Some problems with the ICC.

Hello. In hope of reviving the forum, I want to post some things that have been bothering me.

I haven't met ICC militants yet. I will do that next week though. I have never seen an ICC intervention so I am going to talk about some things that bother me about their publications and their interventions in forums.

I think the ICC needs to learn to communicate better. The problem with the ICC is that it has very little tact when communicating things. I don't mean by this that they arent respectful, but they use this really cheesy polemical language that drives people off. I don't think I am the only one that thinks this. This is a recurring criticism in libcom, for example.

Catchphrases like "decadence", "parasitism", "left wing of capital", "historical mission" and all other sorts of sweeping statements are not very diplomatic. I don't think this is a problem with the whole of the communist left. I think the people of EKS communicate the same type of ideas (particularly devrim) without sounding cheesy or arrogant. The key is using more common words and phrases. The IBRP is also a little better at this (although the IBRP is really petty in their sectarianism)

I don't think this is a problem with the whole of the communist left. I think the people of EKS communicate the same type of ideas (particularly devrim) without sounding cheesy or arrogant.

Well thanks for the kind words. I have asked someone from the ICC to respond to this. I think that we should let them explain their position first.

Devrim

Hi Marmot,

To take up some of your points. First, it's good that you've raised your concerns. At leat we can start responding to them.

I haven't met ICC militants yet. I will do that next week though. I have never seen an ICC intervention...

That's the first difficulty: our isolation from each other. This is a problem for the whole communist left, because we are so few and dispersed internationally. It's a terrible weight. This is why face-to-face contact is so important, and why we are making great efforts to combat this isolation:
- we participate in conferences and meetings held by other groups (e.g. South Korea 2006)
- we encourage and support the development of discussion groups and circles
- we invite sympathetic groups and individuals to our conferences and congresses (EKS from Turkey, OpOp from Brazil, Internationalysmo from Philippines in 2007)
- we organise public forums and contact meetings to get people together to discuss, which is how you will meet us for the first time (about 25-30 people attended our first ever Public Forum in San Francisco late July 2008).

I think the ICC needs to learn to communicate better. The problem with the ICC is that it has very little tact when communicating things. I don't mean by this that they arent respectful, but they use this really cheesy polemical language that drives people off. I don't think I am the only one that thinks this. This is a recurring criticism in libcom, for example.

Catchphrases like "decadence", "parasitism", "left wing of capital", "historical mission" and all other sorts of sweeping statements are not very diplomatic. I don't think this is a problem with the whole of the communist left. I think the people of EKS communicate the same type of ideas (particularly devrim) without sounding cheesy or arrogant. The key is using more common words and phrases. The IBRP is also a little better at this (although the IBRP is really petty in their sectarianism)

OK. I hear what you're saying and there are several things we can say about this. Again, there is the weight of isolation. You must understand that history of the 60s and 70s was one of growth, and increasing contact and regroupment within the communist left (see the three International Conferences). Yes, sectarianism was there, but it was carried in the overall forward movement of that era. There was a real 'pioneer spirit'. However, from the early 1980s to the late 1990s (a period of some 15 years!) the size and influence of the communist left was generally in decline. This was largely due to:
1) The difficulties the working class faced in politicising the waves of struggles through the '80s
2) The ideological effect of the campaigns on the 'death of communism' and the 'end of history' following the collapse of the Eastern Bloc through the 90s. As well as leading to a reduction in combativity (strikes) they caused great confusion and loss of confidence amongst the class and its politicised minorities. Anyone who used the language of Marxism and defended the need for a communist revolution was often denounced as being mad or coming from out of space (or both!) There was a real demonisation of the ICC in particular.

So, there were several effects of this deepening isolation:
- sectarianism: the polemics between the IBRP and the ICC, and between the Bordigists, became 'hotter' and harder to the extent that relations were broken off.
- a 'fortress' mentality developed in relation to groups and individuals on the 'outside' who were very often out to attack and destroy the ICC in particular. So, the language used at the time was often hostile (parasitism for example) but it was a result of us being attacked (and not being paranoid!) and coming out to defend ourselves and our principles.
- organisational crises: minorities within the ICC lost confidence in the class and this led to splits and resignations. Remember, this was the generation of '68 who thought that the revolution was just over the horizon. When it didn't happen - and the revolution receded even further back over the horizon! - many comrades lost their militant spirit and conviction. Again, one of the hallmarks of the ICC for me has been the ability to defend itself on a principled basis, but also to learn from crises in order to strengthen itself. Knowing how to 'retreat in good order' is vital.

Thankfully that period is now over - we have made it through the wilderness! - and another period of growth and combat is ahead of us. But as you have pointed out it poses a number of challenges:
1) Overcoming the 'fortress mentality' and opening out to a new generation of revolutionaries, being able to pass on the torch to them, but also to listen and learn from them. Hence our efforst to understand and support a much healthier culture of debate.
2) Communicating with a generation which has not only lost the 'vocabulary' that the working class has traditionally used (I remember my younger brother saying he thought a bourgeoisie was a cake!) but also the respect and admiration given to communist militants from the rest of the working class. When communist organisations were much larger it was not such a strange thing to be a revolutionary. So, we do try to use less jargon, but many of these words are part of the class' tradition, which is important.
3) Using new forms of communication, such as internet discussion forums, poses challenges in terms of the technology (many comrades are now approaching retirement and have to learn new-fangled things like posting on forums!) but also in having to be brief and not answering too many questions at once. We are learning how to do this. We get much less grief on Libcom these days, and we were amongst those who stood up against the flaming and agressive atmosphere which kept many people from participating. Now that flaming has been banned on most Libcom forums there has been a much healthier atmosphere, better discussions and more people have come forward to join in.

You may find these two histories of the ICC relevant:
http://en.internationalism.org/history-of-the-ICC

I hope that's helped to explain things. If you have any more questions then fire away!



B.

Thanks for the explanation.



It makes sense your explanation about the ICC age, for example EKS is a much newer organization. Are most of the militants in the ICC from the 68 generation? I remember in the US, a comrade and me got in contact with this really old socialist and had breakfast with him - and his leaflets were really cheesy and almost gave the vibe of a tabloid. He also had some really odd views (western civilization being attacked, dem mexicans taking our jobs (lol)). he also said that american trotskyists are dumb because they should have an american leader instead of a russian one (he was this really weird Deleonist). He also used to be a body builder and now he cant walk straight because he damaged all his joints. Anyway, his views are another thing - just wanted to share that.



A lot of the attacks the ICC gets at libcom comes from the fact that well, its an anarchist forum, and in the anarchist movement there are a lot of "flaky activists" that have a disdain for intransingent positions and rather have a more "hands on approach" (but without thinking about the effects of their actions). However, I think they sometimes do have a point. For example, instead of arguing why "national liberation" is bad in terms of "decadent capitalism", why not say that it is bad because its basically workers getting used as cannon fodder for their bosses. Or how for example, today we are seeing how national liberation didn't do much for africa (kleptocrats being pawns of bigger imperialist powers, genocide, civil war). I don't see how this is fundamentally better than when they were colonies. I remember my father telling me once (he is middle eastern, but comes from Africa) that the newspapers and politicians from the middle east and africa try to argue how there is a bigger middle class, and how everyone is doing better than before, but that from his viewpoint things are actually getting worse over there. (And he is a pretty conservative "liberal")

Another problem, I have noticed, (and bothers me a little bit), is sometimes the obsession of the communist left with its history (this is also a very trotskyist thing). I think history is very important, because its important to know that we weren't always in the defensive and that there was a time when the world was being shaken by us. This is not always the case with the ICC press - maybe its just that in revleft and libcom it gives off the vibe because well, both are "communist" forums. However, I remember, when I was translating some leaflet for the ICC coincerning the public meeting in San Francisco, I felt bothered about it a little bit because it basically talked about the 68 and the russian revolution, rather than adressing more relevant things like war in the peripheral states, or the immigrant question.

I'll briefly make my personal comments.

First of all, I think the overall writing style of the ICC could use some improvements. Obviously there has been quite a lot of articles which I thought were very beautifully written, and not all militants write well to the same extent, and most importantly what matters the most is the context of the articles, not the style. Nevertheless, if I was to comment on the ICC articles from an "artistic" perspective, and obviously I am no expert on it and this is basically a personal opinion, I think that the ICC writing style was influenced by the May 68 era language and I don't find that sort of style (which does as far as I know include a cheesy polemical language) to be aesthetically very appealing. For example articles I've read from Bilan or Gauche Communiste de France, or even for examples some articles from Bordiga seem to me as they are artistically more appealing.

When we need to be polemical and harsh, then there is nothing wrong with being polemical and harsh. However, there are different styles and tones while being polemical, I think it should always be very clear that matters are not those of personal intentions unless there is clear evidence that they are but one of politics, and while being polemical we should focus on the material evidence to back our politics up. The bulk of all polemics I've read from the ICC were based on material evidence, and the content of them were convincing for me, on the other hand, I think, and this is not just limited to the ICC, while being polemical we should try our best to prevent even an implication of bad intentions on the criticized side without perfectly clear evidence. In other words we should not add accusations to the material facts we have: the material facts should be enough.

On another point, I would like to add that although we are flattered by Marmot's kind words about our literature, in the EKS we are all (well most of us anyway) mere beginners in political writing compared to the ICC and I feel that although we might have things to say to make a contribution to the improvement of the ICC writing style, they've got loads of things to teach us in regards to writing with their experience as well.

For example, instead of arguing why "national liberation" is bad in terms of "decadent capitalism", why not say that it is bad because its basically workers getting used as cannon fodder for their bosses.

Well, it of course depends on the context, fundamentally both are necessary. Fundamentally decadence is the theoretical explanation to why national liberation movements became bourgeois while national liberation resulting in workers getting used as cannon fodder for their bosses is a verification, something supportive to our position in regards to national liberation being bourgeois now. It is not really possible to fully clarify the issue of decadence in, for example, one leaflet about national liberation, so while a reference to decadence by saying something like capitalism has been rotting on it's knees for a century is, in my opinion, a sufficient reference to the theory, trying to fit in a very short summary of the whole theory is not going to really be helpful. Obviously, such leaflet will focus more on the current effects of national liberation in order to make a strong, undeniable introduction to the point. On the other hand, while writing theoretically about national liberation, while examining the historical and current examples of how it resulted in lots of workers getting butchered in further detail, all these are not going to be sufficient without the theoretical framework to explain them, and it will eventually end up repeating the same truth without explaining anything further.

Another problem, I have noticed, (and bothers me a little bit), is sometimes the obsession of the communist left with its history (this is also a very trotskyist thing).

I think marxists have always had a bit of an "obsession" with their history, so did the working class and in fact whole of humanity

However, I remember, when I was translating some leaflet for the ICC coincerning the public meeting in San Francisco, I felt bothered about it a little bit because it basically talked about the 68 and the russian revolution, rather than adressing more relevant things like war in the peripheral states, or the immigrant question.

Is that the meeting about the 68?

OK. I hear what you're saying and there are several things we can say about this...

I think the ICC has a tendency to give a greater priority to explaining the reasons why they have done something than changing what they are doing.

Are most of the militants in the ICC from the 68 generation?

A lot of them are, not all of them though. Beltov isn't for example. I do think though that they have never had a large enough influx of new militants to shake them up since then though.

On another point, I would like to add that although we are flattered by Marmot's kind words about our literature, in the EKS we are all (well most of us anyway) mere beginners in political writing compared to the ICC and I feel that although we might have things to say to make a contribution to the improvement of the ICC writing style, they've got loads of things to teach us in regards to writing with their experience as well.

Actually, I don't think so. I think that the ICC has huge problems with the way it expresses itself that it has to address. The ICC are capable of writing some good stuff (for example this recent UK leaflet: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/316/lead ), and in general I think that they are getting better at it. There are still some absolutely awful things though. I think they need to have a serious discussion about style as an organisation with the question being how they can improve it, not reasons for why they do it like they do at the moment.

Devrim

http://en.internationalism.org/iccon...uador-colombia


This also was really good (translated by moi )

howver for example this:

http://en.internationalism.org/ci/20...egaon-bombings

is not very good. some passages sounds more like theses of Society of the Spectacle lol

i think the way an organization communicates is very important. its not just some "side thing" that you can just let slide.

Another thing you have to understand is the wide number of languages we work in, and sometimes the elegance of the mother tongue is lost in translation. The article on the Malegaon bombings was written by a comrade in India, whose first language is not English. It's probably poetic in Bengali or Hindi, but may be 'cheesy' in English. In fact, one of our comrades in India actually writes and sings beautiful poetry and songs.

Secondly, thanks again for your translation of the article on Ecuador - we need all the help we can get. But the English needed some improvements (by yours truly!) to make it so good.

The language skills of some of our comrades never cease to amaze me. I have been at international congresses where comrades from Spain are doing instantaneous verbal translations from French into English. Some comrades from Germany translate French into Spanish fluently. Some comrades can speak 8 languages!



B.

It's probably poetic in Bengali or Hindi, but may be 'cheesy' in English.

This is the problem though. I don't think leaflets should sound "poetic". A lot of the time poetry in politics sounds really cheesy. Just read Neruda's poems on Stalin and you'll see what I mean. (Even if he was an excellent poet)

When you read the New York times, are articles on politics poetic? I think a lot of communists need to learn from mainstream bourgeois magazines or newspapers.

But the English needed some improvements (by your truly!) to make it so good.

Ha! You only changed a few words!

Anyway, yeah, translations make things a little more difficult. For example, in that article, Correa calls Uribe "guerrerista". How the heck do you translate guerrerista? The closest I could think about was warhawk in the sense americans use it, and bellicose.

My father, who comes from Algeria, speaks five languages, and all really fluently. Three of them (Berber, French, and Arab] were because he simply had to learn them though. Unfortunately, I just speak three, and one of them is french, and my french is really bad.

In the essentials, the weak part of Marmot's criticism of the ICC's language has the same foundation as Devrim's: an underestimation of the historical and theoretical dimension of militant activity. Marmot feels that we spend too much time examining the history of the workers' movement, and is not sure that we need to base our defence of class positions on a historical framework (ie. historical materialism, the ascent and decline of class societies). Leo has substantially answered this point.
Devrim on the other hand restricts his criticism to the organisational level and feels that "the ICC has a tendency to give a greater priority to explaining the reasons why they have done something than changing what they are doing".
This was in response to Beltov's excellent post which actually provides a framework -a historical one again -for understanding the origins of the ICC's weaknesses and mistakes. His approach leads us nowhere because as marxists we cannot correct errors without delving into their roots.
I also think that it is not helpful to talk about some of the ICC's articles being "awful" without being specific.
As for poetry, we are with Marx in being in favour of it.

Devrim on the other hand restricts his criticism to the organisational level and feels that "the ICC has a tendency to give a greater priority to explaining the reasons why they have done something than changing what they are doing".
This was in response to Beltov's excellent post which actually provides a framework -a historical one again -for understanding the origins of the ICC's weaknesses and mistakes. His approach leads us nowhere because as marxists we cannot correct errors without delving into their roots.

Philosophers have only interpreted the world. The point is to change it.

My point is not against understanding where errors come ffom. It is against using that understanding as an excuse for those errors. Beltov actually goes further than some in the ICC in that he identifies what he sees as the problems (which are different from the ones that I see), but even then there is no attempt to answer them.

How it comes across it that you are making excuses but not really changing anything.

I also think that it is not helpful to talk about some of the ICC's articles being "awful" without being specific.

I could go into specifics if you want, but I think if you don't realise that some of it is awful then that is part of the problem.

Devrim

I don't think that's an answer. How can an understanding of an error be an excuse for that error? Real understanding leads to a practical move towards change.

Go into specifics, because one person's awful is another's poetry.

I don't think that's an answer. How can an understanding of an error be an excuse for that error? Real understanding leads to a practical move towards change.

It becomes an excuse when it is offered up without any real change.

Go into specifics, because one person's awful is another's poetry.

Alf, I have never spoken to anybody outside of the ICC who thinks IR is a good magazine. Do you realise that. I don't know the other man. He might think it is poetry.

Devrim

If the IR is universally awful then clearly we have a big problem on our hands and I really don't know where to begin with your criticisms, especially because they are so vague and all-encompassing. I think that the number of people who ask us for collections of the entire IR would tend to disagree about its awfulness. This is not an argument for rejecting a discussion about how to improve the IR, but in my view it contains a huge body of indispensable theoretical work comparable to Bilan in the 30s.

If the IR is universally awful then clearly we have a big problem on our hands and I really don't know where to begin with your criticisms, especially because they are so vague and all-encompassing.

Well yes, I think that you do.

Again on the approach, I think that it is not a question of 'dealing with criticisms'. It is a question of realising that there is a problem, and dealing with the problems.

I didn't really want to get into this here in the first place. The details can be discussed when we see you.

I think that the number of people who ask us for collections of the entire IR would tend to disagree about its awfulness.

How many people have asked? Are we included in that? because we didn't actually ask at all. The ICC just announced they would send them to us.

Maybe we should run a sırvey on it on Libcom to give you an idea of what people outside the ICC think.

This is not an argument for rejecting a discussion about how to improve the IR, but in my view it contains a huge body of indispensable theoretical work comparable to Bilan in the 30s.

Actually, I agree that there is some useful stuff there. I don't think that it justifies a magazine though. Back when we were younger, there had to be a magazine. Now with the internet we can look at it in a completely different way. The things that we do have to be re-evaluated.

Do you think that you get many people buying IR 'cold' as it were? I don't. I think that most of the people buying it are already your contacts. Why not turn it into a sort of e-bulletin? It would save you money and serve the same function, and maybe you could produce a more engaging magazine at the same time.

I am not suggesting that this is the correct approach. I am suggesting that there needs to be a complete re-evaluation of what is being done. Bilan was operating in a very different period from the one we are in today. That is something that we have to realise. The function of the publication was different.

All that said, I think that the Turkish version can be useful, small groups of people new to these ideas will read it, and you may even turn a small profit on it. That is not to say though that it is the best thing that can be done.

Devrim

It's very common for people who begin to become interested in our politics to ask for complete collections or a number of back issues. The EKS was unusual in this regard. I agee we should continue this discussion directly. But the issue you have raised isn't really about the IR as such, but about whether a theoretical journal is necessary at all.

But the issue you have raised isn't really about the IR as such, but about whether a theoretical journal is necessary at all.

No, I think that it is necessary. My issue is about the role and content of such a magazine.

Devrim

A theoretical journal is neither supposed to be a masterpiece of literature or a tabloid magazine. They necessarily deal with hard and complicated matters, and also are blunt because of this reason. The function of a theoretical publication is the development of theoretical discussions and it can't have anything but a theoretical, thus a "cold" content. Luckily, I think this is something that would be appealing to serious proletarian militants who are seeking discussions. A theoretical journal is not going to be 'hip', high school students are not going to be carrying it to look 'cool': it is going to be deep and blunt. True, the IR is no prize when it comes to the amusement value of it. Yes, reading a theoretical review will be less fun than reading a tabloid newspaper about football or watching a sitcom. But it should be, to be honest.

Back when we were younger, there had to be a magazine. Now with the internet we can look at it in a completely different way ... Why not turn it into a sort of e-bulletin?

Well, I know that Devrim doesn't really like reading articles online so he prints them. I think people generally prefer having hard copies still. Everything can be put into the internet, but I think having hard copies is a very positive thing.

How it comes across it that you are making excuses but not really changing anything.

Maybe we should run a sırvey on it on Libcom to give you an idea of what people outside the ICC think.

On a completely different point, I don't see that to be more meaningful than surveying the posters here on this question. Both websites have a some really good posters and...

A theoretical journal is neither supposed to be a masterpiece of literature or a tabloid magazine. They necessarily deal with hard and complicated matters, and also are blunt because of this reason. The function of a theoretical publication is the development of theoretical discussions and it can't have anything but a theoretical, thus a "cold" content...

The point is also to engage people outside of the organisation. I don't think IR does that.

Well, I know that Devrim doesn't really like reading articles online so he prints them. I think people generally prefer having hard copies still. Everything can be put into the internet, but I think having hard copies is a very positive thing.

As I said, it wasn't a definite proposal. It was just suggesting the need to think about doing things differently. Costs do have to be considered also.

On a completely different point, I don't see that to be more meaningful than surveying the posters here on this question. Both websites have a some really good posters and...

I think Libcom has more posters who might have seen IR.

Devrim

The point is also to engage people outside of the organisation.

Yes, definately, but to engage those who are actually see a need to clarify and discuss deep and blunt theoretical issues. I don't think a theoretical magazine can have any other significantly appealing aspects other than it's content. A theoretical magazine can't engage everyone.

As I said, it wasn't a definite proposal. It was just suggesting the need to think about doing things differently. Costs do have to be considered also.

Yeah, sure.

I think Libcom has more posters who might have seen IR.

Still...

As someone who is not a member of the ICC, and someone who came from the IWW, I found the back issues of IR to be extremely helpful. It was the main ICC publication I read when first learning about and becoming interested in left communism. Initially, I stumbled upon the ICC while doing a google search for an old IWW article I had read, and was angry at first by what they wrote (and sent them an e-mail about it). However, over time I came around to their positions. I doubt this would have occurred as it did had the IR not been around, because I, like some others, are initially interested in the deeper programmatic and philosophical issues that are at the core of an organization or body of thought. You just don't get that with the territorial press the way you do with the IR.

The recent series on what are worker's councils are an example of extremely important theoretical and historical work that comes from the IR. As are the many articles dealing with the ICC's internal debate on the '30 Glorious Years' period and its causes.

Whether they need to change their writing style or not I don't know. I like it fine for what purpose it serves. Reading leftist and anarchist publications you see the difference; the latter just seem so cartoony with their ridiculous use of slang and fear of big words and complicated concepts.

The IWW's main paper Industrial Worker (available online for free) seems to have a good balance of accessable style and (very light) theoretical/historical work. Is that the kind of publication you think the ICC should have?