ICC's Theses on parasitism

Well, the theses on parasitism argue that this isn't an invention of the ICC, but was the term used by Marx and Engels to describe the activity of Bakunin's 'Alliance' as a secret organisation within the International.
Certainly we can't use the term as a catch-all insult and there have been occasions when we have misapplied it or overused it, but I would still stand by the basic concept.
It's not a personal insult but a description of a certain kind of political behaviour. The IFICC certainly is not the first or only group to embody it.
Left wing of capital: obviously it needs explanation but I think it is exactly right to describe the Stalinists, Trotskyists etc.
I don't doubt that we have much to learn about 'popularising' our ideas but that doesn't mean that the ideas themselves are wrong.

hi dude. Was wondering if you could give your opinion to a topic I raised in the left communist group.... thanks

I'd like to know what a group has to do to be considered parasitic of the proletarian milieu (i really hate that phrase btw)?

Yes, me too. I think that a lot of the terminology that we use is absolutely awful.

I don't doubt that we have much to learn about 'popularising' our ideas but that doesn't mean that the ideas themselves are wrong.

I don't think that anyone in the ICC is really aware of the extent of the problem. It is really really bad. It is no point having the best ideas in the world if you can't communicate them to people.

Also wondering what the comrades from the ICC think about the use of the word parasite to describe these sorts of groups/individuals.

I think that it is awful. Again this doesn't address the concept, but the language that it has been expressed in, and the way that it has been used

Certainly we can't use the term as a catch-all insult and there have been occasions when we have misapplied it or overused it,

So we have used it as a 'catch-most insult' then?

Well, the theses on parasitism argue that this isn't an invention of the ICC, but was the term used by Marx and Engels to describe the activity of Bakunin's 'Alliance' as a secret organisation within the International.

I think that Marx used it once (or possibly twice). The behaviour that he was using it to describe was in no way like the behaviour that the ICC uses it to describe.

I don't think that it is a useful concept at all and I think that for us to move forward it is essential that we drop it.

Devrim

Resigned recently?

No, originally I was going to write anyone else, but I thought it sounded too self important. I am not sure about other languages, such as French and Spanish etc, as I am not very linguistically talented, but Marmot says the Spanish sounds stilted. The Turkish paper is pretty good. Also not the last leaflet we did, but the one before in January we had people coming up to us and telling us it was the best political leaflet that they had ever read.

I think when I raise it in the ICC people pay it lip-service to the idea that we need to write better and then forget about it.

Please clarify what you mean by "moving forward". Do you mean moving forward as in creating a more cordial atmosphere between the ICC and other internationalist groups?

I think that that is a part of it, yes, but there is also more to it like that. It is not only other groups which the 'Theory on Parasitism' has damaged relationships with, but many others too. If we aim to establish the ICC as an 'internationalist point of reference'*, it needs to go. Not just because it is wrong, though I believe that it is, but because it is positively harmful to us.

*Not my phrase

"For Mr. Bakunin the theory (the assembled rubbish he has scraped together from Proudhon, St. Simon, etc.) is a secondary affair – merely a means to his personal self-assertion. If he is a nonentity as a theoretician he is in his element as an intriguer".
This is from a letter from Marx to Bolte in April 1871. The substance of the letter is the fight against what Marx calls 'sects' within the International, the most dangerous of all being the sect organised by Bakunin. These are groupings which, while existing 'inside' the workers movement, have become an increasingly destructive element within it, and often become the stamping ground for intriguers and adventurists. Whether or not the term 'parasitic' is used to describe such groupings, they were an unfortunate reality in Marx's day and have also been in the period since 1968. More insidious still are the attitudes which such groups embody, because they are far more widespread than the groups themselves, in particular, hostility and suspicion towards communist organisations and militant activity, behaviour dominated by revenge and spite, and so on. The ICC is the only group in the proletarian milieu which has seriously raised the problem of this kind of non-proletarian behaviour as a political question. It has not always done so in the most adept way; but dealing with sensitive subjects which others would rather ignore was never going to be an easy route to popularity.
Devrim's criticisms seem to me to be entirely superficial. He is fixated on the term and not the content. If he disagrees with the content, he should mount a weightier theoretical case about it.

I think that that is a part of it, yes, but there is also more to it like that. It is not only other groups which the 'Theory on Parasitism' has damaged relationships with, but many others too.

I think this is a big exaggeration to say the least. The only groups which a theory such as this could damage relations with are groups that split from the ICC. I don't think it has anything to do with the problems that emerged the ICC and other left communist organizations, nor can I imagine it damaging the relationships with many others. I think it is as far as possible from being a significant part of what the ICC says. A militant of the IBRP whom I was talking to, although not naming it as parasitism, was quite annoyed at the concept of groups splitting from certain organizations (be them the ICC or the IBRP) and then spending all their time obsessively attacking those organizations. I would imagine anyone involved in these organizations would be. This is a minor, but a nevertheless real problem and it has to be expressed in one way or the other. Saying that this concept is responsible for everything is basically making a scape-goat out of it.

Does this mean it is in anyway helpful to go on calling people parasites? No it doesn't, as understandable as it is, why militants traumatized about splits made such mistakes. It is absolutely certain that going on about parasitism does not make us attractive. True, it doesn't put off the most clear elements either, nor prevent such people from being militants even, but I do agree that it is not good as a general image thing, and is not a political principle which we have to go on about either. Calling people parasites, obviously, is not a political principle. On the other hand, perhaps the reputation of the ICC with regards to the concept of parasitism prevents some comrades from realizing that the organization is not really going on about parasitism anymore. The only time I have seen comrades from the organization talk about the concept ever since I became involved in left commie stuff was when they were explaining how the concept was developed, and what the point was, under which circumstances the concept arose and so forth. It is not as if the ICC people are going on calling people parasites. I think the importance of this subject is largely being exaggerated.

The general matter of style while writing and terminology is in my opinion a much more important point than the point about parasitism specifically. The responsibility on this point, on the other hand, is more on the shoulders of us newbies than of the older comrades who have been doing things in a certain way since forever. We can't expect people to be able to change everything about how they have written in the past thirty years simply because we say the style is awful - we have to contribute to changing it, we have to take an active part in improving things. This is not to say the older comrades don't have a great lot to give to the newbies in regards to press and publications either.

For example, Devrim writes that the Turkish paper is pretty good. I agree with him; if the paper comes out on time, or comes out at all that is.

World Revolution, on the other hand, always comes out, and almost always comes out on time.

It is not as if the ICC people are going on calling people parasites.

The last time I heard somebody in the ICC use it was about a month ago.

I think this is a big exaggeration to say the least. The only groups which a theory such as this could damage relations with are groups that split from the ICC. I don't think it has anything to do with the problems that emerged the ICC and other left communist organizations, nor can I imagine it damaging the relationships with many others.

I disagree. I think that it damages relationships with everybody. Let's remember it wasn't just groups that split from the ICC who were called Parasites. Groups as diverse as the AF were.

A militant of the IBRP whom I was talking to, although not naming it as parasitism, was quite annoyed at the concept of groups splitting from certain organizations (be them the ICC or the IBRP) and then spending all their time obsessively attacking those organizations.

This happens and to a certain extent I think that it is normal. If you have spent a long time in an organisation, and then split, it is only natural that for a time your focus will be around that split. Groups then develop and move on like, for example, Internationalist Perspectives. It is a bit like getting divorced really. This doesn't need a 'political theory' to explain it.

Saying that this concept is responsible for everything is basically making a scape-goat out of it.

I don't say it is responsible for everything. I think in the long term if we aim to move forward it has to go though.

Devrim

I disagree. I think that it damages relationships with everybody. Let's remember it wasn't just groups that split from the ICC who were called Parasites. Groups as diverse as the AF were.

Lets be fair, we can say there has been a few exceptions, but it has been overwhelming used only for the groups who split from the ICC. We both know that other terms were used for the AF rather than parasitism.

This happens and to a certain extent I think that it is normal. If you have spent a long time in an organisation, and then split, it is only natural that for a time your focus will be around that split. Groups then develop and move on like, for example, Internationalist Perspectives. It is a bit like getting divorced really.

Well, there are several examples which are much less mild than that of the IP, qualitatively different even.

This doesn't need a 'political theory' to explain it.

Splits and behavior in regards to splits is a political matter, and it is quite normal to have a political analysis on the nature of splits, how splits should take place if they have to, according to what splits are characterized.

I don't say it is responsible for everything.

Well no, but almost

Lets be fair, we can say there has been a few exceptions, but it has been overwhelming used only for the groups who split from the ICC.

This is a contradiction in terms. It may have been mostly used for groups that split from the ICC, but I would say that has more to do with the number of splits from the ICC than anything else. It was used as another example against the English councilist group 'Wildcat', which didn't come from the ICC. I am sure that I could find many more, but our website appears to be down.

We both know that other terms were used for the AF rather than parasitism.

The fact that the AF has also been abused with other names makes it none the better.

Well, there are several examples which are much less mild than that of the IP, qualitatively different even.

The worst one to me, and indeed the only one that really stands out is IFICC. Though if you look at their website they seem to be finally making the break. There doesn't seem to be that much about the ICC in English on their front page. IFICC split after the 'Thesis on Parasitism' though.

Well no, but almost

No, I think we have a whole host of problems that need to be dealt with. It is just that this one has been raised recently, not by me, but by people outside the organisation.

Devrim

Speaking as a "newer" member of the ICC, I have some points to make on these issues. I should also state that the views I state below are my personal ones, rather than any considered statement of the ICC! But as other ICC members are already expressing disagreement on this thread, perhaps this already obvious!

Our failures (and there are many) in expressing our ideas are, in my opinion largely due to our isolation. I wasn't in the ICC at the time, but during the 90s the organisation turned in on itself to some extent due to the pressure of the times. This led to a tendency for our language to become more wooden because we were mainly debating with ourselves (or occasionally) with the CWO. This has generated a lot of bad habits where we unconsciously assume that our readers will know what we mean by certain terms, simply because that's how we debate amongst ourselves. With no or little criticism from contacts, it's been difficult to know how to change.

The recent reappearance of minorities interested in our positions has forced us to confront this to a certain extent. But it's not easy and there are many lessons we still need to assimilate.

As for parasitism (and, to a lesser extent, other ICCisms like "proletarian political milieu"), the critiques raised against it here seem mainly to object to the name. I haven't seen any serious attempt to actually dispute that the type of behaviour that "parasitism" attempts to describe actually exists.

If comrades* can come up with better terms to describe the political behaviours that we label as "parasitism" (and our other ICCisms) then that's great.

I don't think that it is a useful concept at all and I think that for us to move forward it is essential that we drop it.

Several years ago, the phenomenon that gave rise to this concept nearly destroyed the organisation. If we are rejecting the concept (as opposed to the term) then it's incumbent on us to develop a new analysis to explain what happened to the organisation during this (and other) periods of crisis. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially not if leads us to a better understanding, but it requires a far more serious effort than the term "dropping it" implies.

I think when I raise it in the ICC people pay it lip-service to the idea that we need to write better and then forget about it.

I'm sure you'll be encouraged to know that it has been raised a number of times in the meetings I attend (and not just by me). Speaking for myself, I'm trying to be less "assuming" in the articles I write, but I still find myself slipping back into "ICC-speak". So it's much easier said than done.

I think there is a real problem in conflating issues here as well. Just to take one example, if we start blabbering on about the "law of value" in a strike leaflet we've got a real problem. This doesn't mean the "law of value" is a meaningless phrase, but rather that we have to consider the likely audience when we write our stuff.

*I remember when I first heard ICC people use the term "comrade" and I have to say it made me give an internal sneer and think "god, this is like some bad movie". Luckily for all concerned, I was able to see beyond that initial reaction.

Jargon is symptomatic of lazy writing, which attitude is itself symptomatic of, essentially, not having to think, which condition is finally sympomatic of the isolation you talk about in this paragraph.

I think this is too harsh. It implies the ICC did no thinking at all in the 90s and I don't think this is the case. I'm not sure if this is actually what you meant, though.

As far as jargon itself is concerned, it evolves precisely because there's a linguistic need to refer quickly to technical concepts that the particular group is discussing. If you examine the technical discourse of practically every endeavour known to man, you find it for this very reason. Of course, the use of jargon presupposes familiarity with those terms and their application outside of that arena can serve to obfuscate rather than illuminate.

For example, an academic paper on zero-point-energy is going to contain terms that a pupil studying high-school science is highly unlikely to understand. That doesn't make it lazy thinking, in itself - it just means you don't present graduate work to high school students or at least in that format!

That isn't the case: there exists that whole decade of experience, weighing on current members, that must be fought actively and not simply dismissed.

Entirely agree, and we are making efforts at doing this. I don't think the issue is so much a problem for the Congresses or our internal discussions ( some of these discussions confront theoretical issues where jargon can't be just wished away in any case) but it is certainly a problem for our public output. But even here, we need to think carefully about our target audiences. For example, I think it is appropriate to talk, for example, about the "course of history" in the International Review; not so much in World Revolution; and definitely not in a mass leaflet.

I think one of our underlying problems is that we don't fully appreciate how divorced the mass of the class is from Marxist (let alone ICC terminology). Even terms we all use commonly like "proletariat" or "bourgeoisie" will seem like jargon to many. I remember once having a discussion with an American academic friend and talking about the bourgeoisie - half an hour later I realised that he thought I was talking about the middle class

This led to a tendency for our language to become more wooden because we were mainly debating with ourselves (or occasionally) with the CWO. This has generated a lot of bad habits where we unconsciously assume that our readers will know what we mean by certain terms, simply because that's how we debate amongst ourselves. With no or little criticism from contacts, it's been difficult to know how to change.

I think that this is true, but the first step towards changing is realsing there is a problem and taking it seriously.

As for parasitism (and, to a lesser extent, other ICCisms like "proletarian political milieu"), the critiques raised against it here seem mainly to object to the name. I haven't seen any serious attempt to actually dispute that the type of behaviour that "parasitism" attempts to describe actually exists.

The name is awful. I think that the concept is pretty terrible too. It is difficult in some ways to know where to start on addressing the issue as it would involve treating the whole concept of 'parasitism' as serious political idea.

Several years ago, the phenomenon that gave rise to this concept nearly destroyed the organisation. If we are rejecting the concept (as opposed to the term) then it's incumbent on us to develop a new analysis to explain what happened to the organisation during this (and other) periods of crisis. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially not if leads us to a better understanding, but it requires a far more serious effort than the term "dropping it" implies.

The first thing that strikes me about the ICC's attempts to analyse what went on in the organisation is that they come out as an attempt to justify the line of the ICC. Yes, we hear that 'mistakes were made', but it rarely says what they were. When I read that piece written by 'Jock' about the formation of the CWO and ICC etc, I found it a lot more credible, simply because reading it I got the idea of real people making mistakes and having personality clashes whereas reading ICC pieces on the same subject I don't really get an idea of what was going on at all.

Yes, it would be good to have a better understanding, but I think that admitting that you don't understand is the first step to wisdom, and it would be far better to 'drop' it that to go on with what we have now.

I'm sure you'll be encouraged to know that it has been raised a number of times in the meetings I attend (and not just by me). Speaking for myself, I'm trying to be less "assuming" in the articles I write, but I still find myself slipping back into "ICC-speak". So it's much easier said than done.

But it does mean making an effort. Whenever I have raised it, I feel it has been treated as a joke.

Devrim

This is, of course, ignoring the impact of the spoken word, "large" meetings or discussions on the language one uses, but there is of course a relationship between the language one uses in print and the language one speaks, and that relationship goes both ways.

I think this is an important point.

Devrim

Devrim wrote:
"The name is awful. I think that the concept is pretty terrible too. It is difficult in some ways to know where to start on addressing the issue as it would involve treating the whole concept of 'parasitism' as serious political idea".

As yet, you haven't said what the concept is, so it's difficult to see how the discussion can get anywhere. Earlier on myself and Samyasa tried to get past the fixation on the name to the actual problem, which is one of behaviour in and/or towards the revolutionary movement that is fundamentally destructive. We don't have to talk about the history of the ICC at all to recognise that elements in the 'proletarian camp' can fall into forms of behaviour that are destructive, such as systematic denigration, lying, even theft and actions that expose revolutonaries to police repression. This is why, for example, we went back to the conflict between the marxists and Bakunin in the First International. It's perfectly true that the term 'parasitic' is only used once or twice during that period, but Marx and Engels certainly devoted a great deal of energy towards combatting the destructive activities of Bakunin's secret alliance. You may disagree with their approach but at least discussing the problem would advance the discussion.

I think that this is true, but the first step towards changing is realsing there is a problem and taking it seriously.

I think this is where we differ. I think it is being taken seriously at least by the cdes I have the most contact with. This doesn't necessarily mean that change will happen overnight as Zimmerwald's points out very well.

Yes, it would be good to have a better understanding, but I think that admitting that you don't understand is the first step to wisdom, and it would be far better to 'drop' it that to go on with what we have now.

Except that I think the conceptual framework explains much of what happened more than adequately. This isn't simply because of what I saw in the ICC at various points (I wasn't in the organisation for any of those crises) but because I saw much of my own weaknesses in the behaviour that it described. So I found the Theses a great help in breaking with certain issues I had inherited from my past.

Does it mean this framework is perfect? No. And, certainly, there have been times when we've over-used it - like a child with a new toy, there's been a tendency to play with it to the exclusion of others. This is a symptom of the immaturity of the concept (no-one claims the theory is "finished" and if they are, they're simply wrong IMHO) and of the organisation as a whole, in my opinion.

Of course, I could be wrong about the whole thing. But, if we have any pretentions to science, we have to behave in a responsible way. If we're going to abandon a previous theory, we need to have a new one that can explain everything the old one did. I think this is a larger question about scientific method which would take to long to elaborate here, but we should remember that scientists only drop previous theories once they've been "tested to destruction" and advance new and better ones.

On a more general level, we also need to be more aware of the difficulties that confront each of us in militant life. Not everyone has the gift of good writing and/or speaking any more than all of us can be experts on economics or any other particular field of militancy. I'm sure I've made a few comrades cringe with the nonsense I've spouted in meetings! But we all do the best we can with the limited talents and resources that we have. This doesn't mean we should be complacent - far from it - but it means we have to approach the question with empathy and patience.

Of course, I could be wrong about the whole thing. But, if we have any pretentions to science, we have to behave in a responsible way. If we're going to abandon a previous theory, we need to have a new one that can explain everything the old one did. I think this is a larger question about scientific method which would take to long to elaborate here, but we should remember that scientists only drop previous theories once they've been "tested to destruction" and advance new and better ones.

I don't have pretensions to science. I think that the idea of Marxism as a 'science' is a result of 19th century positivism and progressivism.

I don't think that your analogy with science works anyway. If a theory was clearly shown to be wrong, of course , the scientific method would be to reject it even if there was no convincing correct explanation, and certainly not to hold onto a theory that had been proven to be wrong.

The fact that this rarely happens in science is because the theories are arrived at by a scientific method in the first place though.

On a more general level, we also need to be more aware of the difficulties that confront each of us in militant life. Not everyone has the gift of good writing and/or speaking any more than all of us can be experts on economics or any other particular field of militancy. I'm sure I've made a few comrades cringe with the nonsense I've spouted in meetings! But we all do the best we can with the limited talents and resources that we have. This doesn't mean we should be complacent - far from it - but it means we have to approach the question with empathy and patience.

This is completely mixing up the points. Of course, some people are not good at some things, and do not speak or write as well as others. I am not at all referring to this. I am talking about how the life of the organisation actually makes people worse at it by instilling them with bizarre terms, which have no meaning in normal English.

Devrim

As yet, you haven't said what the concept is,

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/94_parasitism

Devrim

I don't think that splits in a proletarian organisation based on an organisation within the organisation can be likened to a divorce or marriage break-up. There are lessons of organisation here that are important for the working class and these the ICC tried to draw out with its analysis of parasitism. I think that the validity of this analysis is demonstrated in the fact that ten, twenty, thirty years after, there are still some individuals going on about their split from the ICC as if it were yesterday and with all the accompanying spite and bitterness - these seem expressions of parasitism to me. If I heard a partner going on about their ex-partner in such a manner and over such a time-scale, I would think they were nuts. For me, as an ICC member at the time, and as a sympathiser now, the analysis of parasitism is a defence and strengthening of working class organisation. The example of Bakunin and the International is particularly relevant here.

Over the last fifty years working sometimes in the public sector but mostly in mainstream industry, in various jobs, various parts of the country and meeting many workers, it is only in the last couple of years that I have heard workers use the word "capitalism". Generally speaking, workers (not the representatives of the left wing of capital) would find this term incomprehensible and would certainly regard it with suspicion. I don't doubt that the concepts of revolutionaries must be improved in relation to their expression within the workers' struggle but there is also a responsibility on the working class as a whole, and its struggle, to embrace the political concepts of its past.

I think that the analysis of parasitism is a useful one for the defence of revolutionary organisation and that the example of Bakunin and the International fully backs this up. There cannot be an organisation active within a proletarian organisation and this is what the basis of parasitism is. It is destructive of revolutionary organisation.
This analysis of parasitism can't in any way be likened to that of a divorce say (though some splits in proletarian organisations possibly could). Ten, twenty, thirty years after splits, individuals who thought that they were bigger than the organisation are still spewing bile and bitterness as if the split were yesterday. If someone talked to me about their ex-partner like that after a split over such a time scale, I'd think that they were nuts.

I'm just coming up to fifty years of work, some public sector but mostly industry in several jobs all over the country. I have met many workers and it's only in the last couple of years that I've heard workers mention the word "capitalism" (apart from representatives of the left wing of capital). To use such a word in the main would have engendered incomprehension and suspicion. While revolutionaries must always improve their analysis and its expression in the class struggle, this is a reminder that there is also a responsibility on the working class to raise its game and embrace the concepts of its past.

I think that the validity of this analysis is demonstrated in the fact that ten, twenty, thirty years after, there are still some individuals going on about their split from the ICC as if it were yesterday and with all the accompanying spite and bitterness - these seem expressions of parasitism to me.

I have heard people in the ICC going on in the same way with the same bitterness.

If I heard a partner going on about their ex-partner in such a manner and over such a time-scale, I would think they were nuts.

Strangely enough, that is what many people outside the ICC think about it.

Devrim

I think we should focus (as communist-left) on the validity and correctness that there was really an experience in the past within the ICC organization on the question of "an organization within the organization" or a "split but no basic difference from the program". I myself is also a "new member" of the ICC and have no direct knowledge of what happened in the past. But in simply saying that the term parasitism is an "awful" term and "antagonize" many people outside the ICC without confirming what really happen in the past is for me ignoring analysis the actual experience of the ICC.
On this point, I'm interested to know if there was a minority within the ICC at that time who were against the term "parasites" and what were their basis. Can anyone share here the minority position if there's any?

I think we should focus (as communist-left) on the validity and correctness that there was really an experience in the past within the ICC organization on the question of "an organization within the organization" or a "split but no basic difference from the program".

How I have heard it refereed to before is "no difference in the Platform". Whilst we say that the platform is the basis of a political organisation, and that it is not justified to have a split whilst in agreement with the same platform that doesn't mean that others agree with our view.

I seem to remember for example that one of the splits called the 'Thesis on Decomposition' a "travesty of Marxism". I can see that if you saw that something was that bad, and that it deeply effected an organisations theory/activity, it could be a justified reason to make a split, whether the point was actually a part of the the platform or not.

Incidentally, if we go back to the historical example that is given and Marx's one use of the word, the Bakunin faction did not at all have the same platform. The 'Alliance' had its own 'platform'.

Devrim

[FONT=Verdana]I agree with the approach in Internaysionalista's first paragraph. In your second paragraphyou pose a question: "On this point, I'm interested to know if there was a minority within the ICC at that time who were against the term "parasites" and what were their basis. Can anyone share here the minority position if there's any?"[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]When we were in the process of adopting the Theses on Parasitism in the mid 1990s there were comrades who disagreed with the concept. Some of them left at the time of the problems round the ‘JJ’ clan and set up the ‘Circle de Paris’, which was (and still is) close to the Internationalist Perspective group (formerly the ‘External Fraction’ of the ICC).The EFICC was for us an example of a parasitic group, in that not only was it an unnecessary split but also one which, at that time, was devoting the bulk of its energy to attacking the ICC. We saw such groups as being determined by an essentially negative dynamic which took them out of the proletarian political milieu properly speaking. The comrades who disagreed, as I recall, tended to argue that these groups still defended proletarian positions and should therefore be considered part of the proletarian camp. In the view of the majority, this underestimated the whole problem of proletarian ‘behaviour’. For example, even before we had more fully developed the concept of parasitism, we argued that the elements who formed the Communist Bulletin Group, formed in Scotland after the crisis of the ICC in 1981 and the thefts carried out by the ‘Chenier tendency’, had put themselves outside the proletarian camp by threatening to call the police on the ICC following our efforts to recuperate the stolen material. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]However, a careful reading of the Theses on Parasitism does not mean condemning those caught up in parasitic attitudes to the outer darkness. Thus, for example, we reintegrated a comrade who had been directly involved in the thefts from the organisation - and he is still a member of the ICC; and the Theses make it quite clear that at least some of the elements of such groups can be ‘won back’ from their attitudes of hostility and negativity. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Thus when Leo notes that the ICC is not talking about the danger of parasitism so much as it did in the past, this is not simply because there were occasions when we overestimated this danger or misused the concept, even if this is true. It’s also because some of those who have been engaged in pretty relentless hostility to the ICC in the past are also being affected by the appearance of a new generation of people looking for communist positions and, for one reason or another, are also recognising that it is necessary to engage with the ICC in a different way. This seems to include the Internationalist Perspective group and even former members of the Communist Bulletin Group.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]This doesn’t mean that the whole concept of parasitism needs to be summarily dropped or that the dangers the term is seeking to identify have disappeared. But it does open up the possibility of a wider and more rational discussion of these dangers and the means of combating them. [/FONT]

The time has surely come for a rethink of the theory of "parasitisim". Mistakes have been made with it in the past, although it is refreshing that these mistakes are now being acknowledged.

I am not at all sure whether this thread has clarified the original questions posed by Zvezda. It would be useful if he could say whether or not this is the case.
In my opinion, the problem of parasitism is intimately linked to the spirit of vengeance, of the vendetta, and the danger it poses to the proletarian movement. A concrete example of this can be found on the libcom thread which originally began around the question 'why are some communists seen as being to the left of others?' - a very useful one to clarify - but was then pushed in a very different direction, towards a discussion about the significance of the the concept of parasitism, and above all the theory that all political organisations are essentially rackets. This of course is an equally vital question to clarify. I would be interested in any reflections about the libcom thread - and I feel that this might be be a better place to carry on the discussion than the thread on libcom, for the moment at least. .


http://libcom.org/forums/theory/why-...thers-06042010