Symapthisers of Left Communism or sympathisers of an organisation?

I realise that there are people who identify themselves as sympathisers of the ICC or the ICT, and even the various PCInts I suppose though I don't think I've ever met one; but I wonder how many of us consider ourselves sympathisers of Left Communism as a current without necessarily explicitly identifying with any particular organisation.

Personally, I'm closer to the ICC because of my espousal of a Luxemburgist economic analysis, but I'm not formally an ICC sympathiser; I read, and to a large extent agree with, material from the ICC, ICT, (former) CBG and the PCInts, and regard all those I've met from those organisations as comrades.

So I wonder what the proportions are - whether there are more of us whosympathise with the Left Communist tendency, or more who identify with an organisation.

Blakes Baby: I'm not sure we have 'formal sympathisers'...

Nic: glad to hear from you on this. I agree with the need to avoid hasty judgments and 'side-taking' regarding the relationships between the groups of the left communist milieu. What do you think are the most serious 'issues' which the groups have to face up to?

Thanks for your reply, Nic. I think you are right about the need for the ICC to re-examine the whole history of its crises. I am not sure about the best way to go about this because it has the potential to generate a great deal of heat in the mileu around us. I would say that a period of internal reflection and debate is needed to produce the best framework for opening this out.

So I wonder what the proportions are - whether there are more of us whosympathise with the Left Communist tendency, or more who identify with an organisation.

To answer the OP's question, I am a member of the ICC. Looking through the members list of this group I noticed six people who I know are actual members of the ICC.

Thanks for your reply, Nic. I think you are right about the need for the ICC to re-examine the whole history of its crises. I am not sure about the best way to go about this because it has the potential to generate a great deal of heat in the mileu around us. I would say that a period of internal reflection and debate is needed to produce the best framework for opening this out.

Yes, but I don't think that this is something that we can deal with on our own. It needs to be an open discussion.

Devrim

I agree that we cannot deal with this on our own, and that the discussion needs to be as open as possible. At the same time we need to approach the way the discussion is presented 'externally' in a coherent manner as an organisation, even though we will certainly have many disagreements about the actual interpretation of our past history.

Blakes Baby: I'm not sure we have 'formal sympathisers'...

Really? My impression of the last 11 years or so or fairly close contact with the ICC and its more-formal-than-me sympathisers seems to have been mistaken then. But perhaps it's just a question of semantics. I certainly consider myself to be politically close to the ICC; to the ICT as well, but closer to the ICC especially as regards Luxemburg's economics.

Anyway, as to the other questions raised, on the necessity to deal with history and organisation, this is the main reason I think that I've not sought a closer relationship with the ICC. Reading the threads about relations between the ICC and ICT can be quite depressing.

Alf asks what issues need addressing and to me the main thing is sectarianism. Real, honest-to-goodness putting-the-organisation-before-the-working-class stuff. Both the ICC and the ICT have been guilty of this in recent years - I'm not going further back, I wasn't there, but watching the two organisations over the last 11 years has been painful, really. And maybe 11 years isn't enough to really know. But it's a long time in terms of politics. How long do we have? another 11 years of bickering and sniping? Another 30 years of failing to agree? More international conferences in 33 years, if we're lucky?

The ICC has complained that the ICT has abandoned the notion of the proletarian camp. I admit, when I first read that piece in Revolutionary Perspectives in I think 2005 where the IBRP claimed to be the only pole of regroupment left, I was pretty horrified. But in return the ICC then anathematised the IBRP. Really, was that the best thing to do? The working class needs a real organisation which isn't either of the organisations that currently exists. The future party is more important than the ICC or the ICT. Defence of the organisation isn't as important as defence of the interests of the working class.

The ICT complains that the ICC has set out to destroy it. That's a pretty shocking thing to have said. But, in the long term, is it so important? The ICT is only a provisional organisation anyway, it's a holding operation until the world communist party is formed.

I believe that both the ICC and the ICT are components of the future party - and I hope there will be others. That party is too important to the coming struggles to allow the problems of the last 40 years to sour its birth or even gestation. Both the ICC and the ICT need to raise their expectations. If there has been no abandonment of the notions of the 'proletarian camp' and the 'proletarian political milieu' then I think there need to be formal declarations of that. Both organisations claim that the other has turned their back on the notion that the other is a communist organisation. I don't care so much about the disagreements but a basic recognition that orther organisations are composed of sincere communists who nevertheless hold different views I think is an absolute minimum necessary from both organisations.

The last few years at least in Britain (and I hope this has also been happening elsewhere) have seen seen substantial gains in at least ICC, ICT, former CBG, and Internationalist Perspectives comrades sitting in the same room debating. Now whether IP is moving away from Left Communism only time will tell; but honestly if the future world party can't stretch to contain at least Jock and Alf and Shug of the CBG, I'm not sure I want that world party to happen anyway.

That's going to mean that there has to be movement. Not to get to the world party even; that I think is dozens of steps down the road from where we are, but to start the process of co-ordination that could lead in the future to discussions towards forming the world party. What I'm envisioning is something that could be described as an 'international bureau for the revolutionary party'. Something that isn't a party but is a centre of co-ordination for revolutionary groups, whether currently organised as an international organisation or not.

Movement inevitably means compromise, concessions, debate, discussion. Internal discussion yes but also discussion outside of the organisation. Some principles will have to be sacrificed. It seems to me that, for instance, the ICC's view of an homogenous organisation has to be jetisoned for the proposed international co-ordination. Not that the ICC shouldn't continue to organise as it does, but that formalising work with other organisations means accepting that the co-ordination will not be homogenous. At present, I see the idea of a co-ordination as the seed of the new party and the current organisations as fractions within it.

Also, I think there has to be a process of admitting to past errors. This seems to be the part that's hardest. But even admitting that things in the past have been handled badly is better than nothing, especially in relation to other comrades and organisations. Bad feeling needs healing. Not smoothing over, but the very least there should be some apologies. The past behaviour of organisations has fostered a spirit of distrust and prevented fraternal relations. This needs to be both acknowledged and addressed.

Why is all this necessary? Because the organisation of the political minorities of the working class is a tool, a machine created by the working class for a purpose. I don't see that any of the organisations are fulfilling the purpose that the working class created them for. A broken machine can perhaps be mended, cleaned and repaired, refuelled; a useless machine will find itself scrapped, or in a museum, or if the machine is particularly worthwhile, broken up and scavenged for parts. Are the organisations of the communist left repairable? Or are they all broken beyond repair?

[FONT=Times New Roman]This thread gives much food for thought. Blake’s Baby’s post in particular is a very important contribution from a comrade who has good relations with the existing left communist groups and has a real concern for the unity of the proletarian camp. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]I am not going to deal with all the points he raises: that would take at least an article for the International Review. I agree with a lot of what he is saying, and above all endorse the spirit in which he is saying it. But I will try to summarise what I have to say here as succinctly as possible. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]

• [FONT=Times New Roman]Sectarianism, as we have always maintained, is a real problem for the proletarian camp, especially given the break with the traditions and organisations of the past which affected the whole movement during the period of counter-revolution. We have never said that we are immune from it. Furthermore, it tends to have a mutually reinforcing impact within the movement. Sectarianism, like other aspects of political behaviour, is a political problem in its own right, reflecting the weight of bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideology within the communist milieu. [/FONT]
• [FONT=Times New Roman]That said, by no means all disagreements between communist groups are pure products of sectarianism, or idle squabbles. Polemics between groups are a vital medium for clarification. Certainly we must try to ensure that all polemics are conducted in a rigorous and responsible way, but we should also reject the view that the disputes between the groups – whether on general programmatic issues or matters of behaviour – are of “no interest” to anyone but themselves. [/FONT]
• [FONT=Times New Roman]The ICC has always considered the ICT to be part of the proletarian camp and has not changed its view of this. Up until 2004 or so we always welcomed the possibility of working jointly with the groups that compose this current, initially in the framework of the international conferences of the communist left (1977-80) which, in our view, could have fulfilled the role of the point of reference and coordination that BB argues for in his post. Despite the break up of the conferences in the early 80s, we continued on numerous occasions to call for joint work and cooperation between the two currents, for example in response to capitalist wars. It’s true that following the events of 2004 - the affair of the Argentine ‘Circulo’ – we changed our policy, since we felt that in this matter the ICT had behaved in a particularly irresponsible and destructive manner towards us (we won’t go into the details here) and considered that calls for joint work were not appropriate until the issues involved had been clarified between the two currents.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Times New Roman]It was at this point that the ICC, for the first time, considered the possibility that, if the ICT continued to behave in this destructive manner, it would be better for the movement if it disappeared. However, this was always stated as a conditional and we left room for more hopeful developments. At the same time, under the weight of these events, the ICC also – again for the first time – expressed the view that it was the “skeleton” of the future party, reflecting a feeling that the established groups of the communist left had largely failed and that we were “alone in the world”. This was actually a mistaken view because we were already seeing the emergence of a new internationalist milieu, a new politicised generation, which was raising the possibility of creating a number of reference points around which a reinvigorated communist movement could coalesce. This effort to create diverse reference points, which we have been pursuing in different parts of the world (for example in South America where we have been working with a number of different revolutionary groups and circles) goes against the idea of the ICC being the sole “skeleton” of the future party. [/FONT]
• [FONT=Times New Roman]Given these more fruitful developments within the proletarian movement, we are certainly open to the possibility that the ‘old’ groups of the communist left can re-establish a working relationship and play their part in the construction of precisely what BB is calling for. As some comrades will know, we have recently proposed to the ICT that there should be a meeting between the two organisations, with no preconditions, aimed at trying to clear the air and lay the basis for a more fraternal and positive relationship. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Those comrades who are in neither organisation have a definite role to play in helping to bring this about. [/FONT]

Thanks for posting this. On a first reading it goes a lot further than I dared to hope.

I can say straight off that I absolutely agree that not all differences are down to sectarianism, they are because different groups of sincere communists actually interpret things differently. I think that is perfectly proper, and wouldn't want to see some sort of 'false unity' where the ICT agrees not to criticise the ICC's 'Luxemburgism' if the ICC agrees not to criticise the ICT for being 'soft on the unions'. Healthy polemic against different positions is one thing. Calls to anthematise or destroy other groups is something else. I'm not only concerned about the ICC and ICT, I think there has also been some movement in relations between the ICC and (some?) former CBG comrades, which I think should be welcomed.

I hope that the process does continue and relationships are restored and strengthened. One of the things I found attractive about the ICC and CWO when I first came across them - and I've mentioned this to both Alf and Jock - is that, at the first ICC forum I attended, a CWO comrade was there and intervened in the discussion not in a confrontational way, but constructively and fraternally, agreeing with sonme aspects, disagreeing with others; and the ICC's reply was equally fraternal and constructive. Neither organisation glossed over the differences between them, but both outlined areas of agreement and a common framework. That was quite amazing to be honest, I'd never seen politcal groups behaving like that before.

I'm aware that this was in the pre-Argentina days; but I hope that the period 2004-9 marks the rock-bottom of the relationship that things continue to improve, as it seems they have been slightly over the last 2 years.

double post

Blake's Baby wrote
"The ICC has complained that the ICT has abandoned the notion of the proletarian camp. I admit, when I first read that piece in Revolutionary Perspectives in I think 2005 where the IBRP claimed to be the only pole of regroupment left, I was pretty horrified. But in return the ICC then anathematised the IBRP".

You did not read this in RP but in Internationalist Communist. It was not the position of the ICT or IBRP as it was then but as the author made clear at the start a discussion text (to which he got no replies). His argument was that as the ICC were consumed with "parasitism" and the Bordigists did not talk to each other (as they were each and all the one true party) let alone to anyone else then we were on our own. This argument (written in 2004 not 2005 since the author died on May 2 that year after 6 months of fighting cancer.) hasa certain logic. However we have always maintained that the ICT /IBRP is not the party and not even its prefiguration as we expect new elements to arise out of the international working class. The ICC (or rather the French leadership of the ICC) launched their attack on us over the collapse of the NCI in Argentina because they were scared that we would enter into an opportunist alliance with their splitters the Internal Fraction (IFICC). As they are based in Paris this was more significant than anyhting for them. But as the latter always maintained that they were the "real ICC" this would indeed have been opportunist (as we told them frequently). Unfortunately the ICC shows few signs of even understanding the sectarian impasse it has got into or the discredit it has brought to the name of the Communist Left.

And the fact that we said that the ICT has passed a resolution (at their 16th Congress) which aimed to "discredit" us in order to see us disappear is not an accusation. It is a simple fact. We have asked them to rethink this as a precondition for a meeting. Not I think an unreasonable request?

Thanks for posting that Jock

Firstly, I'm sorry, I thought 'pole of regroupment' piece was probably 2005, and I assumed that it was in RP, but if you say 2004 and IC, I have no reason to doubt that you're right. I didn't go and check my back copies for reasons to dreary to go into and was relying on memory. I do apologise.

My comment that the ICC was out to destroy the ICT was not a comment about a shocking complaint from the ICT, I meant that I thought the ICC's resolution was shocking. I agree that no organisation that sees itself as being on common terrain with others (as both the ICC and ICT have claimed to be) should seek to destroy another. I'm all for healthy polemic but that also means a responsibility to act fraternally to other organisations, which includes taking care and being considered, which I don't think I'm being unfair to say hasn't always happened.

I hope the meeting does go ahead - which means, obviously, that everyone has to be satisfied that it's going ahead on a principled basis. I hope that point of agreement is reached soon.

Perhaps in view of the discussions about a way forward on the other thread - collaborative list of Left Communist organisations - it's time to revisit this.

It seems to me that there are 3 potential ways forward for those of us that agree with the politics of the historically-constituted Communist Left, but aren't convinced that the currently-existing organisations are the best way forward, even if they're all we've got. I'm assuming that we think that the greatest problem facing the Communist Left is the failure of regroupment or even co-operation, of course. For those that might think that the greatest problem is a failure of programme, or a failure of analysis, I guess this wouldn't apply.

These three ways would be:
1 - seek join an existing organisation and try to work inside that organsation towards regroupment;
2 - work outside the existing organisations and try to encourage them towards regroupment;
3 - seek to organise with others to bring about regroupment - in effect form a new organisation that is substantailly dedicated to promoting regroupment.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? To be honest, though I am obviously interested in whatever anyone has to say on this, I'm particularly interested in what non-aligned participants have to say. Why aren't we in organisations? Where do we think the best use of our energies lies? Is a new organisation to bring the other organisations together feasible? What strategies can be used to help in the regroupment process? And other questions of this ilk...

To answer the original question, I'm a sympathizer of the ICC. For a number of reasons, mainly that, since I discovered them, I seemed to agree more with them than any other group before, I find their "blend" of different proletarian traditions to be more well balanced and the personal contact I've had with them has been so far very good and enlightening. On a personal level, the ICC people I've met don't suffer from the common militancy weirdness I've experienced in other groups.
Also, I'm pretty ignorant of the whole drama involving splits, fractions, problems with other groups and so on, so I leave this part out and focus on their analysis.

Having said that, my contact has been limited, as I live in a country where their presence is small. However, it's the only international left-communist group with any presence here, as far as I know..

Blake's Baby: the resolution from the 16th congress nowhere talks about destroying the IBRP/ICT. I don't want to get into a detailed discussion about it because there are parts of the resolution which we don't defend. But there is nothing in it that wasn't in our open letter to the IBRP. There have been very distorted versions of the resolution being circulated for what i think are highly dubious reasons, mixing extracts from the resolution with individual interventions at the congress which were not at all voted on. So great care is needed when discussing this affair. These are issues that we hope can be clarified through discussion with the ICT, so I don't propose to take this further here.

newdayrising, welcome. What is your opinion of the OPOP (Workers Opposition), which the ICC has worked with for a few years now, and consider to be an internationalist group?

I'm far from knowing them in detail, but from what I've read and heard them speak, they do have internationalist and proletarian positions. As far as I know, their main difference with the ICC is regarding economics.

As I said, I'm no expert on them (they live mostly very far away from me, AFAIK) but, I have to say I was very impressed by them because I'd never seen a locally grown group developing such positions, specially against unions.

Alf is right the Activities resolution of the ICC from its 16th Congress talks not of "destroying" the IBRP (as the ICT then was) but of "discrediting" it with a view to seeing it disappear. It also concludes that the ICC is the only basis for a future communist international party. What is bizarre is that this is the only "activity" which the ICC refer to in this resolution. Our main activities are not directed towards other groups.

Again, the term "discrediting" is not used in the resolution. The resolution does talk about "countering the negative effects of the IBRP in the milieu" because that was our judgement of their activity at that time. But in the 'extracts' being circulated by certain groups, actual quotes from the resolution are thrown in with quotes from individual interventions recorded in the minutes of the congress.
Also, our approach to the proletarian milieu was certainly a central part of the resolution, but it is not the only activity referred to.

[FONT=Times New Roman]Alf is right. The words about "discrediting" don't appear in the resolution (In IB 212) but in the presentation of the SI of the ICC signed by " Pascal" in IB 210. The passage is as follows[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Donc ce qui importe est de discréditer politiquement aux yeux de ce milieu en recherche le BIPR, c’est Ã* dire que son impact sur la nouvelle génération militante soit de plus en plus faible, qu’il disparaisse sur le plan politique. Si cette politique aboutit Ã* sa disparition physique tant mieux[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Rough translation: Thus that which is important is to politically discredit the the IBRP in the eyes of the searching elements in the milieu, that is so that its impact on the new generation of militants will become more and more feeble on a political level. If this policy contributes to their physical disappearance so much the better.[/FONT]

Absolutely crazy that most of the small numbers who have joined this group cannot be contained within the same Left Communist Organisation. Young people are turning to us for answers and we should not let them down.

How would you see that organisation working, or rather, arising, Rowntree? It seems fairly obvious that none of the existing organisations could accommodate us all, or we'd all (or, mostly at least) be in it. How does the world party, or even the organisation that comes before the world party, come about?

Bravo Kontrrazvedka! I think Alf is making a mistake saying that we will all unite listening to the uncommitted. We recognise and respect the fact that the comrades of the other organisations have put in an enormous effort even to survive to this point. Now the material situation is beginning to change. We are beginning to discuss but not because of those who emptily criticise from the sidelines but because we have to.

However I notice in your earlier posts that you say you intend to join the ICC. Fine but then you say you have never heard of their Theses on Parasitism. If you have not discussed them with Alf and Leo it would be like someone announcing their conversion to Catholicism without having heard of the Immaculate Conception!