grave faute politique. C'est une question de principe concernant les questions de comportement politique (qui sont des questions politiques primordiales) et auquel nous ne dérogerons pas. (…) Si, dans le cas du BIPR, on ne peut pas exclure de déblocage de la situation actuelle dans le cas où, comme nous l'avons dit, il y aurait de sa part la reconnaissance d'un problème politique important dont ils ont été la cause… » (CCI : klasbatalo.blogspot.com). A truth in Italy and another elsewhere ? How can we trust the ICC ?

Seems to me the ICC and ICT cannot work together.

Each side is probably wanting the end of the other, hopefully by attracting militants to change sides.

The whole debate is of almost zeo interest to the class and the majority of what passes for left communism is inaccessible to the workers who have not got the education, leisure or motivation to penetrate the vast literature.

If the main objective is influencing the class, then let's try to do that.

Read what you have written and ask yourself, who are you addressing.

A few well off professors who know all the acronyms, dates and have no material incentive to risk all in combat?

The poor semi literate masses who might actually risk their skin to get out of this hell?

Steve, people who are not affiliated with the ICC and people who have legitamitely wondered what the differences were between the organizations have responded approvingly of the article. This article makes no personal attacks, it lays out their politics and where we disagree.

We cannot "work together" not because we hate eachother but because we start from completely different premises. That doesn't mean we can't agree on everything or even work together on anything, but it is why two different groups exist. The ICC has apparently succeeded in painting the ICT as isolated sectarians. Want to know why? Simply because the ICT is not a part of the ICC. We are a completely different organization and they don't like it for that very reason.

I have no interest in "destroying the ICC", as opposed to public statements by the ICC about the ICT. I regularly read the ICC's literature and they have plenty of great members. However, the ICC has invented stories completely out of thin air that that the ICT was collaborating with other organizations to "destroy" the ICC. The ICC apparently is allowed to invent charges against the ICT, say that the ICT is an opportunist abortion, and people completely absolve the ICC. Look, I too don't give a fuck about what squabbles happened back in the 1970s or what not. However, the two groups do have their qualitative differences, regardless of whatever communist left soap opera.

note I am not an official member of the ICT, so excuse my usage of the word "we", I don't represent them though I do agree fully with their platform


Re Steve's point about recruting from other left communist organisations, as a historical fact in the 26 years that the IBRP/ICT has been in existence we have recruited no-one directly from the ICC and the ICC has not recruited anyone from the ICT. This is because of what RS says above. We start, as he said, from "different premises" on the crisis, on the perspectives for the working class today and on the manner in which a future party will arise. In fact we are so far apart that there should be plenty of room for both within the proletarian camp without recourse to the language and practice used by the ICC not only towards the ICT but towards almost everyone else.

The ICC want us finished.

That is their word.

The ICC who have crossed a dividing line in their call for the elimination of the bearers of authentic Marxist theory.

Until their position on the ICT is retracted, then they are objectively a capitalist organisation.

In fact I spent some time reading the ICC before I read CWO.

CWO "converted" me from ICC.

I consider that the main areas of difference are these

  1. The ICC consider that the working class has a level of consciousness far above its real limits.
  2. The ICC has cultivated a sense of immediacy regarding proletarian revolution which is only a possibility.
  3. Its concept of a proletarian semi-state being anything other than the power of the soviets.

These are not all the differences, the ICC tiptoes around the root cause of the capitalist crisis being the tendency for the rate of profit to decline, denunciation of struggles as being manipulations, magnifying its own self importance. Its internal workings seem to generate a lot of bad feeling, though I am not clued up on them.

In my opinion the ICC and ICT could, within limits, pool resources and produce joint materials of a basic nature which both sides would accept and distribute, (which could attract others).

However, the ICC has definitely gone too far in calling for the elimination of the ICT.

RS says "We cannot “work together” not because we hate each other but because we start from completely different premises".

There are certainly some major disagreements between us - which is why it is perfectly normal, indeed inevitable, that there should be two separate organisations.

However, the ICC and the ICT both:

  • are internationalists
  • are for the independent organisation of the working class, against the trades unions
  • are opposed to nationalism and national liberation struggles
  • come from the tradition of the Italian left communists

There are 6 billion people living on this planet - how many of them have this much in common? The fact that we have these basic premises in common means that for us - the ICC - the present situation where such common work is impossible is absolutely abnormal and absurd.

And it is precisely with the aim of putting an end (or beginning to put an end) to this absurd situation, that we have proposed that the ICC and the ICT meet together (see my post above).

We don't see any contradiction between the quotes (in French) posted by "Proletarian ethics and morality", and this proposal. There is indeed a question of principle at issue, which concerns the ICT's actions in the affair of the Argentine "Circulo". In our view - to quote Steve - this is where the ICT "crossed a dividing line", and this is precisely one of the points that we would hope to clarify in the meeting that we have suggested.

I was going simply to counter Steve's posts by pointing out that his logic was impeccable in arriving at his conclusion but that it was precsiely the same as the ICC's and starts from a similar premise. The ICC believe they are justified in passing a resolution calling for the discrediting of our organisation with the aim of seeing it disappear because one of our comrades called for their disappearance. Absurd though this premise is (and in fact is not the real reason why they launched their campaign against us but because of their own crisis at the time) most ICCers believe it. However on here the ICC sympathisers and members who have posted are all new and do not know any of this and we should at least address them so that they can take their views (which are obviously a lot more healthy and open) back to the ICC. However Lone Londoner is once again playing to the gallery. In his first post he claimed to be speaking for the whole ICC and proposed in public what we have been discussing in prviate since last October. This seems a bit of a manouevre to me, an attempt to gain the moral high ground. He repeats this here (but uses "I" this time). He says "There are 6 billion people living on this planet — how many of them have this much in common? The fact that we have these basic premises in common means that for us — the ICC — the present situation where such common work is impossible is absolutely abnormal and absurd." Precisely our view. Which is why we have no Theses on Parasitism, have not initiated a campaign against them on the publication of a single letter from Argentina (and that in only one paper and not the official IBRP/ICT central organ). Obviously a meeting would be useful but not on the ICC's agenda (and this is the discussion). At the moment the ICC campaign against other left communists continues. Lone Londoner, we hear, was present at a meeting in Paris of a workers assembly/committee a few nights ago where his comrades attempted to have three left communists expelled from the Assembly (I do not know on what grounds). The same comrades had carried out almost identical agitation as the ICC in this committee last year. Happily Lone Londoner (to his great credit) took no part in this procedure and the other workers in the committee came to the defence of the left communists (all ex-ICC members). But this is not an isolated incident the same thing is going on in Berlin where the ICC are trying to manoeuvre the GIS (our German affiliate) out of the Berlin discussion group. As the ICC resolution at its 16th Congress specifically targets our German comrades this was the reason why they felt it necessary to write the text which began this thread. The problem is that the ICC DO have a policy and it is not for cooperation with other left communists. To have a meeting to "clear the air", which I personally favour, would be like the bourgeoisie having a "peace process" whilst the bodies of the victims are still mounting up. OK nobody is dying here but a lot of people are demoralised and continue to be demoralised by these actions. And the damage to left communism, not to mention the future of the emancipation of the working class, is incalculable ...

Sorry for the french language

Lutte contre l'opportunisme du CCI

Correspondance des CIM avec un sympathisant du CCI :

Sur le sectarisme et l'opportunisme du CCI


Vous écrivez dans votre courrier à la scission de la FICCI que le CCI a un comportement "sectaire." En même temps, vous semblez appuyer l'idée de la FICCI selon laquelle le CCI est engagé dans une dynamique "opportuniste." Or, cette dénonciation se base notamment sur l'ouverture du CCI en direction des anarchistes internationalistes. J'ai ainsi deux questions :

- Pourriez-vous clarifier votre position sur le CCI, car je ne comprends pas comment le sectarisme du CCI peut se marier avec le type d'opportunisme que la FICCI dénonce ;

- Pensez-vous, comme la FICCI, que la discussion avec les anarchistes est le signe d'une dérive opportuniste ? Si oui, en quoi, selon vous, favoriser les débats avec les anarchistes internationalistes relève d'un comportement opportuniste ?

Discuter avec les anarchistes, clarifier les positions marxistes, comme l'a fait Marx au sein de l'AIT, n'est-ce pas la tâche des révolutionnaires ?


Bath, le 13 juillet 2010.


Le CCI se défend d’être sectaire parce qu’il a des échanges avec des anarchistes internationalistes. Or il refuse carrément tout action commune avec des groupes de la gauche communiste tels la FICCI, la FGCI et la TCI qui, faut-il, le rappeler sont tous très clairement internationalistes. Pire il refuse même toute discussion même avec la TCI depuis 2004. Nous pouvons retrouver ses arguments sectaires dans la réponse qu’il a fait aux communistes internationalistes de Montréal sur la proposition d’un site Web de discussion au sein de la Gauche communiste (klasbatalo.blogspot.com).

Les CIM citaient le CCI dans cette proposition « Dans l'esprit de secte, le dialogue avec d'autres ne sert évidemment à rien. "On n'est pas d'accord ! On n'est pas d'accord ! On ne va pas se convaincre !" Et pourquoi des organisations révolutionnaires ne convaincraient pas d'autres organisations à travers le débat ? Seules les sectes refusent de remettre en question leurs certitudes. Comment se sont donc faits tous les regroupements de révolutionnaires dans le passé si ce n'est en parvenant à travers le débat à "se convaincre" ? » (Le sectarisme, un héritage de la contre- révolution à dépassé, Revue Internationale # 22, 3e trimestre 1980).

Pourquoi le CCI refuse-t-il 30 trente ans plus tard " le dialogue avec d’autres " d’autant plus que ces groupes appartiennent à la gauche communiste?

En opportuniste cependant il est prêt à des échanges avec des anarchistes internationalistes, il est aussi prêt comme il nous l’a écrit dans sa réponse à notre proposition de site Web de discussion à discuter avec nous (le CCI le sait très bien) alors que nous avons des relations très fraternelles avec la FICCI et avons distribué et signé plusieurs de leurs tracts. Et pour les

CIM, le CCI nous répondait « (…) nous ne mettons pas comme préalable à l'établissement d'une telle relation entre nous que vous partagiez notre conception de la défense d'une éthique prolétarienne entre groupes prolétariens(…) ». Il l’exige pour la TCI et non pour les CIM. Si ce n’est pas de l’opportunisme sectaire, qu’est-ce que c’est?

Finalement est-il possible qu’une fraction puisse exister à l’intérieur du CCI actuel ? Son fonctionnement interne nous en fait *douter grandement.*


17 juillet 2010

S. pour les CIM

If we accept that the ICC and ICT should remain separate. a possible 3rd platform could be acceptable to both parties. And others.

There is no doubt that each group wish their perspectives to prevail.


By patient explanation or by all means possible?

The latter would present an insurmountable obstacle to joint initiative.

Prior to any meeting I think each side could set out its intention in a clear, unambiguous manner, no need to publish "War and Peace", either there is

  1. mutual acceptance of the right to existance
  2. sufficent grounds for joint initiatives

or not.

From there moe progress may be possible.

A real line has been crossed and it isn't just an inability to work together or something trite of that nature. It is the outcome of the founding logic of any organization that views itself as the future world revolutionary party.

I would never have learned of the IBRP (future ICT) had it not been for the ICC writing a polemic against the CWO comrades. In one article they left the address of the CWO and so I contacted them. It was once even the practice of the ICC to include contact information for left-communist organizations to whom they were directing their polemics at the end of the articles in question.


You seen particularly bitter about the ICC. What's the deal?

Comité de lutte Interpro to the CWO Comrades The Inter-trades Workers' Struggle Committee has been informed by one of its members that certain information concerning the committee's activity has been published on your Forum. The Committee considers that information concerning its "internal activity" has no business being bandied about in public. It appears moreover that the information you have published is untrue. So that things should be clear between us, we ask you in future to avoid making any reference to our committee's "internal life" in your publications. For your information, the ICC militants in the Committee have never demanded the exclusion of other members of the Committee. All that said, we are ready to debate the world economic and political situation that the working class is confronted with. Fraternal greetings, the Committee

Is this something to do with the call to eliminate the ICT?

If its secret how come its on our forum, sounds like you have an internal problem...


No. This is from a committee made up of the remnant of the assemblies movement in France. We published details of their discussions earlier but removed them on the request of the comrades who had informed us that the ICC had denounced them in front of this group (I have forgotten the precise crimes they are supposed to have committed but the different comrades were very shocked and contacted us separately as individuals). The ICC have informed us since that they have withdrawn from this group but not before they got them to write this statement (which they sent us months ago but which we invited them to post here - they have finally done so). With the ICC lawyers you have to choose your words carefully. The statement above denies that the ICC demanded the explusion of the comrades in question (all are ex-ICC members which in ICC-speak makes them "parasites") from this committee but does not answer the charge that the ICC sought to vilify comrades who (though we have differences with them) are still comrades and were prepared to work with other communists (including apparently the ICC) in these assemblies. Another sorry episode I am afraid.

I tried an internet search but did not find anything on them.

I was wondering if there is anything about this which would contribute to the Occupy wall street article I am trying to get an angle on.

I am going to be fairly enthusiatic about what I consider a communist movement (in the sense set out in the German Ideology).

I intend to address the issue of intervention, so I am thinking about the BC leaflet for the 15 oct Rome event. Maybe there is a ''how not to intervene'' lesson here.

If you wish to form a specific paragraph on the issue, hopefully I could integrate it, but if you judge all this is best left alone, so be it.

On the ICC forum the issue of intervention in the OWS movement is interesting, I made a minor contribution (Lazarus) perhaps I'll post the BC leaflet there.

You wouldn't - they don't want publicity so I cannot tell you any more.

Have no views on the OWS as yet.

We don't propose to start a polemic on this point, but given that these things tend to stick around on the Internet, it seems necessary to rectify briefly some statements that have been made here:

1) It is untrue, as the statement from the Comité de Luttes Interpro points out, that the ICC tried to get anyone expelled from the committee.

2) It is untrue that the ICC "vilified" anyone on the committee (if by "vilification" we understand making untrue and unfounded accusations)

3) It is untrue that "The ICC have informed us since that they have withdrawn from this group but not before they got them to write this statement". We have indeed withdrawn from the committee, but the statement was drawn up and adopted after our withdrawal. Anyway, the statement itself is presumably adopted by a majority at least of the committee: this should speak for itself.

4) With reference to a previous accusation on this thread, it is untrue that the ICC tried to get the GIS expelled from the Berlin discussion circle. We are no more part of the organising nucleus of this group than is the GIS, but as far as we can ascertain this is all the result of a misunderstanding between the GIS and the organising nucleus, which could have been cleared up with a couple of mails.

"With the ICC lawyers you have to choose your words carefully". What does this mean? If it is intended to mean that we choose our words carefully and do not make unfounded accusations, then we plead guilty.

If you Googled the Comité and found nothing, it was presumably because you only looked in English. You can find an account of a public meeting on Japan here: fr.internationalism.org

Thanks you for the "rectification". But if calling someone "un mouchard, un voyou, un voleur" (a police spy, a blackguard, a thief) as one of your comrades did, is not vilification we don't know what is.

I don't get it! In another thread on this site about the difficult revival of the class struggle (in fact it's the editorial to the latest RP) the final paragraph says: " We think responsible revolutionaries should re-examine their differences, asking ourselves if the things that we thought divided us now do so in the light of this new period in working class struggle. We should emphasise not the little we disagree on but the much that we agree on. We should seek to work together in common struggles not simply to recruit this or that individual to our own organisation, but to widen the consciousness of what a real working class struggle means. In the face of the obstacles we have outlined above it would be suicidal not to."

But there's not much evidence of emphasizing what we agree on in the above posts, nor a feeling of an olive branch being held out, as there is in the paragraph referred to. In fact the emphasis in many of the posts seems to be on the "suicidal" aspect! I'm very pissed off! A plague on both your houses. Let's hope the working class can manage without you. We can't of course. But it's your fault - you revolutionaries in the ICT and ICC - not the rest of tbe class.

Perhaps this should all be seen as a process.

In times of antipathy towards the communist perspective, of a long maturing of what seems to be the final crisis, a historic event yet to run its course, it seems fairly logical that small groups have tended to create tight 'families' where familiarity and mutual hostility have overpowered the drive to unity, where relative class passivity has not forced the issue.

Our latest Aurora 's title calls for unity.

In my mind unity requires a brief and simple set of conditions. the greater the complexity, the greater the division, the weaker the unity.

The individual groups could maintain separation while participation in a shared joint venture which could gtobally produce a simple literature - leaflets, statements etc.

Is this possibly the precursor to the Party.

Obviously I am groping in the dark, but such a platform could arise from a joint ICC/ICT initiative.

I don't know if the ICC would join, I dont know if intransigence would prove stronger, .. I am not naively sayng abandon differences, but personally I would like to see a joint ICC/ICT leaflet, despite all long standing problems.

As dialecticians we are familiar with the concept of unity of opposing forces, there is no absolute guide, no correct answer, only a process of change and I 'd like to try this direction.

A bit like, mmmmmm, I wonder what will happen if I press this button.

Like a chess match, the opening moves are fairly random, the plan is more precise at the end.

The working class can only learn to run society by the attempt.

I feel the CWO is very much alive and open to experimentation, getting it right means risking getting it wrong.

This is a very good post Stevein7, meaning that I like what it says and find it positive. (we seem to swing between positive and negative on this thread. Is that another dialectic?) You say "the working class can only learn to run society by the attempt." very true. We have to risk another awful, world shattering failure! But the alternative is cataclysmic bourgeois destruction, so we have nothing to lose. I too feel the CWO is very much alive ( but could have done without Cleishbottom's contribution on Nov.25) and feel the ICC is very much alive too. Maybe the two groups, and others?, will only find out if they can work together by making the attempt. Getting it right means risking getting it wrong. But we won't get anywhere without Solidarity will we?


We are absolutely in agreement with stevein7's post.


All I did was to state what an ICC member said in public against another communist (not connected to the ICT but an ex member of the ICC who is by their definition "a parasite"). The ICC don't use this term casually. It is enshrined in Theses voted on and we assume binding on all members. We are highlighting it here because what the ICC does in deeds and what it says in words are not always the same thing. We hope this may become a thing of the past. But you have reduced us to the same level by saying a plague on both your houses when we have never engaged in the same behaviour towards other communists (even those who decided finally we were wrong and have chosen different paths. We have not even responded to their parting insults and as a result have been able to resume relations with them even if we remain separate). I can say no more here as we are involved in discussions with the ICC and do not wish to harm their prospects further.

a parasite”). The ICC don’t use this term casually. It is enshrined in Theses voted on and we assume binding on all members

This is not true comrade: "It should be noted that some comrades in the ICC, while recognising that such behaviour exists and the necessity to firmly defend the organisation against it, don’t agree with this concept of parasitism, a disagreement that was expressed at the Congress" en.internationalism.org

On an unrelated matter:

Like a chess match, the opening moves are fairly random,

The opening moves in chess aren't supposed to be random.

Sadly I spend too much time on chess. I will sacrifice this pawn and accept the veracity of your observation whilst maintaing the mitigating factor of my usage of the qualifying adverb covered my uneducated back.....

Glad to se the ICT/ICC making an attempt.

I'll throw in an idea.

Aurora becomes a vehicle for an ICC/ICT initiative.

Both groups endeavour to write basic material, alternating the front sheet between them.

On the back is a simple explanation indicating that this is not the sole perspective of either group, and further contact details etc.

Possibly this could be linked to the website for critical analysis.

If CWO decides Aurora is its own, maybe another title could be established.



As you well know I am well aware of the Turkish section's view on the theses on parasitism but what of the rest of the ICC? This is no small matter as the issue on here is not just about the ICC's attitude [as a tendency] towards the ICT but towards all genuinely communist elements.

Cleishbotham, do you really think the "rest of the ICC" is monlithic on the question of "parasitism"? Do you think the ICC is monolithic in general? Do you acknowledge that there are any issues and questions about which there is disagreement within the ICC? If so, why would it be any different with the question of so-called "parasitism"?


You miss the point. The question is not about monolithism (an invention of those who cannot accept what it means to be in an organisation). No organisation can exist without discussion and debate. The Bordigists might have tried to do so but it blew them apart.

Obviously when we join an organisation we sign up to a platform and a way of working (statutes in the formal sense). That is the framework. Within that everything is up for discussion. If you studied these boards carefully you would see that we have some quite varied (some would say off the wall!) comments about all kinds of issues by sympathisers and comrades. A lot of things get said that some might not wish to be said but that is the price of having an organisation which depends on the stimulus of debate.

The real issue here though is that the ICC has voted on a set of Theses which we assume are binding on the organisation. You even voted Theses in 2004 which called for the "discrediting" of the IBRP (as we were then) with the aim of our extinction. We have now received news that these have been rescinded by your central organs. Good news. Which leaves now the question of the Theses on Parasitism. We have heard (from Leo on other sites) that the Turkish section has voted to reject them. But we also understand (and we don't know if this is true) that the rest of the ICC have reconfirmed them. The ICC is now once again in the process of changing its policy from denigration of the rest of the communist left to seeking to establish some new dialogue. This is to be welcomed but (and here we get to the point) the ICC's Theses on Parasitism stand as a massive obstacle to that turn. I would have preferred not to have said all this but in view of your challenge was left with little choice.


I understand your concerns, but I expect that there is far more debate within the ICC on this question than you are willing to believe. How could there not be on an issue so controversial? The fact that the theses were once voted on by the ICC, doesn't mean that the entire organization agrees with them or interprets them in the most anatagonizing way today. I am not sure what it means to say the theses are "binding." What does that mean? Militants can't hold different ideas?

I understand parasitism is a very controverisal idea and you may be right that it has proven to be a real obstacle a to moving forward--but it is a discussion that must be had both within the ICC and the broader communist left. Can this take place w/o hurt feelings getting in the way? There are a lot of hurt feelings in this thread. How can we get past this?

BTW, I am not a member of the ICC, not sure why you seem to have assumed this.

Best wishes in moving forward to both the ICT and the ICC.

As shug said on the ICC site "the pitiful few should unite" and as a comrade on this site said recently: it would be suicide not to. This must be one of the longest off-again on-again courtships in the history of communist politics. To deny it is only further proof, and the marriage is long overdue. Best wishes to both of you.

Am I correct in saying that a difference between ICT/ICC is that ICT accepts democratiic centralism?

Does this have any impact on the ''intolerance'' which is being posed as an ICC hallmark.

I think the ICC probably would want to enage more and have a less antagonistic attitude to other ''initials'' but they are not willing for reasons of their own and the ICC stamps its foot and calls for elimination of parasites etc. Maybe.

There are ''flexible'' and ''inflexible'' elements in every group. Probably both are required but they will clash.


No you do not understand my concerns. Either the ICC has an official position on parasitism as expressed through its theses or it has not. If you look at libcom or revleft you have Leo saying that he and the Turkish section have now repudiated them (as they are an obstacle to recruitment) whilst others like Alf justify them and quote passages from them.

If you say that "parasitism" is a problem you already accept the ICC agenda (hence why you sound like them). Parasitism arises from the penchant for name calling that originates in the ICC centre in Paris against its former members and where most of the so-called parasites live. If you had any real concern for the politics of the Communist Left you would condemn the whole sorry saga of parasitism which has nothing to do with the working class.

The ICT has nothing to compare with the ICC in this regard. We have not denigrated anyone nor even discussed discrediting anyone. We have also not dreamt up categories like parasites or "victims of parasitism" and all those who urge a "let bygones be bygones" approach (i.e reducing us to the same level) on this one are playing the ICC game. We need real poitical confrontation not wishful thinking.

You are quite right Cleishbottom, what we need is "real political confrontation" and then this running sore of an issue may be settled. It is an importantt matter, but can still get amazingly boring as it drags on and on, for ever and ever, or so it seems. And you yourself sometimes sound so indignant and outraged about it - as if somehow personally wounded in an unforgivable way - that the issue starts to smell unhygienic. and clearly needs a full exposure to fresh air.

It is not addressesed to me but:

Cleishbotham, do you really think the “rest of the ICC” is monlithic on the question of “parasitism”?


Do you think the ICC is monolithic in general?


Do you acknowledge that there are any issues and questions about which there is disagreement within the ICC?

None of any inportance

If so, why would it be any different with the question of so-called “parasitism”?

It is different with parsitism. On this questioned the Turkish section are basically humoured whilst they provide a left cover for the rest of the ICC.

At the last congress there was a guy from Germany who was not a member of the ICC and had recently left the Wildcat group. He said that he had previoulsy thought that they ICC was monolithic without any real discussion, and he was surprised to find it wasn't the case. Afterwards I thought about it and came to the realisation that the 'real discussion' if by that we mean where opposing views are expressed, was all pretty much the disagrements between the Turkish section and the rest of the ICC.


I hope Cleish is indignant, outraged and personally wounded, that's how I like my communists.

I think he is correct to say its not a question of forgve and forget, but I still think ignoring each other is not the way forward.

For me its not just an ICC matter, its about a process of communication with a spectrum of elements who share some fundamental points.

Anonymous writes: " I expect that there is far more debate within the ICC on this question than you are willing to believe". He/she may be right. During my time in the ICC, I struggled to keep up with the quantity (and quality) of debate in the ICC's internal bulletins. The problem is that debate is internalised, the central organs arrive at a position that is then presented as the ICC position, and the range and vigour of debate is papered over (the idiotic position of 'The Left in Opposition' comes to mind). Leaving aside how this makes the ICC appear monolithic, it does a disservice to the milieu as a whole. Debate and disagreement should be the life blood of the milieu - as Marxists, we should be iconoclasts by default. All too often, the ICC seems to see this as petit-bourg individualism, threatening their (ahistoric) model of what a rev org should be like.


You're right. I am a total idiot for even getting involved in this sordid discussion in the first place. Nothing can come from it it seems. This is what has always turned me off about the ICT: Its general ascerbity, confrontationalism and clumsiness in the debate. For all of the ICC's flaws (and there are many): at least it is making an effort on the question of the culture of debate. For the ICT, anyone who even entertains the idea that the question of parasitism may be complicated is "playing the ICC's game." Nice job totally turning someone off to further discussion with you! Is everything a contest between you and the ICC? Is everyone who questions your assumptions an ICC agent even if they don't realize it? Hmm, what is this attitude reminscent of? Dismissing people as "parasites"?


You haven't been following the ICC press very closely, if you can't identify areas of fundamental disagareement within the organization.


You did not enter the discussion to clarify anything. Your mind was long made up. And you get it wrong.

"For the ICT, anyone who even entertains the idea that the question of parasitism may be complicated is “playing the ICC’s game.”

Forget the "complications" anyone who even uses the term is playing the sectarian game of the ICC. We have not denigrated people ever like this. "Parasitism" arose because the ICC in France had various splitters who hang around in the Paris milieu and still relate (negatively) to the ICC. It has nothing to do with the working class in general and has done more than anything we could invent to discredit the entire Communist Left (in the English-speaking world at least). We hope that the ICC will abandon the whole idea and the attitude that lies behind it that only one organisation has a right to exist.

I especially like the way you claim not to be in the ICC but then upbraid Devrim who was inside it for several years for not knowing what is really going on in that organisation. Amazing!

You haven’t been following the ICC press very closely, if you can’t identify areas of fundamental disagareement within the organization

As has been pointed out until about six months ago I was a member. I would imagine that I have at least some idea of what was going on in the ICC.

at least it is making an effort on the question of the culture of debate.

If the culture of debate means anything in the ICC, it is a tool to block any real discussion within the organisation.

I would just like to add that I don't consider myself in any way aligned to the ICT, and I don't know enough about how the ICT work to comment on their organisation. I do have some experience of the ICC though.


It qould be more easy for us to understand what is going on in the ICC, simply reading the statesments of it's congresses: since they actually have them so frequently. But it is obvious that something must be wrong, if we read the statements and hardly still don't have a clue of the debate inside the ICC. I suppose that the ICC has a congress to conclude a debate, not just to have a ritual.

It's a bit like trying to understand the splits in the bordighist area, by reading their papers.

It is like a "spot the difference" game!