ICC interventions

Fair question, Jef. But I don't think there's any mystery. The role of the organisation of revolutionaries is fundamentally to develop class consciousness, both in its theoretical and its practical aspects, so the particular "interventions" we carry out, whether in strikes, demonstrations, or political meetings, have that general aim. This may sound far too general, but it's important to keep it in mind because it is the yardstick for judging a successful intervention. We have often been accused of simply declaring our positions and demanding that others passively rally to our banner. But while it's important to make one's views known as clearly and as forcefully as possible, we also think that real advances in consciousness inevitably progress through debate and discussion. Obviously we are seeking to convince people about what we say, to win them over to them positions that we are deeply committed to, and thus to 'construct' a revolutionary organisation capable of having a far bigger impact on the social situation than is presently possible. But there's no way such an organisation can grow without the development of a whole process of political debate. This is why right now we put so much emphasis on developing a climate where serious political debate is possible, and is seen as necessary. That has been our primary focus on libcom and it is the same in political meetings. People may consider that we have gone about this in the wrong way, may criticise the way we put our views forward, but that doesn't change the underlying motivation of our activity.

You have often said that the the ICC has a set line which it will never change so it's not really interested in debate. Obviously there are some fundamental principles which for us are not going to change between now and kingdom come. But that does not mean that we view class consciousness as a finished process or that one organisation can have a monoploy on it. Again, you might respond "well, that's how you behave" -and you may even be able to find examples where this has been the case. But then the behaviour would not match the underlying conception of class consciousness. Which is why I think it would be useful to have a discussion about each others' underlying conceptions of class consciousness and work out areas of agreement and disagreement.

Why would they? If a member of a political organisation had a disgreement on fundamental points - and most of their interventions on libcom concern basic political questions, not advanced theory - why would they be in that organisation at all?

Secondly, the aim of a political organisation is to produce the clearest possible analysis on essential questions. For example, a debate on Ethics has been carried out within the ICC for several years but it was only recently that they felt they had reached a sufficient level of clarity to publish a text on it. For an organisation to publish its own confusions is not necessarily the best aid to the development of class consciousness and the ICC take their interventions seriously.

On a broader note, the ICC have always been open about encouraging debate. They have featured correspondence from both individuals and other organisations regularly in their press, have published statements and articles from other organisations and sympathisers. In the 80s, when a tendency appeared in the ICC, space in the International Review was given over to them to publish their disagreements with the majority of the organisation.

I'd also like to underline that Alf's statement "we also think that real advances in consciousness inevitably progress through debate and discussion" is not simply rhetoric but chimes with my own experience with the ICC. At one point in my political development, they stated their concern that I wasn't being critical enough of their positions. Although they welcomed agreement, they didn't think that agreement was based on a sound enough foundation and encouraged me to think more critically about exactly what I was agreeing with.

On another note, only a few months ago I was in a conversation with a militant concerning a particular question. I made some comments about how I saw the situation and the response was (quoting from memory) "I think you should write about this ... I certainly hadn't thought that way about it before". Given these experiences, I find it difficult to accept the usual criticisms of them that they are closed minded.

I'd say that the fact that they "intervene" on libcom instead of just discussing things on libcom is part of the problem. They do not participate in this forum as individuals. They are outside of it.

Has it occured to anyone in the ICC that maybe, just maybe someone outside of the ICC would have something interesting to contribute to an internal discussion as it goes on?

Yes, but somehow members of the ICC are always above and beyond debate. There's a Party line, and everyone toes it. I want to see the praxis of this fostering of debate. I have yet to see it.

The notion of only going out with statements once all the laundry's been cleaned internally reeks of Leninism, particularly of the Stalinist stage, when internal debates in committees were concealed by Party law.

I think this is entirely seperate to this thread and hopefully it will get a thread of its own. The role of the organisation is to bring together like minded people, in working out positions there is no reason why people who are not members should contribute to the discussions. This isn't leninism it's just practical.

Pretty strong accusation. The ICC are an organisation with a specific ideological line, it makes sense that there is a line and that people stick to it (as opposed to using loaded terms like "toe it"). Again I don't see why you are against internal debate, maybe I'm missing something about the ICC, but why should an organisation for the most part open up their position making to anyone from outside?

I have to say that I learned a great deal as a member of the ICC and the debates within the organzation were - at that time - principled, open and healthy. I only pt a time frame on my comments because I am so far away from their activity I have no way of experiencing their contemporary activity.

Even as a member, I have never experienced an "intervention" of the ICC in a public meeting, but have seen many complaints regards to them.

My only complaint in regards to the ICC's debates with other organizations is that I have never seen a correction when they were inadvertently wrong about another groups' positions. While the ICC's understanding of groups does grow and deepen, I think it is a common curtusy to acknowledge mistaken portrayals.

As someone who has seen ICC 'interventions' (though fortunately not for a long time) I don't think they're about discussion at all. To me their primary aim seems to be to stifle all discussion and hijack the meeting they're at to their own agenda, which IIRC was more about droning on about decadence than union bashing or promoting internationalism.

Now it may be different when they're discussing with other left communists (though I doubt it) but you shouldn't forget that they consider anarchists to be a faction of the bourgeoisie and thus they would consider disrupting an anarchist meeting to be a success.

I retract whatever part of my comments which may even be construed to refer to anything members of the ICC do outside of libcom, since I have no experience of them anywhere but on this board. I'm sorry for having judged people when I have not enough information to make a valid judgment. I sometimes let my intuition get the better of me. Mea culpa.

Now, as to libcom itself, could you please point me to where two or more members of the ICC have argued with opposing views on some subject? It would be interesting for me to see how they resolve disagreements, or come to terms with not resolving them.

Tree: the question is still posed: what is your view about whether a specific organisation of communists is necessary or not?

Spiky: I appreciate that you aren't "writing the ICC off altogether", but I'm not sure that over the years you can claim to be very balanced, since in general you have given far more credence to the 'factions' than to the ICC. Perhaps a more sustained debate with the ICC will restore a tad more balance.

My view is that I would like to know what you mean when you say "a specific organisation of communists".

(sorry for the late response, forgot about this post)
What does this have to do with not disagreeing publicly on any issue whatsoever? Why does organizing around a platform require either having a united front on an issue, or completely disregarding it?

And to be honest, no, I'm not sure that I understand the need for such a group. Seems to me like it would prefigure a fracture in said assemblies and strike committees. Wouldn't that make the revolutionary organizations of the working class that much less effective, and, therefore, that much easier to crush by reactionary forces?

Tree: would you not agree that there is at least a need for people who are in favour of independent assemblies and strike committees to get together to put forward such views in the class struggle? Why would it prefigure a 'fracture'? Class consciousness is not a homogeneous mass. Today there is only a minority which is in favour of struggling outside the trade union machinery ( for example). How does it benefit the class movement for them to act only as isolated individuals? The same goes for opposition to national liberation, and other essential revolutionary positions.

you should better check ICC's site. There are lots of discussions. I also have to say that, it is problematic to take the differences between revolutionary organisations-fractions mereley as antipathy. It is much better to look at the theoretical divergencies. It the ICC v.s IP case, they have significantly different conceptualisations of decadance for instance. IP is for formal and real domination which ICC find not so determinant... Correct me if I am wrong...

Funny how the ICC go quiet when 1ngram appears, isn't it?

1ngram

The ICC and IP, along with others, signed a common declaration against the war drive in Korea at a conference of the Communist Left in that country.

You are also incorrect about the ICC not responding to the question of formal/real domination. They dedicated a series "Understanding the Decadence of Capitalism", which responds to this as well as other issues. This is available on their website.

You say that parasitism is a nonsense term that is used to save the ICC from the horror of discussing with ex-comrades. Do you think it's also equally possibly that refusing to accept "parasitism" - which is simply a label for a certain type of behaviour, after all - is an excuse for certain elements refusing to even acknowledge that their own behaviour could be at fault?

Thugarist asked:

I’m taking your question on face-value. I’m not a member of the ICC, but once was. The brief answer to your questions are: yes and yes.

1) It’s not a stupid question.
2) Intervention takes many forms
3) With a political group, it would, I suspect, very much depend on what that political group was and in what context the intervention was taking place. For example:
A meeting of a Trotskyist or Stalinist group (Ok, unlikely these days) , called on a particular subject (a moment in history, an on-going strike; whatever): given such organisations rarely permit an opening up of discussion, an attempt would made to put across the ICC’s view on whatever was being discussed . Perhaps the press would be offered before, during or after the meeting.

Why bother? Not because there are any illusions in ‘converting’ such groups: they have for a long time been part of the problem, not the solution. But because of their function which is apparently to offer ‘radical solutions’ to real problems faced by workers or individuals questioning capitalist society. Why should their views – essentially those of the ruling class aimed at confusing workers - go unchallenged if you have given yourself the means to oppose it? To offer alternatives to the ‘radical’ status quo;

Such interventions aren’t, I suspect, a massive part of the ICC’s work, just part of it. As are interventions at meetings of groups closer or close to the political positions defended by the organisation: here, the attitude is more of contributing to a discussion, rather than denouncing a bit of ruling class sabotage.

4) During strikes? Absolutely. Talking to strikers, handing out literature? Certainly, where possible (and even where difficult or dangerous). Intervening in union-called meetings, or at strike committees, or mass meetings, to put forward concrete proposals that might take the struggle forward, rather than into a dead-end. Afterwards, to suggest some lessons arising from the strike, to make the next one more effective? Yep.

Are such interventions effective or useful for the working class as a whole? Difficult to judge in the short term: sometimes they can have a relative, immediate effect; at others, none, apparently, at all. At certain moments in history, the ICC’s believes, the intervention of revolutionaries can be decisive. It has been in the past. That’s not the case at present. It might be in the future. And the past, present and the future are linked.

A proletarian political organisation doesn’t exist for itself: it’s the struggle of the working class over many generations that constantly gives rise to such organisations. Sometimes these organisations are way behind the needs of the working class: at other moments, they have seemed to think they can substitute themselves for the activity of the working class as a whole. Both instances are examples of the weaknesses, the inadequacies of working class political organisations. There are, I believe, also examples of their success.

All this pre-supposes that some form of organisation exists: that militants who share the same views have organised together, on an agreed set of principles and programmatic points; have equipped themselves with the means to intervene (regular press, leaflets, the discussions to inform themselves of what they want to say, etc, etc. A regular press is, in my opinion, in itself an important means of intervention, whether its talking of workers experience of the past, the immediate situation, or suggesting perspectives for the future.

I’m sure members of the ICC, or the IBRP, or maybe other organisations whose members post here can give more concrete examples of their work: why it was undertaken, with what aim, in what context, under what conditions and with what results. You’ve probably got a few of your own.

A PS to Ingram: individuals who steal from proletarian organisations (in your case, twice) should be wary of hurling accusations of Stalinism. Also, should you ever deem to intervene here on any subject other than (badmouthing) the ICC, it might give less creedence to their analysis of 'parasitism.' As it is, you appear to be the living embodiment of it: someone who can't get it togwether even to put the (past) activities of your organisation in a form accessable to others, but one who pops up to take a pop at the ICC - without them, what existence would you have? Your activity is parasitic on theirs, it seems to me.