Relations

For the ICC, there is a much better relationship with some of the newer groups emerging in recent years (eg EKS in Turkey, OPOP in Brazil, other groups in Latin America, Philippines, Korea, etc) than with the more established ones, more specifically, the groups directly descended from the Italian Internationalist Communist Party formed in 1943. In our view this is because of the weight of sectarianism which, while it affects the whole movement to some extent, is particularly strong in these groups. The 'Bordigist' groups even theorise it, tending to see their own 'party' as the sole expression of communist politics on the planet. The IBRP has a much more nuanced view, but in recent years it has tended to reject the notion of a proletarian political milieu, and in our view this has led to a worsening of sectarian attitudes on their part.
This is a very brief and inadequate response. What is your impression of the situation?

The ICT (formerly the IBRP) reject the ICC notion of a "proletarian political milieu" because it is an attempt to ghettoise and freeze who is or is not a communist. This concept is now collapsing since the ICC are now trying to recruit amongst anarchists.

Jock, don't you think that is more than a little hypocritical? I have seen the ICT label the Trotskyist parties as part of the 'bourgeois left'. This to me also looks like an attempt to 'ghettoise' who is and isn't a Communist.

I know the Platform of the IBRP refers to a "broad proletarian camp" defined as those who are against any nationalism, see nothing socialist in Stalinism and recognised October 1917 as "the starting point for what could have become a wider European revolution". Not sure if this in an old version and whether the ICT have moved away from this though.

Perhaps someone can confirm whether this definition stands and the ICC's equivalent definition of the proletarian milieu?

Zanthorus
Marion has answered for me. The definition still stands. The ICC's original definition was a way of saying who they would talk to and who not. I am happy that they are abandoning in practice their former narrowness. they might now even get around to discussing with us!

I personally think that the difference between a term such as the "broad proletarian camp" and the "proletarian political milieu", aside from the former sounding much better in English, can only be semantic. Regardless of what you call it, that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

It seems to me that the ICT exclude those who are against the 1917 Revolution while the ICC do not (it being one of four elements that are "very important" but do not demarcate "two camps"). I am guessing that this would leave the ICT less conducive towards discussions with anarchists unless there is a difference in the two organisations approaches towards dealing with the proletarian camp/milieu...

In practice this has not happened (mainly because the anarchists we have cooperated with (as in NWBTCW) accepted October as proletarian (whilst, illogically in our view, claiming the Bolsheviks hijacked it). We have not anathematised anarchism or banned them from our meetings as the ICC have, therefore we don't need to make any concessions to them now - we can meet them on the same terms as we always have. The differences are more than semantic when there is a difference of purpose...

Welcome Jock. Always happy to discuss!

I do think that both the ICC and ICT declared in words that they are for proletarian unity (communist left unity or internationalist unity) regardless of the different terms they used.
I don't know much about the actual practice of ICT in this regard. For the ICC, for years now we have fraternal and healthy relations with other groups particularly in Latin/Central America.
On the anarchist issue (internationalist-anarchist), I think the corrections and admission of mistakes on the part of the ICC is not simply for "recruitment" as what Jock implying as what I understood on his one of the posts here but to sincerely review the actual history and practice of internationalist-anarchism. And I think being a marxist organization accepting mistakes, telling them publicly and rectifying them is correct.
Maybe the ICT could learn from ICC on this matter or vice-versa. For me, ICC looks the ICT as part of the proletarian milieu, and hopefully the ICT too to the ICC.
As marxist organizations we can learn a lot from each other...

Internasyonalista

If you had read our stuff you would know that we always have regarded the ICC as part of the proletarian political camp even if we have always said they are on its "idealist wing". I think you miss the point about anarchism and anarchists. We have never anathematised them although we disagree with their fundamental premise (that you can spontaneously go from capitalism to a stateless society without revolutionary organisation and a period of transition) but where "class struggle anrchists (as they call themselves) who have more interntionalist perspective are concerned we have worked together. The ICC inthe past has anathematised anarchists and there has even been mutual banning from eaach others' meetings. They now recognise this as a mistake. What is worrying though is that they are now making political concessions to anarchism (even excusing their errors in the Spanish Civil War with arguments such as it was only the leaders who were at fault). This comes at a time when the ICC has turned its back on the existing communist left (after years of what we called useless polemics!) and behaves as if it is the only CL organisation (viz the use of the ICC logo on this community heading). What we desire is a a serious political dialogue which is not just about point scoring...

"we always have regarded the ICC as part of the proletarian political camp even if we have always said they are on its "idealist wing"".

Good to know that. I hope that sooner there will be more openness for cooperation and common intervention while maintaining the fraternal debate.

"What is worrying though is that they are now making political concessions to anarchism (even excusing their errors in the Spanish Civil War with arguments such as it was only the leaders who were at fault)"

I'll be happy to read an article from the ICT about this. I always visited and read the articles in your website.

"This comes at a time when the ICC has turned its back on the existing communist left (after years of what we called useless polemics!) and behaves as if it is the only CL organisation (viz the use of the ICC logo on this community heading). What we desire is a a serious political dialogue which is not just about point scoring..."

Well that's your opinion and maybe for the whole ICT. But let me share with you our experience here in the Philippines. When we formed in 2006 as an independent group as searching elements and contacted the ICC through their website for discussion and theoretical clarification, they always insisted that we should also read or even contact the other communist left organizations. They especially mention the IBRP. They want us to know the differences on our own study as discussion group then. And I think this is also what happened to EKS and other groups that have sympathy with left-communism.

And we did read and discuss the IBRP articles (even the intense polemics between IBRP and ICC and I think its not a useless polemics although at times rude. Maybe rudeness should be rectified). This is also what we are doing with our contacts here: encouraging them to visit and read the articles of IBRP/ICT. I think the comrades in Australia who recently form a discussion group also reached out to the different communist groups.

With what we experienced and what are the practices of the ICC, I think it is not behaving as the "only CL organization".

We are very far here in Europe. But we heard some inspiring initial developments on the openness of ICT and ICC. I hope that this will move forward. We all know that the solid unity of all communist organizations is one of the basic requirements for the advancement of the world proletarian revolution.

If the ICT is for serious political dialogue, I think so as the ICC. Actions speaks louder than words as the saying goes.

But did you contact us? As you say actions speak louder than words.

As what I said we studied and discuss your articles. If you are not satisfied with what we did, maybe its a weakness on our part then. For sure other searching groups and elements did contacted the ICT and had/have fraternal discussions with you or your group as what the comrades of EKS did which for me a positive thing. But still this does not undermine my point that the ICC is not claiming in theory and in practice that it is the "only CL group" and that it is not serious in political dialogue with other left-communist or internationalist groups having theoretical differences with the ICC. That is my point when I say that "actions speaks louder than words".