Welcome to the new ICC sections in Peru and Ecuador

[Leo]

Welcome to the new ICC sections in Peru and Ecuador (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201204/4841/welcome-new-icc-sections-peru-and-ecuador)

We are very pleased to announce the formation of two new sections of the ICC, in Peru and Ecuador.

The constitution of a new section of our organisation is always a very important event for us. First because it is further evidence of the capacity of the world proletariat, despite its difficulties, to give rise to revolutionary minorities on an international scale; and secondly because it means that our organisation is able to strengthen its global presence.

The formation of two new sections of the ICC is taking place in a situation where the working class has, since 2003, begun to recover from the long period of retreat in its consciousness and its militancy that followed the events of 1989. This recovery has been expressed by a whole series of struggles which show a growing awareness of the impasse facing world capitalism and by the emergence, on an international scale, of internationalist minorities looking for contact among themselves, posing many questions, searching for a revolutionary coherence and debating the perspectives for the development of the class struggle. Part of this milieu has turned to the positions of the communist left and some of these elements have joined our organisation. Thus in 2007 an ICC nucleus was created in Brazil (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/306/brazil-nulceus). In 2009 we greeted the creation of two new sections of the ICC in the Philippines and Turkey (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/philippines-turkey).

The two new sections are also the product of a sustained effort by our organisation and its militants to take part in political discussion and clarification, to make links wherever there are groups or individuals searching for communist ideas, whether or not they enter our organisation.

Our new sections were, before joining us, groups of this kind, whether they turned straight away towards political clarification around the positions of the ICC, as in Ecuador, or whether they came from different political backgrounds, as in Peru. In both cases, they developed through discussion with other political forces as well as through systematic discussion with the ICC on the basis of its platform. They always had a commitment to taking position on the major events of the international and national situation. Today, they continue to evolve in a milieu which is very rich in contacts.

Based in South America, these two new sections will reinforce the intervention of the ICC in the Spanish language, and its presence in Latin America where the ICC was already present in Venezuela, Mexico and Brazil.

The whole of the ICC send a warm and fraternal greeting to these new sections and the comrades who form them.

ICC, April 2012

[Искра]

All the best to new comrades :)

[black magick hustla]

nice but this always bothered me,


he constitution of a new section of our organisation is always a very important event for us. First because it is further evidence of the capacity of the world proletariat, despite its difficulties, to give rise to revolutionary minorities on an international scale

i think its a bit hyperbolic to assign the addition of literally a handful of militants as some historic rumination of the bowels of the international proletariat.

[Leo]

I don't think it is difficult to understand why an organization which doesn't try to recruit everyone it encounters, and to join which is actually a process which requires quite an amount of commitment in itself would see both numerical and geographical growth as a real strengthening, as well as a representation of a certain dynamic, as small as it certainly is, within the class.

You are right that the tone is, of course, a bit too excited, but one has to give the comrades some slack - we don't integrate new sections everyday and I think the comrades get to be a little too hyperbolic when it happens.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think it is difficult to understand why an organization which doesn't try to recruit everyone it encounters, and to join which is actually a process which requires quite an amount of commitment in itself would see both numerical and geographical growth as a real strengthening, as well as a representation of a certain dynamic, as small as it certainly is, within the class.
:shrugs: maybe but i think there are probably more sensible reasons, like the internet for example.




You are right that the tone is, of course, a bit too excited, but one has to give the comrades some slack - we don't integrate new sections everyday and I think the comrades get to be a little too hyperbolic when it happens.

i don't think it is really just a rhetorical issue, i've seen that line and justification used in other communiques. its theoretical in origin and is tied to the icc's conception of political organizations as being part of the class. of course if the icc gains a section of three people, then it means something in the class is happening, because obviously "political organizations" are tied to the class.

[Leo]

:shrugs: maybe but i think there are probably more sensible reasons, like the internet for example.

I know that the internet is actually not the main factor here, and some of the comrades who joined didn't even know how to read or write let alone have internet access. Regardless, without a doubt chance is a factor and internet makes certain things easier and opens new possibilities, but the ICC was founded in days when there was no internet.


i don't think it is really just a rhetorical issue, i've seen that line and justification used in other communiques. its theoretical in origin and is tied to the icc's conception of political organizations as being part of the class.

Well, yes there is such a conception. What's the problem with thinking that political organizations are a part of the class?


of course if the icc gains a section of three people, then it means something in the class is happening, because obviously "political organizations" are tied to the class.

Certainly something is happening, there is a difference between three people joining and three people not joining. This does not mean something immense is happening in any way.

[Sir Comradical]

Congratulations ICC!

[Alf]

Yes, the language in that passage does sound a bit hyperbolic (partly a style thing as this was translated from Spanish and French), but there is a real political issue here - that revolutionaries and revolutionary organisations exist because there is a revolutionary class, not simply as an expression of their individual history: at a profound level (the bowels? why not) they are produced by the class. The alternative would seem to be that revolutionaries are products of chance, or of the 'socialist intelligentsia...'. Anyway, maybe black magic hustla can come back and respond to Leo's question.

[Android]

Yes, the language in that passage does sound a bit hyperbolic (partly a style thing as this was translated from Spanish and French), but there is a real political issue here - that revolutionaries and revolutionary organisations exist because there is a revolutionary class, not simply as an expression of their individual history: at a profound level (the bowels? why not) they are produced by the class. The alternative would seem to be that revolutionaries are products of chance, or of the 'socialist intelligentsia...'. Anyway, maybe black magic hustla can come back and respond to Leo's question.

Alf, I think I agree with BMH on this one. Presently, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say any left communist group is a product of working class struggle or reflection in the fashion in which you could say the KAPD or even the left communists groups that formed out of the struggles of the late 60s / early 70s such as the IT/ICC and others were. When I look around I see us more as a collection of idiosyncrats, in that it is a bit silly in my opinion to attach that much significance to the gathering of a few individuals here and there (to take an example in the opposite direction of an equally small number afaik of individuals leaving the ICC such as the most recent split of those who formed Controverses, you don't get statements saying how this shows some dynamic inside the class) and imply that we have some connection with working-class existence today as a result of it.

[Alf]

I don't understand why the re-emergence of revolutionary groups on a world scale today is different in quality (or quantity - certainly they are more widespread today) from what happened at the end of the 60s. And yes there are counter-tendencies because we are faced with the huge weight of the dominant ideology, which lies at the root of the tendencies towards dispersal and fragmentation. Either way, we are at a theoretical dead end if we see revolutionaries as the products of a purely individual dynamic.

[Android]

I don't understand why the re-emergence of revolutionary groups on a world scale today is different in quality (or quantity - certainly they are more widespread today) from what happened at the end of the 60s.

The most obvious difference between then and now is largely in the former they were the products of global upsurge in class struggles, the groups that formed when you entered communist politics.


And yes there are counter-tendencies because we are faced with the huge weight of the dominant ideology, which lies at the root of the tendencies towards dispersal and fragmentation.

This seems to confirm what Devrim said on a recent thread that the ICC when talking to itself considers Controverses "worse then the parasites because they don't behave like them" or however he put it on that thread. I don't understand how you could say that a group of a few militants splitting from the ICC is the evidence of 'dominant ideology', unless it is based on the unstated assumptions of the theory of political parasitism that the ICC has. I'd be interested in an elabouration on this.

Another reason I don't find this a convincing argument is that it fails to account for the difference in experience of different groups as regards fragmention. For instance over the last four decades since the emergence of the ICC there has been a steady pattern of splits, whereas in the groups that compose the ICT, mainly CWO in UK and BC in Italy, there has not been the same pattern. Which I think suggest something far more fundamental is at the root of that fragmentation and specific such as political culture for example.


Either way, we are at a theoretical dead end if we see revolutionaries as the products of a purely individual dynamic.

Maybe I was unclear in my previous post. I don't think it is purely an individual dynamic. Obviously we are living in a period that is more favourable to communist politics when compared with the 1990s for example. In that sense it is fair in my mind to say the present moment is characterised by fluidity that is open to the possibility that people will enter the communist movement. My main point I stand by though that in a formal sense communist organisations by and large today are not direct products of the class struggle, to which they grow or decline on its intensity or lack there of. But rather the expansion to a significant extent today is due to voluntarism on the part of the groups and theoretical reflection by individuals.

Spikymike (a libcom.org user who Alf knows I think) has long argued with me that the current groups in order to retain their existence past the period of class struggles that produced them, undergo various adaptations to that process of retreat in the class struggle, psychological being one of them. I have been resistant to such an explantation because of its substitution of politics for psychology. But when you read such gong-ho statements such as the one in the OP and more particularly the one announcing the sections in Turkey and the Philipines. I think it is hard to deny that argument seems at least to have validity. In that Leo has tacitly admitted that a large part of impetus behind the tone and rhetoric of the statement is as much about a moral boast as anything. This is not really a critique per se although the statement published is not how I'd approach such developments. Moderation and more restraint is in order in my opinion when you consider exactly how isolated revolutionary groups are today from the working-class.

[Alf]

My main point I stand by though that in a formal sense communist organisations by and large today are not direct products of the class struggle,

I agree with this. Communist groups are not simple products of the immediate struggle. But they are products of the historic movement of the class, which also encompasses the immediate movement. I understand this to be a central argument of the ICT's new pamphlet on class consciousness.

Regarding splits, my statement was intended to be general to avoid getting bogged down in analysing particular groupings and what they express. Crises in revolutionary organisations, whether present or past, always express the weight of the dominant ideology and the necessity to struggle against its manifestations. Majorities or minorities can take on a negative trajectory, and this can happen in both periods of advance or retreat for the class struggle as a whole. That may be a banal starting point, but it's better not to assume it's shared by all of us.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Congrats, always nice to see leftist groups expand. :thumbup1:

[Devrim]

You are right that the tone is, of course, a bit too excited, but one has to give the comrades some slack - we don't integrate new sections everyday and I think the comrades get to be a little too hyperbolic when it happens.

Of course it is normal for people in the ICC to be pleased about this. It is more than getting a little excited though. The ICC does hold a conception that there is a direct connection between movements in the class and the strength of political organisations.

You expressed it like this:


Certainly something is happening, there is a difference between three people joining and three people not joining. This does not mean something immense is happening in any way.

Now I think there is a connection too, but I also think that the numbers that you are talking about here are statistically irrelevant, to pretend otherwise seems more than a little absurd.

Devrim

[Devrim]

afaik of individuals leaving the ICC such as the most recent split of those who formed Controverses, you don't get statements saying how this shows some dynamic inside the class) and imply that we have some connection with working-class existence today as a result of it.

Perhaps a better example would be the number of 'sections' listed on the front page of the ICC's website that even don't meet the ICC's own definition of a section anymore.

Devrim

[Leo]

to take an example in the opposite direction of an equally small number afaik of individuals leaving the ICC such as the most recent split of those who formed Controverses, you don't get statements saying how this shows some dynamic inside the class

Naturally. First of all, the ICC is an organization, and while joining the ICC is not the only option for a revolutionary and sometimes departures of comrades might be a necessary, even a positive development; we do want to grow stronger, not weaker and I don't think we can be expected to evaluate splits the same way we evaluate integrations.

I don't think any organization can be expected to rejoice at splits. What we must do is to accept them as results of certain weaknesses of our organization in order to manage to draw the lessons objectively. Blaming those who split, regardless of how much of the blame they share and I don't think it can be said that one side is ever entirely without a blame and another entirely guilty, is counter-productive for this process.

We are not bourgeois states to have official histories, full of glorious examples of how right we were at every turn. Yet I see tendencies to go down this road not only in basically every organization and group of the communist left since World War 2 but in a significant number of the individuals involved as well.

Unfortunately I can't claim that my own organization has, in any way, been an exception. Nor do I hide my disagreements with the theses on parasitism and indeed I think it is a serious obstacle for this process. Nevertheless, there has been certain efforts, even towards certain people who were labeled as "parasites" in the past which enables me to be more optimistic than pessimistic for the future.


For instance over the last four decades since the emergence of the ICC there has been a steady pattern of splits, whereas in the groups that compose the ICT, mainly CWO in UK and BC in Italy, there has not been the same pattern.I'm not sure whether it is more a case of the ICC giving more publicity to its splits by making endless polemic about the groups which split from it. The Communist Bulletin Group, the only split from the ICC which continued as a group, is actually a CWO split as well, having left the CWO as a block into the ICC. As far as I know of they didn't stay very long in either of the two organizations. Other than that, the ones I can think of are the Los Angeles Workers' Voice in the US and Internationalist Communists - Klasbatalo in Canada, the recent Instituto Onorato Damen in Italy, the exiled Iranian group Peyke Anternasyonalisti, Kamunist Kranti in India. There might be others I'm not aware of, and the number of ICC splits might be higher but basically when you have organizations going on for forty years run by people who were initially not at all experienced with very few older militants around (none of whom are perfect, of course) lots of splits are bound to happen.


In that Leo has tacitly admitted that a large part of impetus behind the tone and rhetoric of the statement is as much about a moral boast as anything.

Actually, what I said was about what the comrade(s) themselves who wrote the text were feeling.


Now I think there is a connection too, but I also think that the numbers that you are talking about here are statistically irrelevant, to pretend otherwise seems more than a little absurd.

Since there are billions of working people in the world, even thousands wouldn't be statistically relevant. I don't think we claimed it was.

This is evidently politically relevant for us since there will be an organized presence of the ICC in two countries where there wasn't before, defending our positions. Since we are convinced that we defend proletarian positions it is natural that we see some, but evidently not immense political relevance here.

It is true that these new sections of the ICC, like the rest of our sections, aren't particularly large. Nor is it a secret that we are a very tiny organization. So if we are to speak of statistics, we can say that this has, again, some but certainly not immense proportional relevance for us.

[Android]

Naturally. First of all, the ICC is an organization, and while joining the ICC is not the only option for a revolutionary and sometimes departures of comrades might be a necessary, even a positive development; we do want to grow stronger, not weaker and I don't think we can be expected to evaluate splits the same way we evaluate integrations.

I don't think any organization can be expected to rejoice at splits. What we must do is to accept them as results of certain weaknesses of our organization in order to manage to draw the lessons objectively. Blaming those who split, regardless of how much of the blame they share and I don't think it can be said that one side is ever entirely without a blame and another entirely guilty, is counter-productive for this process.

Who suggested an organisation should rejoice in splits?

My point in raising an example contrary to the narrative in the OP is my opposition to the statement and posts by you and Alf that there is direct connection between the working-class and the expansion of the ICC with an extra two men and his dog here and there. Surely if you are going to be consistent in the claim that such an expansion is a product of the class that examples in the opposite direction should be evaluated and accounted for in a similar vein.


Unfortunately I can't claim that my own organization has, in any way, been an exception. Nor do I hide my disagreements with the theses on parasitism and indeed I think it is a serious obstacle for this process. Nevertheless, there has been certain efforts, even towards certain people who were labeled as "parasites" in the past which enables me to be more optimistic than pessimistic for the future.

This apparent change in attitude toward other communist organisations and individuals who the ICC previously attacked in a vindictive fashion is welcome. The problem with it is that it is usually part of a zero sum equation where the ICC say, sure we may not have conducted ourselves properly in the best on occasion and possibly we got carried away with certain theories we invented and even applied them incorrectly. But responsiblty for this lies as much with the other party as with us. .

I think people have a hard time swallowing this, when the sheer quantity of attacks and their vitriolic nature is considered. To the point where essentially a substantial part of the communist movement in Western Europe just wanted nothing to do with the iCC in any shape or form. Which was not an unreasonably response taken in the context of what people experienced.

Obviously I never encountered this as I was not born when most of it occurred but I challenge anyone to look at the communist movement in the Western Europe today and say that the principal reason for mistrust and suspicious that is prevalent is not due to the behaviour of the ICC in the period from its formation up to very recently. Sure, other groups and individuals may have acted improperly on occasion but it is of a whole different magnitude in my opinion.

Until there is a realisation and acknowledgement of the role, this destructive past has had and the way in which it shapes the way in which comrades relate to each other today. Any process to address this past will be a non-starter in my opinion if it doesn't grasp this.

Leo as far as your list of groups who split from the ICT goes:


Communist Bulletin Group

This is probably the most significant of the splits in my opinion. I don't think this split reflects poorly on the CWO from what I have read about it and heard when I asked. The split was articulated by the comrades who left as necessary because they saw the ICC as the communist movement at the time and as far I am aware were not prepared to discuss this perspective with the rest of the group but decided to leave abruptly. Quite an absurd way to conduct yourself in my opinion.


the recent Instituto Onorato Damen in Italy

This split was essentially about the failure of one long-standing member to accept the decision arrived at by the organisation as a whole. BC arranged for a national meeting over two days to discuss the concerns. The comrade in question was asked to write a text explaining his concerns, he failed to do so. it was then requested that the meeting be held nearer geographically to make it easier for people in his local section to travel to, which was agreed too, then he never attended the gathering to discuss his concerns. Not much that could be done to avoid the split in this instance if comrades are intend on splitting even the best internal group culture will not suffice on occasion.


Internationalist Communists - Klasbatalo in Canada [...] exiled Iranian group Peyke Anternasyonalisti

I don't think either of these two groups were part of the IBRP or the ICT at any stage. I thought the Iranian exile group the IBRP held discussions with was the SUCM in the late 1980s but discussions could have been held with the group you listed, I just am not aware of it.


Kamunist Kranti in India

I know from reading IBRP publications published in the 1980s that there was briefly an Indian affiliate, I am not sure at all if it was KK. I don't think it was since I think they emerged later, could be wrong though. As far as I know KK discussed over a period of a good few years with the CWO moving very close at one point and then moving rapidly away from the politics of the IBRP. Hence, a break in relations occurred in the late or mid 1990s.


Los Angeles Workers'

If I recall correctly they produced Internationalist Notes as a joint publication with the IWG and made moves to formalise the relationship further. Shortly after which they was a movement from LAWV toward a more localist and activist orientation, influenced by councilism. In which case relations were severed with the iBRP. During which the ICC section in the USA, launched into a string of attacks on LAWV for parasitism. Whilst the ICT still maintains good relations with this grouping and the CWO has published material in Revolutionary Perspectives by them on their involvement in workers struggles.

To summarise:

- 2 groups (CIM-ICM in Canada and PA and SUCM, Iranian exiles) were never part of the IBRP/ICT to the best of my knowledge.

- 1 group (KK in India) discussed with CWO over the course of an extended time period in which the group evolved away from the politics of the CWO. The relationship didn't progress to point of a formal affiliation at any point as far as I remember.

- 1 group (LAWV) evolved away from the politics and approach of the ICT but a fraternal relationship was maintained.

- 2 groups (CBG and ODI) were clear splits, one refused to accept the decision of the organisation as a whole and the other split was due to a group of CWO members leaving in controversial circumstances because they came to the view that the ICC was the communist movement and they were not prepared to discuss it with the rest of the CWO.

The reason I have briefly went into the minutiae of the details of these supposed splits is that they are not comparable to the pattern of ICC internal crises that occur periodic on a consistent basis. It is apples and oranges.

[Искра]

I wouldn't call creation of Instituto Onorato Damen a split. When you have a split you have some kind of differences on political, theoretical, practical or whatever level that are so big that these two groups/fractions/tendencies can't remain under the same roof. From what I've heard about Instituto Onorato Damen case I'd rather called that "being kicked out from organisation" then a split.

[garymeyer]

Well come all new comrades who join this forum now and we will very happy to see this

[Devrim]

This is evidently politically relevant for us since there will be an organized presence of the ICC in two countries where there wasn't before, defending our positions. Since we are convinced that we defend proletarian positions it is natural that we see some, but evidently not immense political relevance here.

It is true that these new sections of the ICC, like the rest of our sections, aren't particularly large. Nor is it a secret that we are a very tiny organization. So if we are to speak of statistics, we can say that this has, again, some but certainly not immense proportional relevance for us.

Yes of course it is relevant to you. What I was referring to though was statements such as this one:


The establishment of new ICC sections in the Philippines and Turkey is a clear indication of the resurgence of class struggle around the world and the increasing numbers of new elements searching for real revolutionary alternative against the decadent and dying capitalism.

Now I don't think that this is in anyway true. In fact I think when two minuscule groups joined a tiny group, it was an absolutely absurd statement to make.

The reason that the ICC now picks up tiny groups in countries where it previously had no members is in my opinion due to improved communications technology, and the fact that the ICC makes a conscious effort to do this, spends a lot of resources on it, and does it pretty well.


Since there are billions of working people in the world, even thousands wouldn't be statistically relevant. I don't think we claimed it was.

If there were to be an increase of this size in the ICC, I think that it would be statistically relevant. This isn't statistically irrelevant because the numbers involved are small when compared to the world population, but because they are so absolutely tiny that it is impossible to give them any statistical meaning.

If the ICC were to pick up thousands of people, I would think that it would be quite probable that it reflected some real movement in the class, though of course there could be other explanations. When we are talking about handfuls of people the idea that this reflects "resurgence of class struggle around the world and the increasing numbers of new elements searching for real revolutionary alternative" is pretty laughable. Get a sense of perspective.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The Communist Bulletin Group, the only split from the ICC which continued as a group, is actually a CWO split as well, having left the CWO as a block into the ICC.

Either I have misunderstood this, or you have expressed yourself badly because there have been plenty of splits from the ICC, which continued as political groups. In fact it seems to happen on a cyclical basis.


I don't think any organization can be expected to rejoice at splits. What we must do is to accept them as results of certain weaknesses of our organization in order to manage to draw the lessons objectively. Blaming those who split, regardless of how much of the blame they share and I don't think it can be said that one side is ever entirely without a blame and another entirely guilty, is counter-productive for this process.

But this is exactly what the ICC has done through its long history of splits. Not only has it 'blamed' people who split, but it has insulted them and slandered them, ranging from calling people 'parasites', 'police spies' and even, almost surrealy 'Freemasons'. Now it is natural to criticise the politics of those who split. If the split is political you naturally have a political difference with them. The ICC splits tend not to work like this though at all. It really does seem, from the ICC's point of view, that one side is guilty.


We are not bourgeois states to have official histories, full of glorious examples of how right we were at every turn.

I think this is exactly what the ICC has, and I am surprised to read that you think it doesn't.

Devrim

[China studen]

Congratulation

[Alf]

The claims made in the original article are fairly measured, a point obscured by the focus on how many people may or may not have joined the ICC. What is said is that (a) we are seeing a general revival of the international class struggle and an increasing questioning of capital across the world (b) this has given rise to a significant number of internationalists on a world scale, (which would include many would define themselves as anarchists or libertarian communists) (c) some of these elements have moved towards the communist left and (d) some of the latter have moved specifically towards the ICC. Obviously any of these statements can be disputed or other explanations given for the same phenomena (such as the 'technical' one about the internet).

[Leo]

Android,


This apparent change in attitude toward other communist organisations and individuals who the ICC previously attacked in a vindictive fashion is welcome. The problem with it is that it is usually part of a zero sum equation where the ICC say, sure we may not have conducted ourselves properly in the best on occasion and possibly we got carried away with certain theories we invented and even applied them incorrectly. But responsiblty for this lies as much with the other party as with us. . I don't think there is a need to try to calculate how much of the responsibility lies with whom. The responsibility for the problems of the communist left today lies with the ICC as well as everyone else, obviously. I don't think it would be fair to expect the ICC to rewrite its entire history so that it reads we were wrong in every turn. As for the ICC's application of certain theories etc. unless I missed something, I don't think they say something like "we applied wrongly but only because of them".


To the point where essentially a substantial part of the communist movement in Western Europe just wanted nothing to do with the iCC in any shape or form.A large part of the communist movement in Europe doesn't want anything to do with each other to be honest.


Obviously I never encountered this as I was not born when most of it occurred but I challenge anyone to look at the communist movement in the Western Europe today and say that the principal reason for mistrust and suspicious that is prevalent is not due to the behaviour of the ICC in the period from its formation up to very recently. Sure, other groups and individuals may have acted improperly on occasion but it is of a whole different magnitude in my opinion.This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Just as if someone in the ICC said something like surely we may have acted improperly on occasion but what they did was so horrible at all times it obviously wouldn't be in any way objective, it is likewise when the reverse is said about the ICC.

There are multiple sides to every story.


Leo as far as your list of groups who split from the ICT goes:

This is probably the most significant of the splits in my opinion. I don't think this split reflects poorly on the CWO from what I have read about it and heard when I asked. The split was articulated by the comrades who left as necessary because they saw the ICC as the communist movement at the time and as far I am aware were not prepared to discuss this perspective with the rest of the group but decided to leave abruptly. Quite an absurd way to conduct yourself in my opinion.

This split was essentially about the failure of one long-standing member to accept the decision arrived at by the organisation as a whole. BC arranged for a national meeting over two days to discuss the concerns. The comrade in question was asked to write a text explaining his concerns, he failed to do so. it was then requested that the meeting be held nearer geographically to make it easier for people in his local section to travel to, which was agreed too, then he never attended the gathering to discuss his concerns. Not much that could be done to avoid the split in this instance if comrades are intend on splitting even the best internal group culture will not suffice on occasion.

I don't think either of these two groups were part of the IBRP or the ICT at any stage. I thought the Iranian exile group the IBRP held discussions with was the SUCM in the late 1980s but discussions could have been held with the group you listed, I just am not aware of it.

I know from reading IBRP publications published in the 1980s that there was briefly an Indian affiliate, I am not sure at all if it was KK. I don't think it was since I think they emerged later, could be wrong though. As far as I know KK discussed over a period of a good few years with the CWO moving very close at one point and then moving rapidly away from the politics of the IBRP. Hence, a break in relations occurred in the late or mid 1990s.

If I recall correctly they produced Internationalist Notes as a joint publication with the IWG and made moves to formalise the relationship further. Shortly after which they was a movement from LAWV toward a more localist and activist orientation, influenced by councilism. In which case relations were severed with the iBRP. During which the ICC section in the USA, launched into a string of attacks on LAWV for parasitism. Whilst the ICT still maintains good relations with this grouping and the CWO has published material in Revolutionary Perspectives by them on their involvement in workers struggles.

To summarise:

- 2 groups (CIM-ICM in Canada and PA and SUCM, Iranian exiles) were never part of the IBRP/ICT to the best of my knowledge.

- 1 group (KK in India) discussed with CWO over the course of an extended time period in which the group evolved away from the politics of the CWO. The relationship didn't progress to point of a formal affiliation at any point as far as I remember.

- 1 group (LAWV) evolved away from the politics and approach of the ICT but a fraternal relationship was maintained.

- 2 groups (CBG and ODI) were clear splits, one refused to accept the decision of the organisation as a whole and the other split was due to a group of CWO members leaving in controversial circumstances because they came to the view that the ICC was the communist movement and they were not prepared to discuss it with the rest of the CWO.

The reason I have briefly went into the minutiae of the details of these supposed splits is that they are not comparable to the pattern of ICC internal crises that occur periodic on a consistent basis. It is apples and oranges.I'm sorry Android but all I'm reading here is a repetition of "we were right, we were right, we were right" and "it's all their fault, it's all their fault, it's all their fault". I am not really interested in discussing any of these.

A few facts though: although I don't know much about Instituto Onorato Damen, I know that they are telling a different story. The section in India was first Lal Pataka which then evolved into KK while still remaining a section for a while. I know that it was announced in the Internationalist Communist that Payke Anternasionalisti was going to join the IBRP, although I don't know the story. Unlike SCUM, which was a Stalinist organization, Payka was a left communist group. Some years ago, back in the days of the EKS, we wrote to them and got a response, which basically said they think all existing left communist organizations were euro-centrists and they were going to organize the future international by themselves and that we should join them. Regardless of how they are now, the relations of the ICT and the LAWV was quite bad at the time of the split.

Other than that I will simply say that I am actually capable of commenting on the splits from the ICC and arguing that we were right in every single one of them like you just did. I simply don't see that as the correct way to look at these things.

Devrim,


Now I don't think that this is in anyway true. In fact I think when two minuscule groups joined a tiny group, it was an absolutely absurd statement to make.It is a very exaggerated statement, certainly although not necessarily absurd. The resurgence of class struggle around the world, well certainly it helps, more people get politicized in general nowadays. If these things had no effect on even the increases or decreases in the numbers of organizations as small as the ICC, the communist left wouldn't have had such a hard time in the 90ies, would it? As for the increasing numbers of new elements, well yes they are increasing, not much but they nevertheless are, little by little. The glorious sort of tone is what makes it sound absurd, there is little extraordinary in the idea beneath it.

What would be absurd is if the ICC said class struggle is rising solely based on the fact that the ICC started to slowly grow. We know very well that the ICC started saying that the class struggle started rising again, slowly as it might be before new sections started joining it. On the initial idea, that the class struggle started rising again, the ICC was certainly proven right. Now here's the logical train of thought: if the class struggle is rising, there will be new elements looking for new alternatives. If there are new elements looking for new alternatives, some will discover the positions of the communist left and the ICC and some will even join. Fundamentally it is but an absolutely tiny reflection of the struggle for the organization, yet all organizations are bound to suffice with this in differing quantities outside periods of open insurrection.


The reason that the ICC now picks up tiny groups in countries where it previously had no members is in my opinion due to improved communications technology, and the fact that the ICC makes a conscious effort to do this, spends a lot of resources on it, and does it pretty well.Indeed, but who to do it with if there is no one open to it?


If there were to be an increase of this size in the ICC, I think that it would be statistically relevant. This isn't statistically irrelevant because the numbers involved are small when compared to the world population, but because they are so absolutely tiny that it is impossible to give them any statistical meaning.Actually, speaking of statistics academically, while the local sections can't be considered to have much statistical meaning in themselves, the international total is enough to be used as a sample.

In any case, as I said this is obviously politically and proportionally relevant.


Either I have misunderstood this, or you have expressed yourself badly because there have been plenty of splits from the ICC, which continued as political groups. In fact it seems to happen on a cyclical basis.I meant in the UK, obviously.



I don't think any organization can be expected to rejoice at splits. What we must do is to accept them as results of certain weaknesses of our organization in order to manage to draw the lessons objectively. Blaming those who split, regardless of how much of the blame they share and I don't think it can be said that one side is ever entirely without a blame and another entirely guilty, is counter-productive for this process. But this is exactly what the ICC has done through its long history of splits. Not only has it 'blamed' people who split, but it has insulted them and slandered them, ranging from calling people 'parasites', 'police spies' and even, almost surrealy 'Freemasons'. Now it is natural to criticise the politics of those who split. If the split is political you naturally have a political difference with them. The ICC splits tend not to work like this though at all. It really does seem, from the ICC's point of view, that one side is guilty.


We are not bourgeois states to have official histories, full of glorious examples of how right we were at every turn. I think this is exactly what the ICC has, and I am surprised to read that you think it doesn't.I have already commented on this and have nothing to add to what I've said, so I'm gonna repost:

...I see tendencies to go down this road not only in basically every organization and group of the communist left since World War 2 but in a significant number of the individuals involved as well.

Unfortunately I can't claim that my own organization has, in any way, been an exception. Nor do I hide my disagreements with the theses on parasitism and indeed I think it is a serious obstacle for this process. Nevertheless, there has been certain efforts, even towards certain people who were labeled as "parasites" in the past which enables me to be more optimistic than pessimistic for the future.

[Android]

I don't think there is a need to try to calculate how much of the responsibility lies with whom. The responsibility for the problems of the communist left today lies with the ICC as well as everyone else, obviously. I don't think it would be fair to expect the ICC to rewrite its entire history so that it reads we were wrong in every turn. As for the ICC's application of certain theories etc. unless I missed something, I don't think they say something like "we applied wrongly but only because of them".

No one is interested in rewriting history I hope.

Calculating blame has nothing to do with it. I think it is impossible to understand the state of affairs of the communist left today without understanding the particularly negative role the ICC has played. To the point where you instantly lose people's attention if you introduce yourself as being a member of the iCC and individuals and groups with broadly speaking communist politics feel the need to state 'we're not like them' etc or some variant of that kind of thing. Which is the product of a very particular history, political culture etc. There are signs that there is a recognition of this, which is welcome. But to try to reduce the history and people's experiences in the last few decades to a zero sum equation isn't credible for anyone who is not in the ICC, in my opinion.

If you want you can try and paint me as someone who is hostile or motivated by being a member of a different group. I don't really care. People who know me in real life, know that is not the case.

And I don't think I said "we applied wrongly but only because of them"? I just repeated a sentiment I have read Alf express on countless occasions on different internet forums.


I'm sorry Android but all I'm reading here is a repetition of "we were right, we were right, we were right" and "it's all their fault, it's all their fault, it's all their fault". I am not really interested in discussing any of these.

[...]

Other than that I will simply say that I am actually capable of commenting on the splits from the ICC and arguing that we were right in every single one of them like you just did. I simply don't see that as the correct way to look at these things.

That is your prerogative, fair enough. I am a relatively recent member of the CWO. In fact when I first go involved in internationalist and communist politics. My view on the divisions and the sorry state of the communist left was influenced by and was essentially the position of CBG/CBDG. Which Jock can confirm. In order to try and understand what happened to the communist left after 1968. I read literally all accounts I could find and talked to various people involved in the communist movement. I tried to keep my mini-descriptions as accurate as possible, hint at where i was working off memory and omitted information I was not sure about it. My point was not to show that the ICT and its affiliate organisations were right in all of those incidents but show how they were qualitative different from the periodic internal crises that ICC has went through. That being said even if there was no qualitative difference between the respective groups, your original response which is where this started, is not really an adequate response: 'if we are bad, you are just as bad'.

The implication that I am some sort of hack is funny because anyone who knows me knows my views on various topics are at odds or at least are not widely held within the CWO/ICT.

[Alf]

And I don't think I said "we applied wrongly but only because of them"? I just repeated a sentiment I have read Alf express on countless occasions on different internet forums.


Android - I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Can you elaborate?

[Android]

And I don't think I said "we applied wrongly but only because of them"? I just repeated a sentiment I have read Alf express on countless occasions on different internet forums.


Android - I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Can you elaborate

You have stated previously that various ICC theories may have been applied incorrectly in the past. Without discrediting the theories themselves. Or something to that effect.

[Alf]

I have certainly said that with regard to the concept of parasitism. Are you thinking of other examples as well?

[Android]

I have certainly said that with regard to the concept of parasitism. Are you thinking of other examples as well?

My impression was that it was not just about parasitism but the broad set of theories the ICC constructed. Of which, the theory of parasitism is just the most symbolic and well known.

It is possible you meant narrowly to refer to parasitism and not in the the broader sense I describe above.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Congratulations. Best wishes.

[Alf]

Thanks Stammer.
Reminded me that this is a good thing we are talking about here, something to celebrate; and as I argued above, the article clearly does not claim this achievement for ourselves alone.

Android: the discussion you are focusing on seems to be about the concept of parasitism in particular, or perhaps even more particularly, about the maladies, real or suspected, of the ICC. I'll think about that for a bit, but I will get back to you.

[Leo]

I think it is impossible to understand the state of affairs of the communist left today without understanding the particularly negative role the ICC has played.Or the particularly negative role the PCInt played, or the particularly negative role the Bordigists played, or the particularly negative role the council communists or the anti-organizational tendencies and the modernists and so on played.

Am I making myself clear?


To the point where you instantly lose people's attention if you introduce yourself as being a member of the iCC and individuals and groups with broadly speaking communist politics feel the need to state 'we're not like them' etc or some variant of that kind of thing. Which is the product of a very particular history, political culture etc. There are signs that there is a recognition of this, which is welcome. But to try to reduce the history and people's experiences in the last few decades to a zero sum equation isn't credible for anyone who is not in the ICC, in my opinion. As I said before, people have different versions of different stories, as well as different prejudices and so on. I don't deny that the ICC made lots of mistakes in its history, but to put the blame of others' prejudices about the ICC solely on the ICC and portraying all these people and groups as completely innocent is not convincing. Needless to say there are immense prejudices among the entire left spectrum towards the entire tradition of the communist left.


If you want you can try and paint me as someone who is hostile or motivated by being a member of a different group. I don't really care. People who know me in real life, know that is not the case. I would appreciate if you stop worrying about my supposed hidden motivations and respond to what I'm actually saying.


And I don't think I said "we applied wrongly but only because of them"? I just repeated a sentiment I have read Alf express on countless occasions on different internet forums. In any case, the point is that the ICC doesn't blame the people it called parasites in the past for having called them parasites.


That is your prerogative, fair enough. I am a relatively recent member of the CWO. In fact when I first go involved in internationalist and communist politics. My view on the divisions and the sorry state of the communist left was influenced by and was essentially the position of CBG/CBDG. Which Jock can confirm. In order to try and understand what happened to the communist left after 1968. I read literally all accounts I could find and talked to various people involved in the communist movement. I tried to keep my mini-descriptions as accurate as possible, hint at where i was working off memory and omitted information I was not sure about it.Which is all very good and I don't suspect any of what you say here.


My point was not to show that the ICT and its affiliate organisations were right in all of those incidentsAnd yet that was what you did.


but show how they were qualitative different from the periodic internal crises that ICC has went through.Again, by showing how the ICT was right in every one of its splits.


That being said even if there was no qualitative difference between the respective groups, your original response which is where this started, is not really an adequate response: 'if we are bad, you are just as bad'. Which is not what I'm saying either. What I'm saying is that both organizations had a lot of splits, and have issues and traumas. Partially different issues and different traumas, yet they are part of the same movement and thus their issues share the same basic characteristics.


The implication that I am some sort of hack is funny because anyone who knows me knows my views on various topics are at odds or at least are not widely held within the CWO/ICT. I am not implying that you are some sort of a hack. I have no doubt about your intentions or sincerity. The point is that you are stating the obvious, or in other words not really saying anything.

You think the ICT and its member organizations were correct in every split they had, and that politically, theoretically and organizationally the ICT is a superior and more healthy organization than the ICC. Obviously you do. If you had thought that one of the splits of the ICT were more correct that the ICT itself, you wouldn't be in the ICT. If you had thought that the ICT was not superior to the ICC and wasn't healthier than the ICC, you'd be in the ICC or, at least not in the ICT. You being a member of the ICT by itself means that you think its been the more correct side in every one of the splits, and that you see it as the overall best option available.

I have no doubt that you've made all the research possible before reaching that conclusion. I did the same. Again, since I am a member of the ICC, this necessarily means that I think the ICC has been, both politically and behaviorally, more correct than every one of its splits and also that I think the ICC is, politically, theoretically and organizationally, superior to the ICT and all the other organizations around, that it is the best option. This also is given. This isn't about you and me personally, this is the case for at least anyone who joined an organization of the communist left.

Different inquiries can lead to different conclusions. Also, it is a matter of personality, style, temperament and personal history. In any case, the point is that we learn nothing and can't improve our respective organizations either if we keep repeating how we were right, and how our organizations are the healthiest and so on and we don't learn from presenting our opinions which are evident from the organizational choices we've made as objective facts: we learn from critical reevaluation, of the histories of our own organizations above all.

[Crux]

Perhaps a better example would be the number of 'sections' listed on the front page of the ICC's website that even don't meet the ICC's own definition of a section anymore.

Devrim
I know there is supposedly an extensive procedure to become a member of the ICC, but what does it take to be a section of the ICC? Oh, and congrats.

[Alf]

The process leading to the formation of a section is not that different from the process leading to the integration of individual comrades - an extensive discussion about the platform and statutes, ie our political positions, practice and method of organising. When there is group of comrades involved in the process, we try to encourage the development of a real collective life and activity prior to integration.

With regard to the quote you use - are you asking a question about numbers? The minimum number of comrades for a 'section' to exist is three. It's true that three of the ones listed on the ICC's front page don't currently meet that criterion. But I don't think anyone can seriously accuse the ICC of pretending to be a much bigger organisation than it is.