"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.

Fraternally,

Devrim Valerian

Comrades

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

hurriyetdailynews.com

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.

Devrim

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.

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

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!

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.

"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

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

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.

Comrades

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.

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 ...

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...

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.

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.

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?

,)

Charlie

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.

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.

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.

Devrim