Is the ICC a sect?

[wld_rvn]

Is the ICC right to defend itself against theft and slander?

This was raised in the 'Is communism inevitable?' thread...

The problem as I see it, if i can slightly derail for a sec, is that while the ICC have published some very good texts of the history of the tradition they purport to have emerged from (dutch/german left, italian left, Bilan etc.) as a political organisation they are incapable of moving beyond the status of a minor sect... not due to any conditions of the rest of the left (bourgeois or otherwise), not because the proletariat is not yet concsious of its 'historical mission', but because their behaviour and interventions (if they can be described as such) are so bizarre and erratic, they would appear to be pathologically incapable of conducting a sane human relationship beyond their own number. But then the rest of do live in the "swamp" after all

And Kropotkin added...

It was sort of bait to see if they are as crazy as i've been lead to beleive. The all-other-parties-were-false-but-we-are-the-true-party-of-the-proletariat line was the point I saw the light!

To begin with, Kropotkin, there is no need to 'bait' us to find out if we are 'crazy'. Why not simply put to us what you have heard and ask for our response? Here's your chance.

Second, Topdog, could you expand on what you think our 'partyist' conception is, because it is not at all clear what you mean by this? Also you say the ICC “purport to have emerged from (dutch/german left, italian left, Bilan etc.)” what do you precisely mean by this? And how do you see us as not belonging to that tradition?

Finally, Topdog you say: “as a political organisation they are incapable of moving beyond the status of a minor sect...because their behaviour and interventions...are so bizarre and erratic, they would appear to be pathologically incapable of conducting a sane human relationship beyond their own number”. This is a very sweeping statement, would it be possible to put some more meat on these very bare bones?

World Revolution,
Section in Britain of the International Communist Current.

 

[Pickman's model]

this should be a poll.

 

[mk12]

I quite like their website - I read an article yesterday on there about anarchism.

 

[butchersapron]

Was there even an answer to this?
Open Letter to the International Communist Current

 

[wld_rvn]

Was there even an answer to this?
Open Letter to the International Communist Current

There is a reply to this, but it is from the pre-website days, so we will need to find the issue of WR it is in. When we find it we can send you a copy and if it is in electronic form we will place it on the website. However, there is a reply to a more recent campaign of slanders against the ICC. This takes up many of the accusations that are made against us in the above document.

World Revolution.

 

[gurrier]

Is the ICC right to defend itself against theft and slander?

Definitely comrade. The ICC's tracts declaiming the heinous wrongs of the [insert acronym of a 2 person organisation that nobody has ever heard of] always give me a giggle. I particularly admire the wars that they wage against deviationist thugs in 'internal fractions'.

I'm interested to know whether any members of the international live within 200 miles of each other? From what I know of them, their many national sections never seem to make it out of single figure membership and look an awful like a pen pal circle for cranks.

 

[wld_rvn]

Definitely comrade. The ICC's tracts declaiming the heinous wrongs of the [insert acronym of a 2 person organisation that nobody has ever heard of] always give me a giggle. I particularly admire the wars that they wage against deviationist thugs in 'internal fractions'.

I'm interested to know whether any members of the international live within 200 miles of each other?

From what I know of them, their many national sections never seem to make it out of single figure membership and look an awful like a pen pal circle for cranks.

Gurrier: you don't really answer the question: do you think the ICC (or any other proletarian organisation, be it political, etc) is right to defend itslef against theft and lies or not? Or do you agree with stealing from proletarian organisations, no matter what their size is? You mock our struggles to defend proletarian principles of organisation and behaviour, does that mean you do not think there are any such principles worth fighting to defend?

As for our geographical spread: a good map and a glance at the list of our presence in France, Britain and Belgium will answer this question.

The ICC is not a large organisation nor does it claim to be. Nevertheless, its ability to develop and maintain the political presence of an international proletarian organisation (over the last 30 years), to have sections or nuclei in 12 countries (on four continents), to produce a quaterly International Review in 3 languages, to have a territorial press, produce books, pamphlets, maintian a website, hold regular public meetings as far afield as New York and Calcutta and to be able to respond to international events such as the Iraq war with the distribution of tens of thousands of international leaflets (in all of the languages where the ICC has sections), would imply that the ICC is more than "pen pal circle for cranks".

Our struggle to defend our organisation and the traditions of the workers' movement it stands for, is not taking place in the isolation that gurrier would like others to believe. There are many who support the ICC's struggle against parasitism and opportunism. We ask those reading this thread to seriously examine and reflect on the struggle that we have been waging to defend proletarian principles and to decide for themselves whether the fundamental questions involved are worth defending or simply trivia to be mocked.

World Revolution

Section in Britain of the International Communist Current

 

[Top Dog]

Second, Topdog, could you expand on what you think our 'partyist' conception is, because it is not at all clear what you mean by this? Also you say the ICC “purport to have emerged from (dutch/german left, italian left, Bilan etc.)” what do you precisely mean by this? And how do you see us as not belonging to that tradition?

I dont doubt you have emerged (as one tendency of many) from that tradition... But while the tradition above is a rich one, the ICC have constructed themselves out of the narrowest possible interpretation of a rigid and fixed Bordigism. I use the ‘ism’ deliberately here. You would also seem to cast yourselves as the historical torchbearers of the legacy of Bilan. And it is you and you only, in your correct positions, that can rightly have claim to that legacy. This strikes me as slightly sus, and just a little detached from the real world and the situation the 21st century working class finds itself in. It is also contradictory (see below).

Finally, Topdog you say: “as a political organisation they are incapable of moving beyond the status of a minor sect...because their behaviour and interventions...are so bizarre and erratic, they would appear to be pathologically incapable of conducting a sane human relationship beyond their own number”. This is a very sweeping statement, would it be possible to put some more meat on these very bare bones?

Butchers’ link to Ingram’s piece is one such article I was going to mention, however there are two other examples i’ll produce for the moment : one from your website, the other from an intervention at a No War but the Class War meeting in London, in Jan 2003, just prior to the iraq invasion…

First example
CANT SEE THE WOOD FOR THE TREES - THE ICC ON SECTARIANISM
From your website… You have an entire page called ‘Theses on parasitism’.

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. Full article http://en.internationalism.org/ir/94_parasitism]here[/URL]

Now compare and contrast with another page from your site in which you display the very same ‘disdain towards all the other organisations that belong to the proletarian camp’ :

The campaign of slanders against the ICC
Following the public meeting of the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party in Paris, organised with the "political and material support" of the 'Internal Fraction of the ICC' (a development which we have written about in the article 'The IBRP taken hostage by thugs'), the ICC has become the victim of a new campaign of slanders […]

Also, the IBRP has just published on its website a reply to our article 'The IBRP taken hostage by thugs'. This article, 'Reply to the stupid accusations of an organisation on the way to disintegration' is a real declaration of war [sic] on the ICC.
Rest of article

For an tendency with a worldwide membership that I would generously estimate as barely reaching 3 figures, can you really issue such incredible hyperbole in all seriousness? Can you not see how detached from reality this actually sounds? Does it matter to the proletariat's destiny that the ICC have fallen out with the IBRP, dont get on with the CWO, or whatever...


Second example
ON THE DEMONSTRATION AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ - THE ICC ON INTERVENTION
Prior to the Feb 15th 2003 march in London, I can remember two ICC members arguing at a No War But the Class War meeting, that while they had no intention of walking on the march itself (it was a bourgeois march after all), they would attend at the beginning. But only in the capacity of leafleting the demonstration (a demo of 2 million people remember). Both members would be leafleting those marching from the side of the road on the correct proletarian response to the war.

Again, i need to ask: can you not see how detached from reality this sounds? What difference would it have made to the British proletariat if you had actually walked on the march or indeed what difference if you had instead stayed at home in bed that day? Can you not see there might be a problem with a distorted perspective going on here?

 

[gurrier]

Gurrier: you don't really answer the question: do you think the ICC (or any other proletarian organisation, be it political, etc) is right to defend itslef against thieft and lies or not? Or do you agree with stealing from proletarian organisations, no matter what their size is? You mock our struggles to defend proletarian principles of organisation and behaviour, does that mean you do not think there are any such principles worth fighting to defend?

I think that spending so much of your "organisation's" energy engaging in polemics with similarly irrelevant sects in far-flung corners of the world is hilarious. When you engage in 'international' polemics full of the most antiquated and flamboyant rhetoric against one of your 'internal fractions' - more accurately described as 'that odd guy in argentina' - I don't know how you expect anybody to react with anything other than mirth. So, I will continue to chuckle at you, thanks very much.

The opening two paragraphs of the tract that you directed me towards is a case in point:

Visitors to our internet site will be aware that in the recent period the ICC has had to confront a slanderous and shameful campaign mounted by the so-called Internal Fraction of the ICC (IFICC) and the Argentine Círculo de Comunistas Internacionalistas. In fighting these attacks the ICC has drawn on the unique source of clarity and strength for any revolutionary organisation; it has placed itself squarely on the ground of the principles, history and traditions of the workers’ movement.

We can only deplore the fact that the IBRP, which is also a part of the Communist Left, has not done so but has chosen to throw in its lot with the ICC’s detractors and has embraced their sordid and cynical methods. This is a serious betrayal of all that it means to be a part of the proletarian political milieu. Moreover this is in a situation in which the other historic groups of the Communist Left stand by, indifferent to the threat from elements whose sole aim is the destruction of proletarian organisations and, with them, the hope of a classless society.

Which exhibits so many psychological ailments in action that I think the term 'crank' is somewhat kind. I have helpfully underlined the references to similarly hilarious organisations and placed the text that shows the more significant signs of crankery in bold face, in order to illustrate my point.

 

[Top Dog]

Quite

 

[rednblack]

the icc are brilliant

 

[Random]

The ICC turned up to the Colombia demo today. Well done!

 

[Pickman's model]

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=115572

 

[montevideo]

The ICC turned up to the Colombia demo today. Well done!

In london? For the death of the 15 year anarchist? I'm impressed. There were a few middle aged men in dark glasses. I thought they were the af. Fair play to the icc.

 

[chegrimandi]

is this a thread about the International Cricket Council? Certainly THEY are corrupt as hell

 

[Top Dog]

is this a thread about the International Cricket Council? Certainly THEY are corrupt as hell

they're nothing like as bad as the Internal Fraction of the International Cricket Council, believe me!

 

[Random]

In london? For the death of the 15 year anarchist? I'm impressed. There were a few middle aged men in dark glasses. I thought they were the af. Fair play to the icc.

Didn't you see it? A van parked nearby with the logo 'ICC' on the side? Part of the new Bordigist Turn topwards replacing human demonstrators with automated communist agitators. When a passerby walked near the van it assertained their class background from their clothes, walk, etc and printed out the appropriate leaflet for them. Fantastic.

 

[rednblack]

When a passerby walked near the van it assertained their class background from their clothes, walk, etc and printed out the appropriate leaflet for them. Fantastic.

was it manned by our ernie?

 

[gurrier]

was it manned by our ernie?

ernie is an automated communist agitator. He was that van. You didn't really think that a human could be that efficient at producing stereotyped tanky responses, did you?

 

[ernestolynch]

Didn't you see it? A van parked nearby with the logo 'ICC' on the side? Part of the new Bordigist Turn topwards replacing human demonstrators with automated communist agitators. When a passerby walked near the van it assertained their class background from their clothes, walk, etc and printed out the appropriate leaflet for them. Fantastic.

I can do that by looking at someone's eyes.

 

[montevideo]

I can do that by looking at someone's eyes.

you old romantic you. The ever fragrant is one lucky lady. Duck tonight? With oven chips?

 

[ernestolynch]

you old romantic you. The ever fragrant is one lucky lady. Duck tonight? With oven chips?

Nah boss - pot noodle in the den - a tribute to you and Jose.

 

[sovietpop]

pictures and report from Dublins colombian demo, no sigh of robo-stalinists afaik

report

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Plenty of hoodies though, just as well it wasn''t a shopping centre.BTW which one was the ICC?

 

[wld_rvn]

The thread seems to be wondering off subject. Thus, to return to the question. Topdog says:

"I dont doubt you have emerged (as one tendency of many) from that tradition... But while the tradition above is a rich one, the ICC have constructed themselves out of the narrowest possible interpretation of a rigid and fixed Bordigism. I use the ‘ism’ deliberately here. You would also seem to cast yourselves as the historical torchbearers of the legacy of Bilan. And it is you and you only, in your correct positions, that can rightly have claim to that legacy. This strikes me as slightly sus, and just a little detached from the real world and the situation the 21st century working class finds itself in. It is also contradictory"

To answer this it is necessary to define what is meant by the Communist Left and how the ICC understands its continuation of the historical traditions of the Communist Left.

The ICC is defending the historical tradition of the Communist Left: that traditon of the workers' movement that waged an intransigent struggle against the degeneration of the 3rd International and the communist parties. The main expressions of this struggle were the Left fractions in; Germany, Italy, Holland and Russia, but there were also weaker expressions of this struggle in all of the main parties. In their heroic struggle to defend proletarian politics and principles first against the growing weight of opportunism within the 3rd Interantiona, then against Stalinism and in the 1930s and 40s against the degeneration of Trotskyism, these fractions of the Communist Left made a fundamental contribution to the the future liberation of humanity by the proletariat. Not only did the clearest fractions of the Communist Left stand out against nationalism, democracy, defence of the capitalist state in the name of anti-fascism etc, they also intransigently defended the need for proletarian political organisation. Against Trotskyism's increasing accomodation with Social Democracy the Communist Left, above all the Italian Left fraction, struggled to defend the absolute necessity for the proletariat to defend its political autonomy.

The ICC, based upon the work of Bilan, has sort to produce a synthesis of the work carried out by the Comunist Left. The work of Bilan is of particular importance because of its political clarity and rigour, particularly in relation to the questions of; the role of a fraction, the role of anti-fascism, the nature of the war in Spain, the degeneration of Troksyism. However, Marxism is based on the need draw the lessons of the past in order to arm the proletariat for the future. This means making a critique of work of the Communist Left and drawing from this the main lessons which is precisely what the ICC has tried to do.

The ICC is not the only group of the Communist Left. The other main parts are the Bordigists and the IBRP. The aim of the Communist Left is the defence of proletarian politics and principles of organisation, their propagation within the working class and the political preparation of the future revoluton, an essetential component of which will be the party. Within the Communist left there is a political process of clarification, based on drawing the lessons of history and how to apply these to the future. This expresses the struggel of the proletariat to arm itself with the cleatest possible political organisations. Thus, within this process any concessions to bourgeois ideology, compromising of proletarian principles of organisation and behaviour, etc can only act as fetters on the vital process of clarification.

This is why the ICC has always engaged in rigours discussion with the other groups of the Communist Left and also openly discussed its organisation struggles and crises. We do not seen ourselves as immune from the penetration of bourgeois ideology, opportunism etc, but we do think we have the political framework for understanding and overcoming these pressures.

Thus, when Topdog says we defend "narrowest possible interpretation of a rigid and fixed Bordigism", he is wrong. The ICC places itself squarly in the tradition of the Communist left. This is why we have produced many articles and books on the history of the Communist Left. And it is to defend the traditions of the Communist left that we struggle against all expressions of opportunims etc within the Communist Left, which of course includes within the ICC.

World Revolution

 

[sipriano]

Comrades of the ICC.....

Fraternal proletarian greetings. The unmistakable smell of the swamp permeates this place, awash with petit bourgeois elements, they cast their eyes towards the more rigourous, more considered politics of the ICC. Beware,
nothing less than the denigration and ultimate destruction of the milleu of the left Communists is their goal, therefore it is imperative that you remain steadfast and resolute in the face of the calumny and slur that you are likely
to find here. The lifeblood of the Communist project could well be at stake, although im sure that you are well aware of the gravity of the situation.
It is always with great anticipation that I enter housemans bookshop to obtain the latest issue of world revolution, within my workplace it is always eagerly passed from hand to hand. Of particular concern to my colleagues is the imperialist drive towards war, and frequently do they say to me " Look the rate of profit has fallen yet again " also, they always express solidarity with the belgian public service workers whenever they enter upon another phase of their heroic struggle with the forces of capital, your regular reportage of these events within the pages of your illustrious journal is a valuable service to the proletariat,and much appreciated by all.
However, wedded as you are to eight pages of black type with no pictures, im hoping that you will consider an alternative form of propaganda, one that you have hitherto neglected, the propaganda form that I refer to is stickers.
Yes ! I know that your initial reaction will be to regard stickers as a frivolous
bourgeois deviation, but comrades, I hope that you will reconsider. Stickers are now a vital weapon in the armoury of every go-ahead, dynamic revolutionary organisation. And placed strategically throughout proletarian areas, will work wonders in raising the profile of left Communist ideas amongst the class.
I hope that you dont consider this to be presumptious, but ive taken the liberty of originating a few ideas, im hoping that you will consider the efficacy of them on the occasion of your next praesidium.

Thus.....

PROLETARIAN MILLEU RULES OK.

SMASH THE HOMOGENOUS COMPOSITION OF CAPITAL NOW !

ICC / ITA

GENERALISED COMMODITY PRODUCTION SUCKS

WORLD REVOLUTION ? YER HAVIN A LAUGH !

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Stickers are now a vital weapon in the armoury of every go-ahead, dynamic revolutionary organisation.

What was that short story with all the left-communists playing the quiz machine on the ferry and stuff? I'm sure they had stickers in that as well, but they just said "READ THE ITALIAN COMMUNIST LEFT", iirc.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

This expresses the struggel of the proletariat to arm itself with the cleatest possible political organisations.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

The thread seems to be wondering off subject. Thus, to return to the question. Topdog says:

"I dont doubt you have emerged (as one tendency of many) from that tradition... But while the tradition above is a rich one, the ICC have constructed themselves out of the narrowest possible interpretation of a rigid and fixed Bordigism. I use the ‘ism’ deliberately here. You would also seem to cast yourselves as the historical torchbearers of the legacy of Bilan. And it is you and you only, in your correct positions, that can rightly have claim to that legacy. This strikes me as slightly sus, and just a little detached from the real world and the situation the 21st century working class finds itself in. It is also contradictory"

To answer this it is necessary to define what is meant by the Communist Left and how the ICC understands its continuation of the historical traditions of the Communist Left.

The ICC is defending the historical tradition of the Communist Left: that traditon of the workers' movement that waged an intransigent struggle against the degeneration of the 3rd International and the communist parties. The main expressions of this struggle were the Left fractions in; Germany, Italy, Holland and Russia, but there were also weaker expressions of this struggle in all of the main parties. In their heroic struggle to defend proletarian politics and principles first against the growing weight of opportunism within the 3rd Interantiona, then against Stalinism and in the 1930s and 40s against the degeneration of Trotskyism, these fractions of the Communist Left made a fundamental contribution to the the future liberation of humanity by the proletariat. Not only did the clearest fractions of the Communist Left stand out against nationalism, democracy, defence of the capitalist state in the name of anti-fascism etc, they also intransigently defended the need for proletarian political organisation. Against Trotskyism's increasing accomodation with Social Democracy the Communist Left, above all the Italian Left fraction, struggled to defend the absolute necessity for the proletariat to defend its political autonomy.

The ICC, based upon the work of Bilan, has sort to produce a synthesis of the work carried out by the Comunist Left. The work of Bilan is of particular importance because of its political clarity and rigour, particularly in relation to the questions of; the role of a fraction, the role of anti-fascism, the nature of the war in Spain, the degeneration of Troksyism. However, Marxism is based on the need draw the lessons of the past in order to arm the proletariat for the future. This means making a critique of work of the Communist Left and drawing from this the main lessons which is precisely what the ICC has tried to do.

The ICC is not the only group of the Communist Left. The other main parts are the Bordigists and the IBRP. The aim of the Communist Left is the defence of proletarian politics and principles of organisation, their propagation within the working class and the political preparation of the future revoluton, an essetential component of which will be the party. Within the Communist left there is a political process of clarification, based on drawing the lessons of history and how to apply these to the future. This expresses the struggel of the proletariat to arm itself with the cleatest possible political organisations. Thus, within this process any concessions to bourgeois ideology, compromising of proletarian principles of organisation and behaviour, etc can only act as fetters on the vital process of clarification.

This is why the ICC has always engaged in rigours discussion with the other groups of the Communist Left and also openly discussed its organisation struggles and crises. We do not seen ourselves as immune from the penetration of bourgeois ideology, opportunism etc, but we do think we have the political framework for understanding and overcoming these pressures.

Thus, when Topdog says we defend "narrowest possible interpretation of a rigid and fixed Bordigism", he is wrong. The ICC places itself squarly in the tradition of the Communist left. This is why we have produced many articles and books on the history of the Communist Left. And it is to defend the traditions of the Communist left that we struggle against all expressions of opportunims etc within the Communist Left, which of course includes within the ICC.

World Revolution

Organisations like yourself have always to be on guard against the penetration of bourgeois ideology and opportunism.Look what happened to workers Power and the descent of their membership into chronic drug abuse and left abstentionism. But what organisational struggles and crisis has the ICC had to overcome? I assumed everything was going to plan since your predecessors formed the Left factions in the 1920s.

 

[Top Dog]

The thread seems to be wondering off subject. Thus, to return to the question. Topdog says:

"I dont doubt you have emerged (as one tendency of many) from that tradition... But while the tradition above is a rich one, the ICC have constructed themselves out of the narrowest possible interpretation of a rigid and fixed Bordigism. I use the ‘ism’ deliberately here. You would also seem to cast yourselves as the historical torchbearers of the legacy of Bilan. And it is you and you only, in your correct positions, that can rightly have claim to that legacy. This strikes me as slightly sus, and just a little detached from the real world and the situation the 21st century working class finds itself in. It is also contradictory"

To answer this it is necessary to define what is meant by the Communist Left and how the ICC understands its continuation of the historical traditions of the Communist Left... And it continues

That has got to be the longest way to say absolutely nothing that I have read in a long while.