Collaborative list of Left Communist organisations

Let's forget exceeding by 20 people. I would imagine that there are few organisations that have twenty people: BC in Italy, ICC in France, and perhaps in Mexico, and Maybe Programma. I don't imagine there can be many more.

I agree. I have edited my post to clarify what I was trying to say:

Lets keep some sense of proportion here. The ICC, ICT and the Bordigists may be slightly bigger then the other groups. But aside from BC in Italy, the French and Mexican sections of the ICC and the Bordigists groups. Most sections of the international groups don't exceed 20 people and are in general around the size of the other groups we are discussing.

Rather than using 'we', it would be more precise to say that a political assessment has to be made, one way or the other.

Political organisations in the workers movement are expressions of a wider movement and dynamic, which can be positive or negative (and contradictory of course). I am not thinking about size so much here. Birov as far as I know is a very small group but I think they are the product of a more significant movement of reflection going on, particularly among certain elements in anarchism.

Android: "I just consider the notion of 'real work' potentially problematic, in that under present conditions what would that be? Surely it is the movement of the working-class struggling against its conditions of existence that will produce a word-party, not this or that left-communist group declaring themselves the pole of regroupment etc".

I think the debate is or should be moving beyond this or that group declaring itself the pole of regroupment. For some time now, for example, the ICC has talked about the need to take part in creating a pole (of 'reference', although 'regroupment' is OK as well), not about already being such a pole. But this is an active process and although it's profoundly connected to the wider class movement, it's essential for communist groups to be involved in it if there is to be a world party in the future (that's what i mean by 'real work', although I admit that's a rather vague term). The world party is not, as I am sure you would agree, a purely immediate product of the class movement, however massive.

Kontrrazvedka: http://cafe.daum.net/leftcommunist is the site of the Korean Left Communist Group which has taken part in a number of ICC congresses recently, as has another group from Korea, Sanosin, and the Brazilian group OPOP ('Workers Opposition')

Re-reading this before posting, it occurs to me that it should be called 'why I won't be applying to join the ICC or CWO any time soon'.

For me at least the situation outlined by Black Magic Hustla and Android means that the tasks of revolutionaries or pro-revolutionaries if one prefers that term (I don't, I think it's horrible, but never mind) must consist of trying to work together to salvage anything that can be saved from the slow-motion shipwreck of Left Communism. 84 years after the Communist International went over to the counter-revolution, where are we exactly? 30 years after the international conferences, what has changed?

Well, the world outside has changed a lot since 1980. The crisis of capitalism is both deeper and wider. The Eastern Bloc has fallen, a bunch of Third World Dictators have come and gone. The world economy is in free-fall (share prices still 20% down on 1999 I heard today). Wars and genocides are multiplying. The catastrophic assault by capitalism on the environment - on the radar but hardly the most pressing topic in 1980 - is so serious that some scientists consider than even if we could halt the causes of anthropogenic warming the effects would still be with us for centuries to come.

As for the working class, a new generation of young angry workers has come along. Some things are really hopeful. Despite the dead-ends of reformism, democratism, and outright nationalism that have been seen in the so-called 'Arab Spring', the revolt of the poor and marginalised, unemployed and precarious, dispossessed and ignored, in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe, the echoes this had internationally (Tunisia to Egypt to Portugal to Spain to Greece to America to Britain and beyond), the signs of international solidarity in the student protests in 2010 and the now worldwide phenomenon of the Indignacios/Occupy movements this year is heartening. Even, in Britain, the massive strikes and the riots proved that people weren't prepared to do nothing. Pointless they may have been, but signs of anger, frustration and resentment rather than passivity.

And guess what? The communist left is still tiny and for most people utterly insignificant. This is my point about the disconnection between theory and practice, or theory and reality perhaps. 'In theory' (how many times have we heard 'in theory, communism works...'?), well, in theory left communism works. But in practice it's just a series of ever more bizarre and obscure sects. Some of them have produced texts that for depth of clarity on the world situation are among the best political works ever committed to posterity by humans, in my opinion. I mean, really marvellous, illuminating analyses of history and the world situation. With readerships of what, a couple of hundred, one or two thousand worldwide?

It doesn't matter how right the ICC or the ICT are. It really doesn't matter. Few people read your papers, few people even know you're there. World Revolution is sold in 7 bookshops in 6 cities in a country with 60 million people. Unless 10 million people go through the door in each city every month (I used to work in one of them, 20 people a day is busy, and most of them I'd know anyway, 3 new people was worth talking about); the hugely vast majority of people have no idea that the ICC or the ICT even exist. Arguing about relative insignificance of other groups because they have three members not seven or nine sounds a little like the prophets in the 'Life of Brian'. You can get nine angels to dance on the head of your pin? Bully for you. Irrelevant.

The disconnect that exists between the potential that the left communist have and what they are achieving is so immense, so overwhelming, that at times I wonder if it's me that really isn't getting it, isn't comprehending reality. Then, over and over again it hits me. No, it's the organisations themselves. Yourselves, and I really hope you're reading this too Jock because it certainly isn't just Alf I'm talking to here. I hope Shug's reading it too, but I have a fair suspicion that Shug already knows this.

If the communist left cannot begin to work together in a spirit of fraternal co-operation then all of your organisations deserve to die, and you will be what Black Magic Hustler hopes you're not - a treasure chest for future generations of struggle. We'll find your archives, and we'll say 'these organisations had a profound understanding of the situation: it was tragic they couldn't act on it' and we'll try not to make the same mistakes. I really understand that's hardly diplomatic, given the current spat between the ICC and the ICT over whether it's better to call for an organisation's destruction secretly or in the open, versus pubishing the obituary of an organisation that's 'opinion' rather than 'policy'. But, really? Take a position on the organisations as they currently exist? Even the best of them get 9/10 for theoretical positions elaborated but maybe 3/10 for actual practice. Positive? Yeah. Just. Not a total failure. But not good enough. Not by a long way. Not up to the demands of the moment.

This isn't the 1990s. This isn't the 1930s. There is no objective reason for the organisations of the communist left to exist as a series of fractured cults scattered across the developed world. This is not a period of counter-revolution. Obviously there is history. Get over it. Organisations of the working class exist to serve the working class. Are the current organisations serving the working class?

Talk about the working class missing dates with history? How many have the organisations missed? 1968, well that was the begining. With no 1968 nothing that followed could happen, it's hardly likely a political organisation could spring up like Athene out of the head of Zeus. But it isn't 1968 any more, and even in 1968 you were only part of the answer. 1980 and the international conferences? Don't get me started. None of you comes out of it smelling of roses. 1989? No. 1989 was dismal. The ICC was right, 'in theory', but in spite of being correct, was utterly irrelevant. Hell, I was a revolutionary in 1989, and I was cheering, I thought after Warsaw and Prague and Berlin, Bonn and Paris and London were next. Shows what I know. Why wasn't I reading the ICC on events in Eastern Europe? Because I'd never heard of them, didn't hear of them for another 10 years. I was reading Trotskyists, Anarchists, books about Rosa Luxemburg and dadaism, the Situationists, trying to make sense of the Spectacle, looking for the transcendent slogan. Failure on my part to seek out positions I didn't know existed? Yeah, maybe. Failure on the part of the organisations of the communist left to communicate to what would have been a willing audience? Yeah, maybe.

Not sure whether it's politic to mention this, but in a spirit of openess and whatever, making a political judgement about the practice of organisations and not hiding behind democratic scepticism, I somewhat jokingly said to Alf a while back that I'd always thought the ICC should have applied to join the IBRP. Probably as local sections, I thought, though I imagined that the IBRP would have seen this as a kind of attack. Imagine my surprise when, in discussing with an unidentified comrade of the CWO, that comrade said to me 'you know, I really don't know what we'd have done if the ICC had applied to join the IBRP, I'm sort of surprised they didn't'. The same comrade also asked me in all seriousness why I hadn't joined the ICC, as I was obviously in agreement with the organisation on so many issues. 'Wouldn't that make it more difficult to discuss with you?' I asked. The question seemed to confuse our CWO comrade who took a moment to recover. 'Yes, I suppose it would', they said.

Really, I'm not so wedded to the notion of joining a sect, even if the political analysis of those sects is spot on. It's the rest of it that's... a bit shit. I sort of feel that that there's an edifice that must be built and we only have a few bricks. The bricks are the existing organisations. The mortar is all of us who are so exasperated with the organisations that we can't bring ourselves to join them even though we think that they're generally right, or even that they're all we've got. Honestly, I'd rather waste my time trying to get the ICC, ICT and the ex-CBG to talk to each other than almost any other political project I can think of at present. But the thought of actually seeking to join the ICC or ICT fills me with dread. Sects, all of them; sects filled with warm, intelligent people, some of my favourite people in the world, but utterly irrelevant in the world beyond the microcosm of Left Communist politics, irrelevant to the vast majority of people out there, irrelevant to class struggle that is going on, because you're too busy fighting your friends to unite and work together to find the people who could be your allies.

So, because I was asked (no, I was told I 'must', thanks Alf) I pronounce political judgement on the communist left: put up or shut up. Live up to your responsibilities, or go into the dark. Me? I'm an ex-anarchist who yearns but doesn't like hard work or confrontation. I don't claim to embody anything. But the organisations of the communsit left claim to be the authentic voice of the revolutionary impulses of the world working class. You say you hold the red thread in your hands. Use it, rebind the revolutionary history with present practice; or fade into obscurity to be re-discovered by future generations that haven't been tainted with the bile and sectarianism of the self-important groupiscules that plague the revolutionary terrain.

honestly, i think if anything, the factions in the communist left that will survive or stay relevant in the future, will have to regroup around something else than themselves. the "ultraleft" millieu today is too tiny and insignificant, and has been so for many decades to be able to absorb the new waves of struggle. i imagine something new will have to emerge from the class struggle where pro-revs will have to attune themsleves to - as opposed to the old idea of the communist left of being some sorts of "treasure chest" of the revolutionary program as handed down by our ancestors.

I think that this something that these groups should seriously consider. It is not impossible that the entire communist left as it exists today could be passed by, and personally I think that it is quite likely that much of it will be.

The ICC almost certainly will not 'be able to absorb the new waves of struggle'. If we look at their UK section for example, as we are discussing in English, and ask when did anybody who was under thirty last join, let alone under twenty, I think it would give us a good idea of the ICC's capabilities in this regard.

Will any of the revolutionary groups today be able to contribute anything at all to the development of a futrure party except perhaps a few dusty old archives, I don't think it is impossible, but it is certainly far fom gauranteed.

I think that really the time is coming where the generation of 1968, which dominates thee groups, will have to make a decsion on how it will be remembered. At the moment, the most obvious question is whether it will be at all even.

Devrim

Rather than using 'we', it would be more precise to say that a political assessment has to be made, one way or the other.

This sounds a bit like Ronald Reagan in the 'mistakes were made' bit. Of course both individuals and organisations will make political assesments, but I don't think it is really appropriate for people with widly divergent ideas about these things to make tht assesment here for this list.

I think the debate is or should be moving beyond this or that group declaring itself the pole of regroupment. For some time now, for example, the ICC has talked about the need to take part in creating a pole (of 'reference', although 'regroupment' is OK as well), not about already being such a pole.

But surely this is merely a recognition of how pately absurd it would be/was to proclaim yourself 'the pole of regroupment'.

Devrim

Political organisations in the workers movement are expressions of a wider movement and dynamic, which can be positive or negative (and contradictory of course). I am not thinking about size so much here. Birov as far as I know is a very small group but I think they are the product of a more significant movement of reflection going on, particularly among certain elements in anarchism.

Birov is indeed a really small group. I personally know all of their members while they were still in ASI (IWA's section in Serbia) since I was MASA's (anarcho-syndicalist organisation from Croatia) International Secretary for few years. I'm not sure what do you mean when you are talking about "a more significant movement of reflection going on amogn certain elements in anarchism", but I believe that formation of groups such as Birov or group on which we work in Croatia (which is ideologicaly different, but we come almost from the same background) is reflection of (a) policy of IWA's section from Serbia, (b) "left" from ex-Yugoslavia, (c) student movement/universitiy occupations and (d) ICC's website where we got introducet to Left-Communism.

I think that the ICC sort of loses its grip here. It sort of draws links between the level of class struggle, and the apperance of political groups.

What we have to try and remember though is that these political groups are so tiny. It is not as if we are seeing the emergence of new political groups with a real influence in the class. What we are seeing is effectively the formation of a few tiny discussion circles, many of which have little to no involvement in the class struggle.

Kontrrazvedka's version seems much more explanitory than Alf''s. There has always been some reflection on left/council communist ideas within at least he UK anarchist movement, and perhaps some of this may be down to the good work done by the early ICC. The status of Engflish as the effective world language, and he internet may hve contributed to the spread of thi 'reflection'.

That there is some more significant movement of this going on at the moment seems to me to be a case of constructing big tendencies out of very little evidence.

I don,t know, maybe it is subterrainian or something.

Devrim

This is going well beyond a telephone directory, which can only be a good thing. I think that all the comrades in the last few posts have made very valid points and I will try to respond in due course.
Blake's Baby: I understand your anger and frustration but things are not quite as dark as they seem. There is the beginning of dialogue among the old groups and elements and it's to a large extent because of the pressure coming from comrades like yourselves. It is impossible for us not to be aware of the dangers we face - 'missing the boat' with the new generation, a slow and painful death of the existing organisations. But we also have to be aware of the positive developments that are taking place if we are to affect them. All the points that kontrrazvedka makes about Birov are certainly valid, but I think the phenomenon is international. There are some serious debates going on in the CNT-AIT France, for example. This indicates a deeper trend, even if it's not definite proof.

Once more I am not sure what the big deal is, you are just submitting all these groups to your formalist tick-the-boxes questionaire. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with theoretical circles, in fact i think they can play a positive role within the communist movement. Do you have a negative opinion of what you call "magazine circles"?

Not necessarily. Some are better than the others.

Of the groups you characterise as "magazine circles" (IP, Controversies, FICL, Internationalist Voice, MC, Insurgent Notes and n+1), I think you fairly characterise Controverses, Internationalist Voice and possibly Insurgent Notes and n+1 as such. I don't think you can characterise IP, FICL and MC as merely magazine circles. I know IP have oriented themselves toward workers struggles in the past and more recently have engaged the Occupy movement in the USA.

Magazine circles can orient themselves towards workers struggles too, I never said they can't.

As regards MC, last time I met Devrim he told me when he met them in the Czech Republic where he helped them distribute a leaflet they had produced in at least more then one language at some factory

Actually, I think you are misremembering the story. What I remember is that the KPK made and distributed a leaflet in Czech Republic during a strike (which does, you know, make more sense than MC going there from France to do it) and MC came to a public meeting and talked for hours and hours about some theoretical question. I might be wrong, of course.

FICL have supported and taken part in workers initiatives in the recent past if I recall correctly, so not an accurate description of them either.

I actually said I am not sure whether they can be qualified as a magazine circle since I honestly doubt whether anyone would actually buy their publication, even if they publish. They are, I suppose, a small circle of friends with a website. A small circle of friends with a website too can participate in workers' struggles. In fact, everyone can do so.

Lets keep some sense of proportion here. The ICC, ICT and the Bordigists may be slightly bigger then the other groups. But aside from BC in Italy, the French and Mexican sections of the ICC and the Bordigists groups. Most sections of the international groups don't exceed 20 people and are in general around the size as the other groups we are discussing.

Most of the groups mentioned are less then ten people.

Most of the sections of the ICC and the ICT aren't as many as 20 people either, so yes, what you are saying isn't wrong - but these people are internationally united as opposed to not.

We print more papers than they do

To be honest, I am quite surprised by this. Everybody who has any actual knowledge of what we are talking about knows that the entire communist left is tiny. I don't entirely see the point of stating that one group is slightly less minuscule than another.

I didn't actually say anything as such, but obviously the ICC does indeed print more papers than the others. The communist left is, without a doubt tiny. Its organizations and its magazine circles alike. This doesn't mean a magazine circle of five people in a singe country equals organizations of dozens of militants.

The ICC is an international organisation, which has sections that don't meet its already minimal criteria for sections (three people). There are cases where the dog of 'one man and his dog fame' would be a marked increase in size.

Ah, 'one man and his dog' jokes, how sweet.

It is of course true that the ICC have nuclei so small to be proper sections. Even a bigger shock, there are countries where the ICC doesn't even have such nuclei at all!

I can think of three sections of the ICC that the KPK is bigger than. That is not bigger than each of them separately, but than the three of them combined. The KPK, like all left communist groups today, is tiny, but the ICC isn't much bigger

The ICC is much bigger, even though some sections might well be smaller than the KPK combined. The ICC also is tiny, but it is, internationally, an organization well past the hundred - and the ICT is nearer to a hundred than to fifty as far as I'm aware of - whereas most of the other groups mentioned are not even ten.

If the communist left cannot begin to work together in a spirit of fraternal co-operation then all of your organisations deserve to die

There were some points I agreed in your post, some I disagreed with but this one I am absolutely in full agreement, although I do think maybe you should calm down a little bit still.

Honestly, I'd rather waste my time trying to get the ICC, ICT and the ex-CBG to talk to each other than almost any other political project I can think of at present.

Well, whatever you're doing seems to be working pretty well at the moment.

It doesn't matter how right the ICC or the ICT are. It really doesn't matter. Few people read your papers, few people even know you're there. World Revolution is sold in 7 bookshops in 6 cities in a country with 60 million people. Unless 10 million people go through the door in each city every month (I used to work in one of them, 20 people a day is busy, and most of them I'd know anyway, 3 new people was worth talking about); the hugely vast majority of people have no idea that the ICC or the ICT even exist. Arguing about relative insignificance of other groups because they have three members not seven or nine sounds a little like the prophets in the 'Life of Brian'. You can get nine angels to dance on the head of your pin? Bully for you. Irrelevant.

Really, I'm not so wedded to the notion of joining a sect, even if the political analysis of those sects is spot on. It's the rest of it that's... a bit shit. I sort of feel that that there's an edifice that must be built and we only have a few bricks. The bricks are the existing organisations. The mortar is all of us who are so exasperated with the organisations that we can't bring ourselves to join them even though we think that they're generally right, or even that they're all we've got. Honestly, I'd rather waste my time trying to get the ICC, ICT and the ex-CBG to talk to each other than almost any other political project I can think of at present. But the thought of actually seeking to join the ICC or ICT fills me with dread. Sects, all of them; sects filled with warm, intelligent people, some of my favourite people in the world, but utterly irrelevant in the world beyond the microcosm of Left Communist politics, irrelevant to the vast majority of people out there

What exactly is a sect? What exactly is relevant, what is irrelevant? There are billions of people unaware of the existence of the communist left. There are probably millions of people who don't know where Australia is, and millions of people who don't know how to read and write. There are probably more than a hundred thousand people who are at least check out the ICC or the ICT websites every now and then, which means that more people world-wide have heard of the communist left. To keep in perspective, this is an absolutely tiny number, in comparison with the entire population of the world. Probably more people know about Paris Hilton than they know about left communism. Or anarcho-syndicalism. Or Trotskyism. Or Stalinism. Or bourgeois democracy. Or elections. Or politics. Does this mean Paris Hilton is more relevant than politics?

Lately, and especially in the English-speaking milieu I've been encountering this "it's all irrelevant - they are all sects" a lot. I'm a bit bored of it to be honest. It is a very depressive perspective. Everything is relevant. Everything has an effect. Nothing is irrelevant. And sects, I mean actual, proper sects like the Baptists and the Methodists, or the Scientologists are much more relevant to daily life than most leftist organizations. So what?

The size of all these groups mentioned is, actually, not as relevant as their politics or their theory, given they all are absolutely tiny. However this doesn't mean that the ICC or the ICT should be considered as basically the same thing as a circle of friends putting out a magazine. Not that there is anything wrong with the latter necessarily, or that there is anything wrong with being in the tiniest of the tiniest group (unless the entire group is made up of one individual) however that doesn't make an organization. Actually, the ICC and the ICT are organizations not because they are bigger by far than all the other groups. They are bigger because they are organizations, and with all the mistakes, problems and fuck-ups, they do, at the end of the day, actually promote a unity framework of sorts. The reason they are bigger is because they unite, they regroup. And they are growing, both the ICC and the ICT. They are growing a little, they aren't growing everywhere but they, nevertheless, they are growing. And they will keep growing, because they have the perspective and the framework to do so, despite all their mistakes.

These organizations, the ICC, the ICT, the Bordigists, the magazine circles, the little groups, all of these are made up of very committed people. They're mostly old, and they've been committed to the cause for decades. I have no problem with the need for them to be criticized, but them and all their efforts being dismissed as irrelevant sects is not only unfair but also not constructive. And if anyone expects a new wave to emerge from class struggle by itself and magically solve all the problems of the communist left, I'll tell right away that it won't happen as it didn't happen before. The entire wave that was May 68 gave us the organizations and the militants of today. As most people are aware, it wasn't a magic solution to the problems then. New waves come with new problems of their own, which at least partially build up on the problems of the old generations. Not that the situation can't be improved, but waiting for it to happen isn't going to improve anything.

but utterly irrelevant in the world beyond the microcosm of Left Communist politics, irrelevant to the vast majority of people out there, irrelevant to class struggle that is going on, because you're too busy fighting your friends to unite and work together to find the people who could be your allies.

This, I don't think is entirely true and sounds a bit melancholic, but I do see a fair point here. I think the organizations of the communist left can be quite relevant to class struggle when it's happening - they aren't always, but it is always possible and I've personally experienced it. And all they do is not fighting friends, and that is happening much less than it used to from what I understand. Still the problem is clearly there and needs a solution.

Most of the groups mentioned are less then a handful of people, in other words less then ten people.

A handful is generally considered to be five, that is unless you have very strange hands.

Most of the sections of the ICC and the ICT aren't as many as 20 people either, so yes, what you are saying isn't wrong - but these people are internationally united as opposed to not.

What does it mean for them to be 'internationally united'? In the case of the ICC from my experience, it means that local sections fall behind the latest absurd idea from the centre in Paris. In the case of the ICC, I think that being 'internationally united' is more like a yoke to carry than something positive.

We print more papers than they do

I didn't actually say anything as such,

No, I realise you didn't. It was a light-hearted attempt to show I was referring to what you said rather than reprint a long diatribe about how a couple of dozen people make one group more relevant than the others.

The communist left is, without a doubt tiny. Its organizations and its magazine circles alike. This doesn't mean a magazine circle of five people in a singe country equals organizations of dozens of militants.

I would say that in the terms of what we are trying to achieve, it is pretty much as equal as for the difference to be irrelevant.

Of course they are not exactly equal, but I don't think that there is significant difference to say which one, if any, will have a role to play in constructing a future party.

Ah, 'one man and his dog' jokes, how sweet.

It is of course true that the ICC have nuclei so small to be proper sections. Even a bigger shock, there are countries where the ICC doesn't even have such nuclei at all!

First don't patronise me. Second my point here was that there exist 'sections' of the ICC that are only one person. As you know, it is true. Now yes, you can claim that there are sections in however many countries, but you know that in reality, it is not true. There are countries where a section is a person and others where it is two.

The size of all these groups mentioned is, actually, not as relevant as their politics or their theory, given they all are absolutely tiny. However this doesn't mean that the ICC or the ICT should be considered as basically the same thing as a circle of friends putting out a magazine.

That is pretty much how I consider the ICC. A group of friends with a lot of rules to be sure and more than one magazine, but yes to me the ICC has always seemed more like a club than a political organistation, in most cases going on putting out their papers and magazines out of habit, and because it is what they do more than anything else.

And they are growing, both the ICC and the ICT. They are growing a little, they aren't growing everywhere but they, nevertheless, they are growing. And they will keep growing, because they have the perspective and the framework to do so, despite all their mistakes.

I don't believe at all that the ICC is growing. I think it is shrinking and certainly was when I was a member i.e. until slightly less than six months ago. To be honest I can't imagine how you have picked up this impression.

Devrim

Problem is that only real “mass organisation” in IWA is Spanish CNT with up to 30.000 members (something like that) and that second largest is Italian USI with 1000 members.

These numbers sound absurdly high. I would suggest that the CNT is probably about 3,000, not 30,000.

Devrim

Well, I know that they have 10000 members +. I believe that I heard that it was 30000, but that could be CGT or SAC. Anyhow, the only important point in this numbers stuff is that CNT is quite big organisation for present day conditions.

Yes, it is quite a big organisation, but I would really doubt numbers as high as 10,000 even. In fact I think 4,000 is quite high.

Devrim

I don't wanna get involved with „drama“ from Blake's Baby's post,...

Sorry about the drama comrade, it seems I often post at 2 or 3am or when I'm tired and frustrated, and sometimes when I've been involved in arguments with other RevLefters (or all together), so sometimes as Leo says, I do ned to calm down.

...
I’m still “new” in this conflict between ICT and ICC. I’ve read several threads on this forum about differences between ICT and ICC and to be honest the only difference I see is in “decadence theory” (which I still have to study little bit more). Still, I don’t think that this is such a big barrier for these two organisations to act as one. They don’t have actually to unite, but they could work as two organisations within same platform. If ICC is now working with “international anarchists” (like you can see here: http://russia.internationalist-forum.org/en ) why shouldn’t it work with left-communists? I’m not for all this “peace and love, let’s all hug and sing” pan-leftist bullshit, but I really don’t see why shouldn’t left-communists of different organisations, who have more in common than ICC and anarchists, work together.

This. I don't think it's possible in the short term to find any 'magic formula' for the World Party. I think it is possible to find agreement on joint work and closer co-operation. I can see an organisation with tendencies, an 'International Review Tendency' and a 'Battaglia Comunista Tendency', for instance (as well as others I hope), that may be able in time to become the world party, but joint work would be a start. I know there was discussion about a meeting between World Revolution and the CWO, but last I heard the sticking point was that the CWO had demanded that the ICC formally repudiate the text of the resolution from France that called for the 'destruction' or 'discrediting' of the ICT. Actually, I think this is reasonable enough, if the ICC really has a perspective that the ICT should be destroyed, there seems little point in discussing; if it doesn't, it shouldn't have a problem formally repudiating the text.

I'd want things to go further to be honest. I'd prefer it if the organisations could issue statements along the lines of 'Organisation N recognises that other organisations P, Q and S are composed of sincere communists with whom Org N has disagreements, but recognises that the other orgs are part of the process of the working class producing political minorites, and vows to make the attempt to work with these other orgs in a comradely and fraternal spirit'. And then of course to follow it up.

I would say that in the terms of what we are trying to achieve, it is pretty much as equal as for the difference to be irrelevant.

Of course they are not exactly equal, but I don't think that there is significant difference to say which one, if any, will have a role to play in constructing a future party.

The difference between five and a hundred is significant enough. Yes, in terms of what we are trying to achieve both numbers are tiny, but the five is far tinier that the hundred, and the hundred capable of acting together has much more to give than the five.

First don't patronise me.

Then don't mock militants who still keep trying even if its only them left in a given country. 'One man and his dog' jokes are simply mean.

Second my point here was that there exist 'sections' of the ICC that are only one person. As you know, it is true. Now yes, you can claim that there are sections in however many countries, but you know that in reality, it is not true. There are countries where a section is a person and others where it is two.

And my point was that there are countries where there there is no section at all. So what?

There is one country with a single member and two countries with a couple of members. Some sections are bigger than others. The majority of the sections are obviously larger than that. It is an exception, not a rule as you yourself are well aware of.

I don't believe at all that the ICC is growing. I think it is shrinking and certainly was when I was a member i.e. until slightly less than six months ago. To be honest I can't imagine how you have picked up this impression.

You can believe what you will. Mine is not an impression, the ICC is statistically growing, I actually know.

Problem is that only real “mass organisation” in IWA is Spanish CNT with up to 30.000 members (something like that) and that second largest is Italian USI with 1000 members.

These numbers sound absurdly high. I would suggest that the CNT is probably about 3,000, not 30,000.

Well, I know that they have 10000 members +. I believe that I heard that it was 30000, but that could be CGT or SAC. Anyhow, the only important point in this numbers stuff is that CNT is quite big organisation for present day conditions.

The numbers I heard were 6,000 for the CNT (which I believe might indeed be exaggerated), about 50-60,000 for the CGT and 18,000 for the SAC.

... The ICC also is tiny, but it is, internationally, an organization well past the hundred - and the ICT is nearer to a hundred than to fifty as far as I'm aware of - whereas most of the other groups mentioned are not even ten...

As I'm neither a member of the ICC nor the CWO, and my experience is pretty much confined to the UK (I have met a few ICT comrades from other countries but can't say I have any sold info), I can't really comment on the sizes of either organisation, but from my impression I would think the biggest national organisations would be the ICC's sections in France and Mexico, and BC in Italy; the British sections of both organisations seem to be less than 20.

...There were some points I agreed in your post, some I disagreed with but this one I am absolutely in full agreement, although I do think maybe you should calm down a little bit still...

Well, yes. Agreed.

...

What exactly is a sect? What exactly is relevant, what is irrelevant?...

A sect is a group that is 'cut of' or 'seperated' from other similar groups. Relevant... well, in political terms I guess I mean, that the majority of people to whom the ICC and ICT direct their political activity, are unaware of their existence. As the ICC and ICT orientate themselves to workers in an attempt to influence the consciousness of the working class in the direction of consciousness of itself as an historic class, the inability to do that on anything other than a tiny scale makes these groups 'irrelevant' to the vast majority of the working class.

...There are billions of people unaware of the existence of the communist left. There are probably millions of people who don't know where Australia is, and millions of people who don't know how to read and write. There are probably more than a hundred thousand people ...

I think this might be somewhat exaggerated but I've never seen the 'discrete visitors' figures for the ICC or ICT

...who are at least check out the ICC or the ICT websites every now and then, which means that more people world-wide have heard of the communist left. To keep in perspective, this is an absolutely tiny number, in comparison with the entire population of the world. Probably more people know about Paris Hilton than they know about left communism. Or anarcho-syndicalism. Or Trotskyism. Or Stalinism. Or bourgeois democracy. Or elections. Or politics. Does this mean Paris Hilton is more relevant than politics?

Lately, and especially in the English-speaking milieu I've been encountering this "it's all irrelevant - they are all sects" a lot. I'm a bit bored of it to be honest. It is a very depressive perspective. Everything is relevant. Everything has an effect. Nothing is irrelevant. And sects, I mean actual, proper sects like the Baptists and the Methodists, or the Scientologists are much more relevant to daily life than most leftist organizations. So what?...

What I'm arguing is that perhaps we should attempt to escape our irrelavance? I'm bored by it too, and baffled and frustrated. I don't particularly enjoy moaning about the state of the political organisations. Every so often I tell the story of the first ICC forum I attended where a CWO comrade was there and there was a fraternal attitude, some disagreement and some agreement, everyone conducted themselves very well, and I was amazed as before that my experience of political organsiations before then was in leftist (and not-so-leftist) organisations. That made a massive impression, and more than anything other single thing convinced me to take the communist left seriously. Not its politics, but how militants of different organisations behaved to each other. Without that, I might bnever have seriously investigatd the politics.

Relations between the ICC and the (then) IBRP quickly deteriorated however over the following years, and only in the last two or three have I seen even the slight signs of a thaw.

...The size of all these groups mentioned is, actually, not as relevant as their politics or their theory, given they all are absolutely tiny...

Their ability to intervene in the class struggle is related to their size, as well as their conduct, however. If people visiting the ICC site think that the political positions expressed there are worth considering and finding out about that's excellent, but if they then visit LibCom or talk to the CWO or IP or the CBG, and get some information that suggests to them that the ICC is sectarian, paranoid, cultish; if they look at attempts over the years to come together and unite around common frameworks or positions they might see that the ICC has made appeals to work together, or that IP made its appeal to the pro-revolutionary milieu, but then look at the situation and see that all these appeals fall on stoney ground; they may come to the conclusion that no matter how much they agree with the organisation's politics, if it can't work together with similar organisatiuons it isn't worth the effort. Purity of political analysis is no guarantee of relevance. One person may have all the answers but without the ability to communicate them, he may as well have a brain made of soup. Same goes for an organisation. Size is not the criterion I'm measuring by here, it's ability to communicate, but size does come into that, as do the reputation of your organisation and the opinion others have of it.

...

These organizations, the ICC, the ICT, the Bordigists, the magazine circles, the little groups, all of these are made up of very committed people. They're mostly old, and they've been committed to the cause for decades. I have no problem with the need for them to be criticized, but them and all their efforts being dismissed as irrelevant sects is not only unfair but also not constructive...

I don't disagree that the political organisations I'm criticising are composed of committed people. Those I have met from the CWO, ICC, CBG and IP,and this includes sympathisers too, have impressed me as being some of the most intelligent, committed, dedicated people I have ever met and many of them I consider it a privilege to know.

But I hope I'm not being either unfair or unconstructive. I really do believe that all of the organisations can be even more than they are now, and I'm not attempting to belittle the work that they are doing or have done. I'm really not complaining because I have some axe to grind. I think the reality is they are all small and mostly irrelevant sects, and I don't think that the truth (surely, 'the truth' from my point of view) is either unfair or unconstructive. Self-delusion is unconstructive, not criticising mistakes is unfair. And dedicated intelligent people can still do the wrong things. Pretending that I don't see a huge problem in the current state of things would I think be worse than risking offending some people that I really do think very highly of.

...
And if anyone expects a new wave to emerge from class struggle by itself and magically solve all the problems of the communist left, I'll tell right away that it won't happen as it didn't happen before. The entire wave that was May 68 gave us the organizations and the militants of today. As most people are aware, it wasn't a magic solution to the problems then. New waves come with new problems of their own, which at least partially build up on the problems of the old generations. Not that the situation can't be improved, but waiting for it to happen isn't going to improve anything...

Which is why we need to work even harder to improve things, surely? I'm not sure either me or the organisations thinks that the new generation of militants will magically solve the current problems, so I'm not sure who this is directed at. It seems to me more likely that the new generation of militants will mostly ignore the organisations of the communist left either because they just don't know about them, or because they find out alittle and dismiss the whole thing as a collection of tiny irrelevant sects... and if they did, honestly, would you blame them?

... And all they do is not fighting friends, and that is happening much less than it used to from what I understand. Still the problem is clearly there and needs a solution.

I didn't say it was 'all they did'. I said that it kept them busy when they could be doing other things. And in all honesty, I don't believe that organisations should refrain from criticising each other, but I do believe that they should stop 'competing' with each other. It's wasteful of effort, time, energy and resources, none of which are infinite supply, and it can come across as squabbling and point-scoring, which is very offputting to people coming to it cold.

As I'm neither a member of the ICC nor the CWO, and my experience is pretty much confined to the UK (I have met a few ICT comrades from other countries but can't say I have any sold info), I can't really comment on the sizes of either organisation, but from my impression I would think the biggest national organisations would be the ICC's sections in France and Mexico, and BC in Italy; the British sections of both organisations seem to be less than 20.

Yeah, less than 20, more than 10 basically. As far as I've heard, CWO is slightly bigger than World Revolution now although it was the other way around for a long time.

A sect is a group that is 'cut of' or 'seperated' from other similar groups.

By this definition, I don't think the ICC can be categorized as a sect. It is not, in any way cut off from other most of the similar groups (not all, admittedly) - in fact there are lots of groups the ICC has close and fraternal relations with. The ICT is probably likewise, although I don't really know much about their relations with other groups. The situation between the ICC and the ICT, which is I think the most major point here, has been improving, and some steps I consider very important and promising were made. If I was religious, I'd pray day and night for things to get better.

Relevant... well, in political terms I guess I mean, that the majority of people to whom the ICC and ICT direct their political activity, are unaware of their existence. As the ICC and ICT orientate themselves to workers in an attempt to influence the consciousness of the working class in the direction of consciousness of itself as an historic class, the inability to do that on anything other than a tiny scale makes these groups 'irrelevant' to the vast majority of the working class.

Well, yes, the majority of the working class are unaware of the existence of left communism. I think everyone knows this. I am not sure whether this would necessarily qualify left communism as irrelevant though. Lenin was, when he was hiding in Switzerland, a virtually unknown person, the leading person of what appeared to be an irrelevant sect. Paris Hilton, who is better known than a great majority of the worlds politicians, I would say, is actually much more irrelevant to history than any of them.

Horrors, the moment I realized I just compared Lenin and Paris Hilton.

I think this might be somewhat exaggerated but I've never seen the 'discrete visitors' figures for the ICC or ICT

Well, I have for the ICC, and they are by themselves alone in the hundred thousands.

What I'm arguing is that perhaps we should attempt to escape our irrelavance?

We should put our house in order.

I'm bored by it too, and baffled and frustrated. I don't particularly enjoy moaning about the state of the political organisations.

Yeah, best to try not to be pessimistic.

Every so often I tell the story of the first ICC forum I attended where a CWO comrade was there and there was a fraternal attitude, some disagreement and some agreement, everyone conducted themselves very well, and I was amazed as before that my experience of political organsiations before then was in leftist (and not-so-leftist) organisations. That made a massive impression, and more than anything other single thing convinced me to take the communist left seriously. Not its politics, but how militants of different organisations behaved to each other.

Yeah, I personally have a similar story. The people who recommended me to look into and study the positions of the then-IBRP and to contact them too and discuss with them were ICC militants who came to Turkey to discuss with us. I was personally really impressed with the attitude. We did, eventually, end up joining the ICC of course, but years later we organized a joint meeting with the IBRP here in Turkey.

Relations between the ICC and the (then) IBRP quickly deteriorated however over the following years, and only in the last two or three have I seen even the slight signs of a thaw.

Yes, what went on was indeed very unfortunate.

I don't disagree that the political organisations I'm criticising are composed of committed people. Those I have met from the CWO, ICC, CBG and IP,and this includes sympathisers too, have impressed me as being some of the most intelligent, committed, dedicated people I have ever met and many of them I consider it a privilege to know.

Having met members of all these groups, with the exception of the CBG, I actually share your feeling here.

But I hope I'm not being either unfair or unconstructive. I really do believe that all of the organisations can be even more than they are now,

They have to be.

and I'm not attempting to belittle the work that they are doing or have done. I'm really not complaining because I have some axe to grind.

No, I think that is very clear. The point I'm trying to make is that it is good and necessary to criticize, for criticisms can only help organizations like the ICC and the ICT. I believe the outside reaction to / criticism of the attitudes of both the ICC and the ICT towards each other had an incredibly positive effect - and of course it really helped the likes of me who were saying we have to improve our relations with the ICT within the ICC. However it is also important not to lose a grip of what is being done, and what is being done well.

I think the reality is they are all small and mostly irrelevant sects, and I don't think that the truth (surely, 'the truth' from my point of view) is either unfair or unconstructive. Self-delusion is unconstructive, not criticising mistakes is unfair. And dedicated intelligent people can still do the wrong things. Pretending that I don't see a huge problem in the current state of things would I think be worse than risking offending some people that I really do think very highly of.

This is all very true I think, and I also agree that there still are very serious problems to tackle probably for both organizations - but since I don't know the ICT that well, I'll say at least definitely for the ICC. I don't think the problem is that these two organizations are irrelevant though - because I don't think they are. They aren't the center of the world either. Relevance is relative, and above all relevance is political. I don't think we can say either of these organizations are sects, but sectarian tendencies certainly exist and have to cast away. Yet more importantly calling these organizations irrelevant sects is giving them a label. What is the concern at the bottom of this label? Well your concern, if I understood correctly, is that there needs to be more cooperation among left communists, most importantly the ICC and the ICT, and that they need to communicate their opinions better. These are, as it happens, concerns I entirely share, and about both organizations. Yet, what people understand from irrelevant sects is probably going to be different than what you understand from it (as is what I understand - if I consider an organization to be an irrelevant sect I wouldn't really bother talking about it). Perhaps it is a better idea to express the concern and give a name to the problem through discussion than use a label and then explain the concern behind it.

Which is why we need to work even harder to improve things, surely?

Absolutely.

I'm not sure either me or the organisations thinks that the new generation of militants will magically solve the current problems, so I'm not sure who this is directed at.

Not people who don't, surely

It seems to me more likely that the new generation of militants will mostly ignore the organisations of the communist left either because they just don't know about them

Well, one can't really ignore what one does not know.

or because they find out alittle and dismiss the whole thing as a collection of tiny irrelevant sects... and if they did, honestly, would you blame them?

I could blame them, I could blame myself, I could blame the organizations... However as you say the point is improving what there is as well as getting the ideas to more people.

I didn't say it was 'all they did'. I said that it kept them busy when they could be doing other things.

That's my bad then, apologies. I don't think that's still the case but it may well have been in the past at times.

And in all honesty, I don't believe that organisations should refrain from criticising each other, but I do believe that they should stop 'competing' with each other. It's wasteful of effort, time, energy and resources, none of which are infinite supply, and it can come across as squabbling and point-scoring, which is very offputting to people coming to it cold.

I can't agree more.

Their ability to intervene in the class struggle is related to their size, as well as their conduct, however. If people visiting the ICC site think that the political positions expressed there are worth considering and finding out about that's excellent, but if they then visit LibCom or talk to the CWO or IP or the CBG, and get some information that suggests to them that the ICC is sectarian, paranoid, cultish; if they look at attempts over the years to come together and unite around common frameworks or positions they might see that the ICC has made appeals to work together, or that IP made its appeal to the pro-revolutionary milieu, but then look at the situation and see that all these appeals fall on stoney ground; they may come to the conclusion that no matter how much they agree with the organisation's politics, if it can't work together with similar organisatiuons it isn't worth the effort. Purity of political analysis is no guarantee of relevance. One person may have all the answers but without the ability to communicate them, he may as well have a brain made of soup. Same goes for an organisation. Size is not the criterion I'm measuring by here, it's ability to communicate, but size does come into that, as do the reputation of your organisation and the opinion others have of it.

I saved this for the last, because I have very little to add to it to be honest, and I think I more or less completely agree with it. I will instead pose a question, what should be done and how should it be done?

Specifically about the ICC, I've come to realize that a lot of people quite like making ignorant comments about the ICC. Not that my organization doesn't, at times, with its attitudes or positions, contribute to the negative comments being made about it. It occasionally does. Yet, in a storm of myths, the true faults of the organization are lost. This makes a true evaluation and effective criticism of the ICC's problems much more difficult.

To be fair to the ICC, as you mention the ICC made numerous efforts to do joint work with other left communist organizations. However, unfortunately the relations with the CWO got worse, as you say. The people who make up the ICC are human beings with emotions, they are as capable of anyone of overreacting, acting emotionally, feeling sad and angry and so on. I wasn't in the organization at the time of the 16th Congress, but I asked comrades who were about the leaked info mentioned in the lines of "what the hell" and what the comrades said was that it was pretty much guided by such feelings. There were lots of misunderstandings, on both sides I think, between the ICC and the ICT.

What the ICC should do is pretty obvious, I think. The recent steps towards the ICT have been extremely positive, and the relationships need to keep improving. What else? The Theses on Parasitism has to be rejected. The ICC and the IP occasionally have good relations when they meet up on certain occasions. Some people from the CBG are back in contact with the ICC. These also are, I think very positive developments. They have to keep improving too. ICC has a very good, a very successful website. The question of the press and the printed papers need to be reconsidered. The amount of discussions in the ICC has been improving since I've joined, and at the moment I am quite happy about both the internal atmosphere and the quality of the discussions as well as the wideness of the opinions and how capable so many members are of questioning and criticizing "the latest absurd idea from Paris" when they feel it is necessary, contrary to the way Dev portrays it. The question of the new generation is admittedly an issue for the ICC, however several sections in Europe as well as outside are in the process of getting enough young comrades to ensure the survival of the sections after the 68 generation is done. In other words, I think the situation of the ICC is neither black nor white. Some things are being done well, some things are improving and some need to improve.

None of the other organizations I am entitled to comment as much in detail as I do about the ICC. I'll just say this - it tends to take at least two to dance. As a general rule, the other groups will have to make an effort for the improvement of the relations as well.

I agree that joint work and closer-cooperation are necessary. An ICC-ICT hybrid organization will not become the future party though. I don't think the two merging into one will mean much. Besides, the two organizations have different perspectives on the organizational level - two different approaches which can't be merged. Fundamentally, one history will prove one approach or the other correct. This doesn't mean there can't be joint-work and close cooperation, there has to be - so that at the end of the day, whoever turned out to wrong will have grace to admit it. And although I also envisage there being tendencies in the future party, "International Review Tendency" sounds like an unspeakably horrible name.

I've actually wrote one big post to replay Blake's Baby and Leo, but my shitty computer collapsed and in the half time between kicking it and cursing I lost my writing inspiration haha. So, I’ll kind of write it in short without quotes and similar stuff, because I really lost my nerves.

Long posts on forums should be guarded as if they were treasures while they are still being written, I've come to realize.

When I proposed cooperation between ICC and ICT and some kind of “left communist platform” I never claimed that ICC and ICT should be same organisation. I don’t believe that that would do much good anyway, because there are some differences between them and if you want to merge two organisations you have to concentrate on differences. Instead of that when you are creating “platform” for cooperation between two organisations, as I proposed, you have to concentrate on similarities and other things which you have in common. We all know that both organisations are quite small and I don’t think that debating number would lead us anywhere. What we should debate is praxis and how to introduce left communists’ ideas to working class. How to make movement more relevant. Trying to connect with all these small local groups and collectives would also be smart idea.

I agree with the spirit of the idea here, although practically we are still not quite there yet. Before something as concrete can develop, I feel there are other steps that need to be taken, so that the two organizations can get back to the habit of working together and develop it further. This includes, but is not limited to, having private meetings for sharing information and discussing important events, having joint public meetings and forums, writing joint leaflets, sending delegations to the other organization's conferences and congresses etc. One thing which is absolutely crucial is that a fraternal atmosphere of solidarity, trust and confidence to develop between the militants of the two organizations. After such a practice develops and flourishes we might consider giving an actual name to it.

Now, I’m personally interested in joining ICC , but that doesn’t mean that if I become member of ICC I would stop communicating with ICT members, because I’m not an idiot. Also, I have to admit that this “sectarianism” among left-communists is kind of silly. For example, first time I heard about ICT was when I’ve read their article against ICC and discussion on that article. I mean, why was necessary to publish such stupid article? After that I hear about ICC’s French section and its crusade against ICT etc. Come one people, we have so much better things to do.

I entirely agree with you on this.

The difference between five and a hundred is significant enough. Yes, in terms of what we are trying to achieve both numbers are tiny, but the five is far tinier that the hundred, and the hundred capable of acting together has much more to give than the five.

Which is why I made the comment about how many papers you print. In the long term the difference between five and a hundred isn't going to be, in my opinion, that relevant.

As somebody in the ICC said earlier:

We have to make a political judgement on whether the various groups and organisations express a real work towards the future party, or whether they have become obstacles to it.

My judgement of the ICC is that it is an organisation that is in long term decline. It has never really recovered from its splits in the 80s and for many years limped along and has recently been boosted by interest from what it itself calls 'the periphery'. However, I don't think that this is enough to stop its long term decline.

In my opinion it is an obstacle, and perhaps in that way you are right, an obstacle with 100 hundred people is a slightly bigger obstacle than one with five in it.

Then don't mock militants who still keep trying even if its only them left in a given country. 'One man and his dog' jokes are simply mean.

The 'one man and his dog' reference is simply pointing out the reality. A dog would make some of the sections bigger. That is not being mean, it is simply pointing out the reality of the situation. It is a lot more honest than the ICC's list of sections around the world, which includes at least three of which don't meet the ICC's own criteria for being sections (i.e. three members).

On the subject of 'militants who still keep trying even if its only them left in a given country'. I really think that when it gets to a point that an organisation is so moribund that it only has one member then perhaps it is better off dying, which would allow people there to reflect better on what had gone wrong. The international nature of the ICC tends to keep them going as like rotting corpses, obstructing future positive developments.

And my point was that there are countries where there there is no section at all. So what?

I don't see what your point is here. My point was not that the sections were tiny, but how it was portrayed.

You can believe what you will. Mine is not an impression, the ICC is statistically growing, I actually know.

As I assume you are not deliberately lying to me, I am really surprised that you believe this, even more surprised that you expect others to, and absolutely flabbergasted that you think that there is the remotest chance that I will.

Unless there has been massive growth in Mexico, which is something that I wouldn't know about, the ICC has shrunk since you joined it. The idea that it has grown is absurd. Look around you. Look at your own section, which despite recruiting new people is smaller than it was when you joined, and you have gone out and actively tried to bring new people in' which by ICC standards is a bit of a novelty. Look at the other sections. Are they growing or either stagnating or shrinking.

The ICC is much bigger, even though some sections might well be smaller than the KPK combined.

The KPK is bigger than the US, Swedish, Brazilian, and Turkish sections combined. Now that doesn't mean that it is very big. It just shows the reality of the ICC 'sections'.

Of course another way to look at it would be to look at the size of these organisations relative to where they are operating. The Czech Republic is a tiny country unlike the US, Brazil, and Turkey, where one big city would outnumber the entire population of the Czech Re[public. We could look at the fact that the KPK is growing, small growth perhaps, but certainly not the stagnation and decline that we see in the ICC. We could look at their age demographics' which unlike the ICC's don't suggest organisational collapse in around a decade, or we could look at who prints the most papers and keeps them under their beds as you seem to do.

Devrim

What the ICC should do is pretty obvious, I think. The recent steps towards the ICT have been extremely positive, and the relationships need to keep improving. What else? The Theses on Parasitism has to be rejected.

I think that the key to why I left is here. Effectively the role that I played, and that Leo is playing now, is one where the ICC is made to seem more reasonable, and that it is not an organisation that holds monotonically onto things such as the theory of parasitism, which in my personal opinion is probably the thing that has damaged the communist left more than any other idea or action that has come out of the communist left.

In reality it is a very thin cover. Aside from the Turkish section, the rest of the ICC sections (with perhaps the exception of the Phillipinnes) are completely behind the theory of parasitism, with more importantly the Paris centre, which is where, after all, the directives emanate from, completely behind it.

An example of this, would be at the last ICC congress, where a call by the Turkish section merely to remove the words parasitism from a document was defeated by a unanimous vote of the delegates from all the other sections, including interestingly enough, those exercising the mandate of the Philipino section, who weren't present, but had written to the congress stating how they didn't understand the issue.

Devrim

What exactly are The Theses on Parasitism? ???

I will let the ICC answer that.

Devrim

I don't see what your point is here. My point was not that the sections were tiny, but how it was portrayed.

You hopefully aren't claiming that the ICC portrays its small sections as being massive. As far as I'm aware of, the three-people rule isn't actually a public one but one regarding the internal regulation of the organization, or wasn't a public one until you started talking about it.

As I assume you are not deliberately lying to me, I am really surprised that you believe this, even more surprised that you expect others to, and absolutely flabbergasted that you think that there is the remotest chance that I will.

I don't really have any expectations in regards to what you believe in or not. To be honest I actually don't expect you to hold any objective or unprejudiced opinions about the ICC in general.

I suppose flabbergasted is my weekly new English word - it means something like shocked, no?

As for the others, they are free to believe in what they want to believe.

Unless there has been massive growth in Mexico, which is something that I wouldn't know about, the ICC has shrunk since you joined it. The idea that it has grown is absurd. Look around you. Look at your own section, which despite recruiting new people is smaller than it was when you joined, and you have gone out and actively tried to bring new people in' which by ICC standards is a bit of a novelty. Look at the other sections. Are they growing or either stagnating or shrinking.

I have no intentions of discussing the specific numerical development either of the Turkish section or the other sections here. I will simply repeat that I actually know, not exact but rough figures. I am not saying I think the ICC is growing, I am saying that it is and that I know. I have no further comments to add on this.

The KPK is bigger than the US, Swedish, Brazilian, and Turkish sections combined.

If the KPK is big and growing, congratulations to them, very good. Yes, some of the ICC sections are quite small, some technically only qualify as nuclei according to the ICC's internal functioning rules, and some are larger rather than smaller. Some are growing more quickly, some are growing more slowly, some are rather stagnant. As with all organizations, people leave, people come back, new people join. Some sections are bigger, some sections are smaller. I don't think there is anything surprising here, you are simply stating this as if you are revealing some huge secret. And I basically think that this point makes as much sense as saying that the ICC isn't an international organization because of the 196 countries of the world, it is not even present in so much as 20.

Aside from the Turkish section, the rest of the ICC sections (with perhaps the exception of the Phillipinnes) are completely behind the theory of parasitism, with more importantly the Paris centre, which is where, after all, the directives emanate from, completely behind it.

This has already begun to change actually, with some comrades starting to express doubts about the theory and saying there is a need to re-discuss it. If one, however, expects a years old theory to be immediately dropped a few months after less than a handful of newcomers rejected it, one is bound to be disappointed.

You hopefully aren't claiming that the ICC portrays its small sections as being massive.

No, I am claiming that portraying one person as a section is dishonest, and pretty laughable. These sections are also as you know not even sections under the ICC's own rules.

Of course, if they were honest about it and said that they had sections in these countries and isolated contacts in others, it wouldn't really go well with all this talk of expansion.

To be honest I actually don't expect you to hold any objective or unprejudiced opinions about the ICC in general.

And so it starts. It is not as if it took much to see this coming. Over the next couple of months I am quite sure that people from the ICC will try to suggest all sorts of things about my opinions, motivations, and character. After all it is how they work.

Even when they don't do it in public, such as with their most recent split in Belgium, they still carry on with the same sort of nonsense in private, with those people being "more dangerous parasites than the old parasites because they don't behave like parasites".

Of course, the ICC has never had a genuine split. It is always 'parasites', or 'Freemasons', or 'state agents', or some other bogeyman.

While I was waiting for a period before voicing my opinions on the ICC, nobody made any sort of comment about my objectivity, or prejudice, yet when I raise even some minor criticisms of the ICC, things start to be said. I didn't expect it to start with personal friends, but I suppose that is the way it is, and will be. I am sure there is a lot worse to come.

I have no intentions of discussing the specific numerical development either of the Turkish section or the other sections here.

You don't have to, but you do know what I said is true.

I am not saying I think the ICC is growing, I am saying that it is and that I know.

I spoke with a six year old relative the other day. He knows that Father Christmas is true. It is sweet at that age.

This has already begun to change actually, with some comrades starting to express doubts about the theory and saying there is a need to re-discuss it.

Is it that difficult to see when you are being played?

If one, however, expects a years old theory to be immediately dropped a few months after less than a handful of newcomers rejected it, one is bound to be disappointed.

No, I didn't expect that. I stayed long enough to see that the ICC is a deeply sectarian monolithic organisation, which in my opinion presents no possibility for change.

Devrim

The 'one man and his dog' reference is simply pointing out the reality. A dog would make some of the sections bigger. That is not being mean, it is simply pointing out the reality of the situation. It is a lot more honest than the ICC's list of sections around the world, which includes at least three of which don't meet the ICC's own criteria for being sections (i.e. three members).

Unless there has been massive growth in Mexico, which is something that I wouldn't know about, the ICC has shrunk since you joined it. The idea that it has grown is absurd. Look around you. Look at your own section, which despite recruiting new people is smaller than it was when you joined, and you have gone out and actively tried to bring new people in' which by ICC standards is a bit of a novelty. Look at the other sections. Are they growing or either stagnating or shrinking.

You hopefully aren't claiming that the ICC portrays its small sections as being massive. As far as I'm aware of, the three-people rule isn't actually a public one but one regarding the internal regulation of the organization, or wasn't a public one until you started talking about it.

(...)

I have no intentions of discussing the specific numerical development either of the Turkish section or the other sections here. I will simply repeat that I actually know, not exact but rough figures. I am not saying I think the ICC is growing, I am saying that it is and that I know. I have no further comments to add on this.

On whether the ICC is growing or stagnating, I agree with Devrim. I can't see how anyone in good faith can argue that the ICC sections in Western Europe in particular which is what I am most familiar with, are in a healthy state and are in anything other then decline or in the best case standing-still. A member or sympathiser of the ICC in Britain hinted as much relatively recently during a conversation.

And the official report of the ICC's recent Congress was a bit more circumspect then Leo is being:

The Congress examined these difficulties at some length, in particular the often degraded state of the organisational tissue and of collective work, which can weigh heavily on some sections. We don’t think that the ICC is today going through a crisis like the ones in 1981, 1993 or 2001. In 1981 we saw a significant part of the organisation abandon the political and organisational principles on which it had been founded, leading to some very serious convulsions and in particular the loss of half our section in Britain. In 1993 and 2001, the ICC had to face problems with clans within the organisation, resulting in a rejection of loyalty to the organisation and the departure of numbers of militants (in particular members of the Paris section in 1995 and of the central organ in 2001[6]). (...) All the militants of the sections where these problems have arisen are fully convinced of the validity of the ICC’s fight, and continue to show their loyalty and dedication towards the organisation. When the ICC had to face up to the most sombre period suffered by the working class since the end of the counter-revolution whose end was marked by the movement of May 1968 – a period of general retreat in militancy and consciousness which began at the start of the 1990s – these militants “stayed at their post”. Very often, these are comrades who have known each other and militated together for more than 30 years. There are thus many solid links of friendship and confidence between them. But the minor faults, the small weaknesses, the character differences which everyone has to accept in others have often led to the development of tensions or a growing difficulty to work together over a period of many years in small sections which have not been refreshed by the “new blood” of new militants, precisely because of the retreat experienced by the working class. Today this “new blood” is beginning to arrive in certain sections of the ICC, but it is clear that the new members can only be properly integrated if the organisational tissue of the ICC improves. The Congress discussed these issues with a lot of frankness, and this led some of the invited groups to speak up about their own organisational difficulties. However, there could be no miracle solution to the problems, which had already been noted at the previous congress.

(...)

We are not drawing a triumphalist balance sheet of the 19th Congress of the ICC, not least because it had to recognise the organisational difficulties we are facing, difficulties the ICC will have to overcome if it is to continue being present at the rendezvous which history is giving to revolutionary organisations. A long and difficult struggle awaits our organisation. But this perspective should not discourage us. After all, the struggle of the working class as a whole is also long and difficult, full of pitfalls and defeats. This is a perspective that should inspire militants to carry on the struggle; a fundamental characteristic of every communist militant is to be a fighter.

Source - '19th ICC Congress: preparing for class confrontations', IR no. 146

This seems to confirm that the ICC is experiencing 'organisational difficulties' and Devrim's point about the ICC resembling a political club, as most communist organisation today do, unfortunately, is true.

You hopefully aren't claiming that the ICC portrays its small sections as being massive

I can't think any cases of this. But I do think the ICC does exaggerate the importance of primitively accumulating a couple of people here or there, e.g. the statement published when EKS and Internasyonalismo became the ICC's sections in Turkey and the Philippines respectively.

I might return to some of the earlier posts when I have got some sleep.

And so it starts. It is not as if it took much to see this coming. Over the next couple of months I am quite sure that people from the ICC will try to suggest all sorts of things about my opinions, motivations, and character. After all it is how they work.

Even when they don't do it in public, such as with their most recent split in Belgium, they still carry on with the same sort of nonsense in private, with those people being "more dangerous parasites than the old parasites because they don't behave like parasites".

Of course, the ICC has never had a genuine split. It is always 'parasites', or 'Freemasons', or 'state agents', or some other bogeyman.

While I was waiting for a period before voicing my opinions on the ICC, nobody made any sort of comment about my objectivity, or prejudice, yet when I raise even some minor criticisms of the ICC, things start to be said. I didn't expect it to start with personal friends, but I suppose that is the way it is, and will be. I am sure there is a lot worse to come.

You are overreacting, maybe you should try to calm down a little. I've told you that I don't consider your opinions about the ICC to be objective and unprejudiced a thousand times, as you've told me the arguments you made here and more. Please don't be so shocked, you are well-aware of what I think about this. You asked what I expected of you in regards to the ICC, I answered. I am as entitled to expressing my opinions as you are. And you are aware that there is much more I can say about all this and the tone which I consider very mean and patronizing although I'm trying not to, so as not to hinder the discussion on the actual criticisms you are making.

On whether the ICC is growing or stagnating, I agree with Devrim. I can't see how anyone in good faith can argue that the ICC sections in Western Europe in particular which is what I am most familiar with, are in a healthy state and are in anything other then decline or in the best case standing-still. A member or sympathiser of the ICC in Britain hinted as much relatively recently during a conversation.

It is true that some of the actually important European sections are indeed in a stagnant situation, although some aren't and there are quite promising developments. I would say the ratio is about fifty fifty. In other words I would say that half of the Western European sections are basically stagnant, while the other half is actually growing, although not as quickly as they'd like. It is no secret that the bulk of the ICC's statistical growth comes from outside the Western Europe.

This seems to confirm that the ICC is experiencing 'organisational difficulties'

Some of its sections, especially some of the Western European sections which actually are stagnant undoubtedly are.

e.g. the statement published when EKS and Internasyonalismo became the ICC's sections in Turkey and the Philippines respectively.

Yeah, looking back on it that seems pretty grandiose.

"Sectarianism is the typical expression of a petty bourgeois conception of organisation. It reflects the petty-bourgeois mindset of wanting to be king of your own little castle, and it manifests itself in the tendency to place the particular interests and concepts of one organisation above those of the movement as a whole. In the sectarian vision, the organisation is “all alone in the world” and it displays a regal disdain towards all the other organisations that belong to the proletarian camp, seen as “rivals” or even “enemies”. As it feels threatened by the latter, the sectarian organisation in general refuses to engage in debate and polemic with them. It prefers to take refuge in its “splendid isolation”, acting as though the others did not exist, or else obstinately putting forward what distinguishes itself from the others without taking into account what it has in common with them".

This is from the dreaded theses on parasitism, which begins by looking at different ways that the workers' movement can be affected by ideologies coming from other classes. Mentioning this is certainly not intended to push this thread towards a discussion on the concept of parasitism, which usually generates a great deal of heat and could be better discussed elsewhere. But a discussion on the question of sectarianism could perhaps be useful and get us away from an exchange about how large various groups are, which pushes towards the limits of what's acceptable from a security point of view.

Sectarianism affects all proletarian organisations and above all when they are more or less isolated from the life of the working class. It follows that I think there are numerous examples in which the ICC, like all other communist groups, has fallen into sectarianism. Examples would be during those phases when we tended to see ourselves as the only pole of regroupment (which, if you look back at our history, appears at certain moments but is by no means the only conception we have put forward). Our approach to anarchism has also been deeply affected by sectarianism.

But to call us a sect, as Blakes' Baby does, or to claim that we are immutably sectarian, as Devrim does, implies that we have no awareness of the problem. In fact we fought quite hard during the period of the international conferences in the late 70s to convince other groups that sectarianism really was a political problem within our movement (for example in the refusal of the Bordigists or the Munis group to take part in the conferences). If we were really a sect impervious to change, we would not have embarked on a reassessment of our attitude to anarchism over the past few years.

But I don't want to get too defensive about the ICC here. The terms sect and sectarianism have been used quite a lot on this thread but there has been little attempt to define what this means - not looking at it from the dictionary definition, but from the experience of the workers' movement