ICC interventions

If the purpose of the organization is to fundamentally alienate workers, then I agree.

... and to alienate them from all other workers and mystify their struggle to the point where it becomes a religious position rather than an actual process engaging the whole of the working class?

Yes. Among the many noxious fluids commonly secreted during working class struggle are Stalinist cadres, Trotskyist cadres which distance themselves from the former by being anti-Stalinist, and Left Communist cadres which distance themselves from the former by being anti-Trotskyists. Fascism is another kind of ideology secreted by working-class struggle. Are we to bathe in the refuse of the struggle, or are we to engage in it and bring it to a conclusion? And who is going to clean up the mess? One particle of dirt calling the other black?

Hypothetically, yes, but Leninists, Stalinist and Trotskyists, indeed, whoever has put up the banner of democratic centralism, has always claimed that there was much debate going on, somewhere, real, honest debate, dealing with the central issues at hand... just out of sight, right around the corner...

I think that it is a sign of fear and of weakness, myself. Moreover, when that kind of democratic centralism has been effective, it has been such as a tool of capitalism. Indeed, left factions of the ruling class can gain power out of proportion with their relative size using such methods, but that kind of commitment cannot be maintained without eventually leading to either dissolution or armed oppression.

Tree: do you not think that workers would be 'alienated' from an organisation which in period of intense struggle, when crucial battles could be lost or won, restricted its intervention to showing how democratic it was because everyone disagreed with each other and they had no unified position? If the workers' councils were faced with the question of organising an insurrection, for example, would it not alienate workers who were about to put their lives on the line if a communist organisation had nothing to say to them beyond 'well we've got lots of opinions about this'?

As Alibadani says, the purpose of forming an organisatioin is to be able to collectively elaborate the clearest ideas and positions to put forward in the class movement as a whole. There are certainly times when disagreements within the organisation should be presented to the 'outside', but that too should be done in a responible and organised way.

I still don't feel I've got an answer from you about this: do you thinik there should be any organisations of revolutionaries at all, and what would their purpose be?

As for the remarks about 'secreting', the idea is that revolutionary organisations are, as Bordiga put it. organs of the class, 'natural' products of the class movement. So whether people like it or not, such organisations will inevitably keep appearing.

I will smite thee.

1. I thought that during times of intense struggle, there would spontaneously arise natural organs of the working class in the form of worker/community councils, which will be open to all workers. Are you suggesting that your organization would form a (left) fraction within those councils, that your members would still keep certain debates internal?
2. I find it hard to believe that your posts to this internet forum are coming at a period of intense struggle, so I would imagine that your point is not relevant. Nevertheless, agreements and disagreements are not mutually exclusive, so you could, hypothetically, present a united view on subjects upon which you agree, while arguing about things you disagree upon.

A false dichotomy. You can agree on many things, while naturally disagreeing on a few other things, and, generally, can speak of your own volition without previously ascertaining that you all toe the very same line on all relevant and irrelevant issues.

Well, I disagree with him for the reasons I stated.

I don't know. Seems to me like I'm learning of a longer and longer list of types of organizations that there shouldn't be, like Leninist, Trotskyist, and maybe Left-Communist ones.

Yes. So will nationalist and fascist organisations. That's not necessarily a point in their favor.

Tree, you think nationalist and fascist organisations / ideology are products of the working class?

Many Trotskyist organisations are 'nationalist' in the sense that they support nationalist movements all over the place, do you think that they're a product of the working class?

They are a product of class struggle, and get most of their members (or supporters, at least) from the working class.

Anyway, what am I saying, everything is a product of the working class, they're the class that produces, aren't they?

That pretty much sums up where we're at. There are many internal discussions within the ICC, but we don't think it's necessarily a good idea to open these to the outside while they are going on. Also, even the things we do agree on aren't 'dogmas' but continually open to criticism. There are lots of examples throughout the history of the workers' movement where revolutionaries have had to call into question 'orthodoxy', such as in the early 1900s when it became increasingly clear that the material conditions in which struggles were taking place were changing (concentration of capital, imperialist tensions and wars etc.) Rosa Luxemburg saw this in the Mass Strike and the Junius Pamphlet. Lenin saw it with the April Theses. So yes, revolutionaries must always maintain their critical edge.

Jumping forward to a later post,

ToJ, do the ruling class have nothing to say then? Are the ruling ideas in society those of the ruling class or not? It's clear that you've got a healthy distrust of dogmatism and want to take a critical approach, but I think you've 'bent the stick too far' here. The point that we are trying to make is that it is necessary for revolutionaries to regroup and speak with one voice precisely because this is what the left wing of the bourgeoisie do - the Trots, Stalinists, Maoists etc - their function is to defend bourgeois ideas and practices within the working class. And they will certainly do this within the general assemblies and workers councils. They have done so in the past and will do so in the future. The working class has and will continue to create its own political organisations to put forward and defend class positions and actions.

OK, so you remain to be convinced about Left Communist organisations, but at least let's not close the debate on this one yet! This bring me back to your first point...

Well, this vision of different political parties forming different fractions within the councils is rather outdated, such as in the Russian Revolution where different parties sort to form 'governments'. This could be another discussion. But the main point is that yes, all organisations involved in the revolution - whether they are political or unitary (councils, assemblies) will at times need to maintain tight security and 'radio silence' on certain questions. For example, in the Russian Revolution the organisation of the insurrection in Petrograd by the Military Revolutionary Comittee was done 'behind closed doors', and not in the full glare of daylight! Do you think they were wrong in this?

There are two related issues at work here: the respective weights of democratism and councilism. Two sides of the same coin, and both equally dangerous for the working class, leaving it open to repression and politically disarmed.

Beltov.

No, it doesn't.

I think that that's the best time to open them to the outside, myself. Honestly, what point is there in getting outside input when the issue's already settled?

Uh.. right. Which is why you claim that groups who disagree with you are parasites or agents of capitalism.

Yes, but they don't produce them, they just own them.

Could be. My point is that all kinds of opportunist organizations rise up at times of hightened class struggle. That, in itself, is not sufficient for choosing which one represents a move towards communism.

Perhaps. But what makes you think that you're such an organization any more than the Trots, Stalinists or Maoists? What makes you think that you're a working-class organ, while the SPGB or SWP or NEFAC or WSM are not?

On certain "questions?" That's irrelevant to your example:

Those are matters of hiding specific tactics for a specific operation from the ruling class. Are you suggesting that internal debates on positions regarding internationalism form specific tactics for action against world capitalism? Also, the situation is definitely much changed, off-beat theoretical debates aren't so likely to cause you bodily harm in most European nations.

When the working class is armed, it is usually to fight itself.

I'd like to disagree with Beltov in the sense that Toj's position shows a "healthy distrust of dogma" and he takes "a critical approach". I think he does neither and his political positions, such as they are, are all over the place. In fact, Toj is quite clearly against cogent political positions, saying that it is "natural" to have different positions (5.5.) and what he would rather have are "conversations" (about what?). Toj goes for disagreement and babble against clarity and cohesion and there's nothing "healthy" about that.
The expressions of the ICC and its sympathisers on these boards is an important part of the ICC's intervention and these interventions are about the defence of certainly not immutable but hard won and tested political positions - of course these are "pre-set positions" as you call them Toj, what else could they be in the sweep of historical materialism? It's essential to defend these positions openly and with clarity within the working class: on the unions, the crisis, the manoeuvres of the bourgeoisie and the perspective of communism. That's the basic responsibility of any fighter for communism. Toj's position is anti-clarity, anti-cohesion and a concession to democratism. This is part of the general attack on clarity within the working class, as expressed by the ICC, that goes from Toj's 'what do want to agree for', to the lawyer approach which looks for miniscule variations or oversights. Both are attacks on political clarity.
Toj says that 'groups that disagree with the ICC are seen as parasites or agents of capitalism' and that is simply not correct. Throughout its history the ICC has talked to individuals and groups that it doesn't agree with including those that have links to left communism and it continues to do so today. Discussions in the ICC's press have put opposing views of disagreements within the organisation and this is where or before some of the splits in the ICC (which I insist were generally positive) didn't end in flight, bitterness and political parasitism. A particularly good example of the latter can be seen above in Ingram's posts.

I, for one, think that personal attacks are low and demean the attacker more than the victim. Moreover, they are a distinctly bourgeois tactic. Anyway, I'm not interested in defending myself as an individual, so denounce me as an incoherent heretic at your leisure.

Weren't members of the ICC asked to provide a list of individuals and groups which it talks to, and did they not refuse to do so? I seem to recall them being asked to provide a list of anarchist organizations they consider part of the proletarian camp and therefore worthy of amicable relations.

Why would we be here if we didn't think it was posible to have "amicable" relations with a considerable part of the people posting on these boards? In some cases this means amicable relations with the organisations they belong to. But I don't think this is the place to develop a "list" of the anarchist or other groups who we think are either proletarian, or at least not definitively leftist. If you look at our website, you will find plenty of evidence of groups we talk to directly in a number of countries - Brazil, Korea, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Turkey, Korea, Philippines, etc

Anyone who knows anything about the ICC knows that they've always been open to serious discussion with groups and individuals. The formation of the ICC was built on discussion.

The organisation was originally formed by a number of groups in different countries who appeared post-68. This included RI in France, Internationalism in the US, and Internacionalismo in Venezuea. As soon as these groups formed, they began seeking out international contacts including the Left-Communist groups that had survived the war and new ones that, like them, had appeared after 68.

Conferences inviting over 20 groups were proposed and from these conferences some of the groups found they had enough political agreement to join together to form the ICC. Originally the ICC had a presence in 6 countries, today it has militants in 13. This growth (if modest) has been made possible by a continual patient work of reaching out to groups to seek mutual clarification, discussion, etc.

A few years ago, they supported the creation of an online discussion group in Russia, which itself emerged from a series of conferences in Russia with various groups there. They've supported the creation of discussion groups all round the world (including one I'm personally involved in).

Finally, a word on personal attacks. It's not necessarily a "personal" attack to criticise another militant's political or theoretical method. Those criticisms may or may not be well-phrased or justified or not. But the approach we take on political questions are political questions in themselves.

You yourselves admit that what you do on this board is intervention. I don't think that intervening on another group's meetings (or discussion groups, or online boards) is a sign of amicable relations.

But do you talk to them, or do you intervene with them and subsequently use their responses? Those are two different processes.

After months of being lambasted for being "Leninist" and monolithic, the ICC are now criticised because (presumably speculating because not many people have first hand experience of this) their process of internal debate would mean they wouldn't be able to provide leadership to the workers in crucial situations! Oh, the irony!

But on a more serious note (!) the process of revolution is not simply a bolt out of the blue. The idea of the Soviets overthrowing Kerensky wasn't really mooted in any clear form, even within the Bolsheviks, until the April Theses. Following these Theses a process of discussion took place within the Party and the Soviets, with the majority of the former gradually being won round.

When the workers themselves began to be convinced of this necessity they acted too quickly, without proper planning and this ended in the fiasco of the July Days. The October Revolution was the fruit of much reflection in the class and the Party and so the insurrection when it came was carefully organised by the military organs of the Soviet.

There is also a difference between arguing politically for revolution (which is the role of the party) and the material organisation of the insurrection (which is the role of the Soviet). The former is the fruit of entire process of political discussion and clarification going on in the entire proletariat, even if the party plays a significant role, which could take weeks, months, even years. The actual organisation of the revolution itself - deciding for example the exact time of, I don't know, storming the House of Lords - will, by necessity, be the work of a delegated minority (of the Soviet, not the party) possibly in rather clandestine circumstances.

Depends what you mean by "leading" doesn't it? There's a difference between providing a political leadership, that is to convince the mass of the class of communist positions, etc. That's not the same as running the organisational aspects of the revolution itself or running the machinery of state.

And, obviously, in order to convince the masses of a political position, the organisation has to first be convinced of a particular position itself. This can only happen with a process of rigorous discussion. But this is not simply discussion for its own sake as occurs in academia, where the multiplicity of positions and differing opinions have no real effect on the real world. The discussions of the proletariat are always held with a view to understanding the world in order to change it.

Dispersal of opinion is a weakness for the proletariat. It means that there has not yet been sufficient evidence or examination of the available evidence for the class (or political organisation) to come to a definitive conclusion. Its the duty of revolutionaries to confront these differences and develop the most coherent and accurate framework of analysis.

After all, you wouldn't trust a bridge if engineers were divided on its safety, would you?

I would say that contestation (argument for argument's sake) and disunity are key elements of Toj's positions and I would therefore argue that these positions are against the interests of the working class (who will be tending towards unity or tending towards nothing). The role of revolutionaries, as a minority, in the perspective of deepening class struggle will have to be as an avant-garde of the class, even with all the difficulties that this entails, not least learning from the danger of the Bolsheviks by indentifying class with party.
The ICC has talked with thousands and thousands of people "amicably" from outright bourgeois's, leftists, to those who have no idea about politics at all and that process has gone on for decades. It is a total fabrication for Toj to say that the ICC doesn't have amicable relations with individuals and other groups and elements.
Toj says he thinks that the ICC and its sympathisers are "intervening" on these boards - of course they are. Toj sees this as the wrong thing to do, as 'unfriendly', or hostile. While should a search for clarity and cohesion be seen in this light, particularly on boards dedicated to politics, the class struggle and the perspective of communism?

baboon, I don't recall being repeatedly addressed by you and simply ignoring you, so I don't really see why you would refer to me in the third person. Or is this just your way of discussing disagreements, comrade?

I don't mind you thinking that I'm a poor revolutionary: sure, I'd probably agree with that, for a variety of reasons; if you think my positions are dubious, then, sure, criticism is always welcome: after all, I see my thinking as a dialectical process, and input is not only useful, but necessary for me to keep my edge.

But you're denying me my subjectivity, and that's beyond contempt in an alleged communist, hell, in an alleged human being.

Jef, Demo is correct to ask what you mean by 'leadership'. It would certainly help the discussion if you could explain what you think we think our role is, preferably with some quotes that allow others to refer to the necessary texts. The question of the role of revolutionary is vital and we are more than willing to discuss it.
You should be pleased that your concern that the ICC is unable to respond to events is unfounded. If you look at the response to the events in France last spring the ICC was able respond from the beginning. And when it comes to one of the most important tests of any revolutionary organisation: imperialist war, you will find that we have responded from the beginning of all the major imperialist wars since we were formed. So you can rest assured that we are up to it.
This should also reassure you that whatever you have heard about our internal life is clearly not correct. It would be interesting to know what you take our internal life to be. Do you have direct experience of it? Is it based on second hand experience? If you could tell us it would help us to try and answer your real concerns and also those of others.

Tree, (may I call you Tree?), I have no wish to deny your subjectivity or anything else, I merely oppose the political positions that you are representing and arguing for. On the 7th May you said "that groups who disagree with you (the ICC) are parasites or agents of capitalism". This is a fabrication that attacks all the work of the ICC. Even with its disagreements with other groups of the Communist Left, the ICC has tried on several occasions, as part of its wider intervention, to put out a common position on the danger of imperialist war (Kosovo, Serbia, Iraq, etc.). All other groups of the CL have rebuffed this approach (an approach towards unity) but that doesn't make them parasites or agents of capitalism. On the other hand, see Ingram above for an expression of political parasitism. The countless discussions, meetings, day to day interventions in strikes and movements, doesn't anywhere see the ICC denouncing individuals but attacking the political positions that grip them. The latest meeting and statement coming out of south Korea and the public meetings in Brazil show the ICC as a positive and willing force with other elements of the political milieu.
On the 11th May Tree, you say: "I don't think that intervening (in another group's meeting, discussion groups, online, etc., is a sign of amicable relations". I do. In fact I see it as the highest expression of "amicable relations", the unity and solidarity of the working class, without which there will be no fight against capitalism, no insurrection, no revolution and no prospect whatsoever of communism.
These are not abstract questions for the working class. The striving for unity and coherence is essential faced with the activity of the trade unions whose role is to divide and confuse the working class. Similarly, the military offensive of the bourgeoisie demands a unified position from the those that will suffer from it worldwide.
The ICC's intervention in the anti-CPE struggle last year show how an intervention in the here and now cannot be opposed to the future perspective and this intervention, which despite some weaknesses was well received, was based on orientations, discussions and positions.
It's not a question of you or anyone being a "bad" or "good" revolutionary but what I see as the weaknesses of the positions you express that seem to actively promote disunity. Any genuine revolutionary element has to (in my opinion) support the unity and coherence of the working class.

Focusing on this thread, there is this question which is not clear to me, that of political organizations, and which I am trying to clarify through conversation, debate, and criticism. I haven't settled on a position regarding organizations, only that I'm confident that states, standard political parties, Leninist-type cadre parties, trade unions, etc., are definitely anti-working-class. I'm trying to see what the ICC has to offer, and right now still don't clearly understand why I should not oppose their model of organization for the same reason I oppose Leninists. I have reached an understanding of why it makes sense, in their own apparent logic, for there to be an organization like theirs in the first place (viz. to encourage revolution and then become left fractions within the organs of self organization of the working class), which I see as a sign of progress, at least on my part. Of course, that might not be interesting to you, but I fail to understand how my lack of position and my interest in carefully acquiring one is in itself worthy of opposition. Would it be better if I just settled on taking a Trotskyist position on organization just so I'd have a "coherent" position to vehemently defend?

Fine. Perhaps I have not given my words on the subject enough consideration. Nontheless, most if not all organizations are considered agents of capitalism or parasites by the ICC. They only accept other groups which it considers part of the Communist Left. It is my understanding that a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for an organization to be considered within the Communist Left is a certain hereditary pedigree. Another is letter-by-letter agreement on a certain list of conditions. This means that the amicability of the ICC extends to a very limited subset of even those who consider themselves communists, and definitely not to the working class at large.

What does that make them, though? Why do you think that these groups of the Communist Left have rejected this approach towards unity?

1ngram indeed seems a likely candidate for parasitism. But I can't really judge that without knowing what else she does with her life.

You're the denouncer to whom I was referring, in particular, regarding personal attacks, so don't push this to the ICC. You have only stopped denouncing me individually and objectively on your third post referring to me on this thread, and your denunciations were, initially, quite vague and abstract.

Wasn't that meeting limited to those whom the ICC considered members of the Communist Left, doing nothing to ameliorate the above concerns?

Well, I stand by my statement. Intervening is by its very nature a thing done upon, rather than with, another individual or group of individuals, when the moral, political or ideological high ground has been affirmed in advance. If you join in conversation with another group, that is a different issue, but then you have to be open to revising your own opinions on the go, admitting possible mistakes while conversing with them, and meaning to continue at a later date if one session does not suffice (which is normally the case). I suppose you see this as a source of disunity, while I think that too much focus on total partial unity is in itself a source of disunity.

I, on the other hand, happen to think think that intervention tactics of this sort also help divide and confuse the working class. That's my whole point, it does not lead to any kind of coherence or unity of the class, but only to coherence and unity of a single group, which can never hope to become more than marginal, unless it accepts cadre tactics in whole.

Does that mean chanting "Internationalism! Internationalism!" as you are gunned down, mostly by your "enemies" or, if you're lucky, by your "allies", the former and latter chosen for you by the bourgeoisie? I doubt that having a unified position with all Left Communists will come to your aid in such dire times of need. Was it proof of the fact that:

when I asked to be given clear ideas of what a political organization is supposed to be according to, say, Alf, when I argued with him about various points, when I ask how exactly the positions that the ICC so clearly and coherently hold relate to the position in the area in which I live? This is what I did here, and no-one from the ICC (or the Communist Left) has bothered responding yet

Should I apologize for trying to confront the ICC's position with the reality of the region in which I live? Does that merit denunciation?

I agree. However, I think that the method of organization of the ICC is the one which promotes disunity through partial dogmatic coherence, which is what I've been trying to argue, for example in the following exchange:

Tree, I'm sorry I didn't respond to your previous posts about Israel, but my attention had strayed from that thread.. I don't think however that I am telling you to do nothing till the cavalry arrives. Even if we're right in foreseeing the main breakthrough taking place in Europe, the internationalist seeds still need to be sown in the Middle East so that there is a better chance of proletarians there responding positively to that break-through. There's nothing automatic in a process which involves human beings and their subjectivity, after all!

Again, I don't think our practice on this forum supports your view that we are only for amicable relations with those we see as left communists. From the beginning of our activity on libcom (and despite a good deal of initial animosity) we have stood for serious discussion, rejection of personal insults, etc. Neither is it the case that we only see left communists as part of the present-day workers' movement, even if we do think they are in general the clearest part.

I think that I should clarify what I mean by "amicable relations". I am not just talking about being nice to people. Members of the ICC have been more than kind to me in times of dire despair, for which I am forever grateful. On another, less sincere level, I am always nice to customers of the book retailer where I work, though I definitely do not consider most of them comrades.

On the other hand, people like Revol have been extremely rude to me. Nevertheless, I think that my conversations with him are amicable, because it seems that he eventually concedes points, however reluctantly, and I have learned much from debating him, once I had filtered away the unnecessary abuse.

I see "amicable relations" as having to do with having honest, meaningful discussion, with both sides accepting, however grudgingly, the notion that they will come out changed, fundamentally. I have a gut feeling that this is how dialectic should be applied to everyday life, as opposed to bourgeois debates, in which one merely sharpens one's skills in convincing others of his pre-set ideas. But I find that I do not have any theoretical basis for this notion of mine. I would be much obliged if anyone could direct me to a theoretical text on the subject.

Amicably yours,

TOJ

I think, first of all, that you underestimate the fact that the positions of the ICC are already the fruit of discussions that the organisation has had both internally and with other organisations and individuals over its 30 years or so of existence. In addition, the ICC also attempts to synthesise the results of debates that took place within the 3 Internationals, the various Left Fractions of the 20s and 30s, etc. Much refinement of these ideas has thus already taken place, and many of the objections to these positions encountered (at least on libcom) have been taken up and debated in other times and places in the workers movement. I can understand how this might sometimes make some militants of sympathisers of the ICC appear "inflexible" but often it's because they really have heard it all before.

While I don't dispute the idea that both participants should benefit from a discussion, I think there is tendency in your posts to approach this in an abstract sense. Sometimes it almost seems as if you see all positions as having equal weight and the holding of a particular position is almost an arbitrary decision.

Discussions within the proletariat are aimed at understanding reality. As materialists, we accept that there is an objective reality "out there" to be examined and understood (however problematic the process of that understanding may be!). Because of this there are some positions which will correspond more closely to reality than others i.e. some will be right (or close to it) and others will be wrong. It is vitally important for the proletariat that its discussions enable it to move closer to the "right" positions and away from the "wrong" ones because its understanding of these questions has serious consequences for its struggle.

This is not to say that holders of the "right" positions cannot learn a great deal from debates with those who hold "wrong" positions. Even if fundamental positions might remain unchanged, debates force participants to further deepen and refine their understanding. More importantly, they push towards developing a culture of debate within the working class - one that was largely crushed during the 90s and is only now beginning to re-emerge.

To my knowledge (limited I admit) there are very few texts talking about how to debate in a proletarian manner. For the classical workers' movement this was very much a given. Today, much of this culture has been smashed by the bourgeoisie so perhaps such a text is needed. However, the ICC have produced several books on the workers movement which charts the debates and development of ideas within several Marxist currents: the various Communist Lefts of Britain, Russia, Italy and Germany/Holland. They've also recently produced a similar book dealing with the broader question of communism and how the ideas of the "Marx tendency" developed in the 19th Century. These certainly show, if only in a general way, how communist organisations of the past developed their positions.

Come on Demo,

You are being so nice. You should admit that when you debate on a lot of these issues, it feels like a debate between Galileo and Ptolemy (with you bing Galileo).

Too much to answe Tree, too dispersed and the line by line approach is not conducive to a fruitful discussion in my opinion.
It would be a major step if you really believe that there is a need for a revolutionary organisation to be a political minority in the working class, as you say above. Could you expand on that?
You are hanging on to the fabrication that the ICC considers (all/most) organisations or workers to be agents of capital, parasites or outside the working class. Either you have made that up or you are unthinkingly repeating what someone else has made up. Or do you mean organisations of the bourgeoisie?, which of course would be capitalist.

I think the notion of thinking that one has "heard it all before" is very limiting. Even when one has been an actor for twenty years, one must constantly re-invent one's self in order to bring up a meaningful drama.

I don't know what you mean by abstract. I have concretely changed my position from "weak nationalist"/national liberationist leftism to internationalism as a result of meaningful discussions with right-wingers. I have concretely changed my position regarding animal liberation from considering it politically positive to considering it politically negative as a result of discussions in this very forum. This is what I mean by meaningful discussion. Portions of the latter process you may review at your leisure in the appropriate thread.

But don't you see how that contradicts the previous paragraph about "[having] heard it all before"? Reality may change, or have been different, from previous conclusions, but if one sticks by previous conclusions, one can never hope to deal with this properly, which is why I have, in the past, compared the ICC to Orthodox Judaism, which adapts to reflect reality but only under the acceptence of previously affirmed dogma.

But debate culture is bourgeois. Is it a coincidence that debate clubs are usually the breeding grounds for lawyers and politicians of the bourgeois system? I do not think so. There is something eminently individualistic, and eminently counter-conversational about debates, because they pressupose the necessity to convince others of set truths, rather than developing them.

I suppose I'll refer to them at some point. Right now I am reading yet another collection of Marx's writings which presents only his part of a discussion with a comrade (or fellow-citizen, as was the terminology at the time). I hope that the works you refer to include all sides of the discussion, allowing for proper context.