ICC's Theses on parasitism

A concrete example of this can be found on the libcom thread which originally began around the question 'why are some communists seen as being to the left of others?' - a very useful one to clarify - but was then pushed in a very different direction, towards a discussion about the significance of the the concept of parasitism, and above all the theory that all political organisations are essentially rackets. This of course is an equally vital question to clarify. I would be interested in any reflections about the libcom thread -

In my opinion there is little more to it than name calling by people who fell out. 'Racket' was the name that Camette started shouting when he fell out with Bordiga. It is an attempt to make a big theory out of some words said in anger after a split.

Devrim

Just a quick reply for the moment. The Theses on Parasitism begins by looking at a number of ways that the ideology of the bourgeoisie or other non-proletarian classes can penetrate the workers' movement. It talks about sectarianism, opportunism, and adventurism for example. These are 'isms' that have certainly not been invented by the ICC because they are recognisable problems or patterns of behaviour that have taken a number of forms in the history of the workers' movement; they were certainly not restricted to this or that group. We think the same applies to parasitism because it is something that has repeated itself in numerous ways and in different forms and is unfortunately not restricted to the IFICC. We 'created the theory' (ie, made a theoretical generalisation on the basis of empirical evidence) after experiencing the problem in several forms - the gangster-like behaviour of the Chenier tendency and its justification by the CBG in the early 80s, the totally unjustified split by the 'External Fraction' in the mid 80s, the increasingly dangerous and threatening behaviour of the GCI towards the proletarian milieu, and so on. We could give this kind of behaviour a different name, but we would be still faced with same basic problem.
But we welcome your willingness to discuss and hope that we can engage with you on a lot of other issues as well. Where are you based, if that's OK to ask?

Once again to defend the Theses on Parasitism. It is not words being argued about above; "communism", "revolution", "workers' councils", even "capitalism" are alien concepts as words to the overwhelming majority of workers now. The weight of the gulf created by the counter-revolution stills exists everywhere. Simiilarly, it's not a question here of accessible expression and even if it was this still demands the development of class consciousness, the connection with the workers' struggles of today with their historic programme - another phrase that would bring a laugh and sneer out of the majority of workers today. For me it's a question of a political position in the defence of workers' organisation.

I was a member of the ICC during the events we're talking about. Not being a member at the time doesn't preclude one now from reading texts and taking substantive, easy to understand, well-communicated positions. Not like the one-line, selective dismissals from Devrim above. But being involved doesn't mean you understand everything, all the implications. What I did understand was that the whole question was written about and discussed thoroughly throughout the whole organisation with the great majority supporting the emerging position on parasitism. There wasn't one issue given the nature of the beast, except, as I saw it, the question of behaviour, of comradeship, of an effective way of working together as a whole against cliques and clans. Sometimes it was woven in with political positions, sometimes genuine differences or emphases (none worth splitting for), sometimes these were just a cover. Outside of the damage done, important political positions were involved in the discussions: centrism and opportunism - a deepening of the analysis of the Russian revolution and of workers' organisation prior to it. The permanent danger of centrism and opportunism to the workers' movement and its danger to revolutionary minorities. Questions of imperialism were also involved and tendencies towards rank and file unions were also expressed in the elements around - and used by - the Chenier tendency. My impression was that there were overriding tendencies (by no means shared by all that left, but pulling the strings) of hierarchies that thought that they were a leadership and couldn't not be contradicted by the majority. So they upped, sometimes taking what they thought was theirs, and left, impervious to argument, discussion and majority votes. The expression of these hierarchical tendencies will always be a danger to revolutionary organisation and this is what makes the Theses on Parasitism, even if it could be refined, apposite today.

These were no easy times for any of us and I should imagine that most, like myself, were torn apart with some sort of grief at a personal level, political respect as well as personal friendships. This is why it could only be confronted and debated, however clumsily, out in the open. If this was happening in the ICC it was happening in other revolutionary groups and it was courageous of the ICC to bring it out in the open. It was our responsibility. The thread on libcom referred to by Alf shows the long-lasting damage of this spite and revenge expressed by one individual and on this one individual. Reduced, at one stage, as he himself says, quivering behing a door ready to smash someone's skull in with an iron bar. I wasn't involved in getting back our stuff that night but greatly regretted that I wasn't and fully supported all the actions to retrieve material.

lol Not sure if ya remember but we already exchanged pms about this! =p

Sorry, you'll have to forgive me. I have attained a great age (60 last Saturday) and am obviously subject to senior moments. However - you did change your name, which confused me no end when I went back to the start of the thread....Communist Greetings!