The Question of Parasitism.

My apologies for not being able to find the thread again, but a few weeks back I noted this quote by Demogorgon (it was dated april 16, ’07)

This, I think fairly accurately, reflects the ICC’s approach to discussion – an approach that impacts directly on how it sees organisation, and how it relates to the rest of the milieu, and, indeed, the working class. It seems telling that debate and disagreement are seen as “confusions”, rather than the life-blood of a healthy organisation. A left-communist organisation must present and defend class lines (role of unions, national liberation etc) but even these can raise nuances of interpretation whose debate deepens and refines, rather than confuses understanding. There seems a direct link between the ICC’s approach and the fact that so many of its splitters expressed despair with what they saw as the frustration of debate.

Earlier in this thread, (27/11/09) Alf wrote when referring to his work on shamanism

Clearly, a tool for intervention, like World Revolution, can’t carry much of such debate – for reasons of space if for no other – but why not the ICC’s web-site? Discussions on such as ethics, human nature, Marxism and science don’t impact on class lines, but their airing is a part of deepening political awareness. (International Perspectives have been discussing such issues for some time, too, and are able to publish their internal disagreements.) My memories of my time in the ICC are that the internal bulletins were full of debate that never escaped the confines of the ICC – the result being an organisation that appeared to the milieu, and to some of its soon-to-be ex-members as monolithic. Alf’s comment that this is a problem the ICC is discussing sounds encouraging. Can the ICC offer some clarification as to the sweep of this discussion?

shug;

I think it is not fair and in fact false to portray ICC as discussing only inside . I am a new ICC member. When the ICC send a delegation to Turkey first I was sharing the prejudices that were produced by the "parasitic milleu" or the usual non-sensical hatred that was produced by the rest of the political milleu. So what I in fact expected was a kind of secterianism and direct attack or hostility against the ideas that I would raise against them. However their opennes to discussion was a huge shock for me. Their behavious was never an insistance to say the last word that can be said. On the contrary they openly tried to further the discussion in order to make us express ourselves more clearly. This attitude -as an element of now what we call ethics of debate- was something I have neither seen in anarchism nor in the left till then. this was 3-4 year ago I suppose

So it is not fair at all to imply that ICC is close to discussion.

On the internal discussions;

First ICC never denies the comrades right to discuss their disagreements or opinions openly. Just check out the latest posts of some ICC members in some recent discussions on libcom.

Second, ICC is an organisation. That is why we have organizational positions that we defend. We do not defend these solitarily as seperate individuals. We defend our positions in solidarity with comrades as the positions of a political current inside proletariat. That is why it is important for us to settle political questions inside first and urgently. Nothing can be more logical than to attempt to settle political-theoretical questions first with your comrades since we are determined to defend them collectively.

Obviously that is related to the perception of organizational question. In that sense it is not simply a "matter of attitude".

Third, ICC opened lots of crucial issues into discussion within the wider milleu even it still contained different positions. For instance the vital question of "30 glorious years". Just cheching the internet site will show these. However there is a difference btw. openening a discussion individually and organizationally. An organization has to act organizationally-collectivelly when it advence forward a question in the wider milleu. In that sense it has a responcibility to convince its militants for the necessity-possibility of this effort. There is nothing more natural than this...

I just wanted to give a further example. I was in a platformist-anarchist group before becoming a left communist. When we were to set up our basic positions I disagreed with the proposed positions that majority came up with. I sent my criticisms to them. And I should tell that they were written in a very polite and open way. Nevertheless nobody even cared to respond them. And we were a very small group...

So I had left with the choices either leaving or shutting my mouth, since the organisation left me with no choice except these.

However in ICC, disagreements or questions are always encouraged to be raised inside the organisation. That is how I see the dynamic of "internal discussion" question. I may not be clear or courageous enough to voice my opinion outside the organisation. However organisation should help its militants to develop and make clear their positions - even if in the final case they disagree... In fact that is for me one of the healthiest aspect of the ICC.

I think that is why in the final instance in that kind of an organisation, not expressing disagreemets in an open and fraternal way can be probably caused by a cynicism, -like the term or not- clanism or some sort of careeristic and secrecist aspirations. For me this is one of the basic essences of "thesis on parasitism".

We have been holding off this thread for a while in the interests of the restraint that Berrot mentioned earlier. That doesn't mean that we won't be answering some of the posts which make some very serious accusations against us, in particular Cleishbotham's and the most recent one by Cassady, but we don't want such answers to generate a lot of unproductive heat, and are thinking about the best way and place to reply. Shug's last post had a different tone and I think that Mikail's post is a very appropriate response to the first part of it. But in the second part Shug raises a question about the sweep of our recent discussion. I am not sure whether he is asking about the debate on human nature/anthropology/science etc, or the more specific discussion about how to present this discussion to the outside. Perhaps he can clarify this.

Trying to get your story straight, eh Alf?

~J.

Thanks for the replies. Mikail writes

But the problem with this approach is first, there’s an obvious danger that the desire to find internal settlement "first and urgently" can act to close down debate.
(Leaving aside the fact that there are debates that will probably never be resolved - that between the ‘falling rate of profit’ and the ‘saturated markets theory’ for example).
And, second, saying it’s “logical to attempt to settle political-theoretical questions first with your comrades” is fine (though again, why should this be done in secret?) . But the question is what happens when such settlement isn’t achieved?

Alf asks for clarification on what I was asking about. Sorry for the confusion – I should have made clear I was referring to his earlier post when he said

I was wondering if the sweep of your discussions included the question of allowing

to be made public, and indeed, whether all rather than as you say

be made public. In other words, is 'the problem you are discussing' a reflection of a debate about how the ICC presents itself?

Well, as Demo pointed out we have been publishing the discussion on the '30 glorious years' which has run in parallel with these other debates. But yes, there is a discussion about how the ICC presents itself. In a sense this is nothing new because we have always discussed our own press and intervention and how it may be perceived. But the question is all the more important today given the existence of a new generation and whole new wave of interest in the ideas of the communist left. This is particularly evident in regions like Latin America as you can see by looking at our website, especially the Spanish one; in the areas where left communism has more of a history (like France, Britain, etc) there is also a development but it is also more held back by the weight of the past - which encompasses some of the issues that have been raised on this thread, particularly the 'reputation' of the ICC. Obviously we have a very different view from most posters on this thread about the origins of the hostility exhibited towards the ICC, above all the idea that this is essentially a self-inflicted wound and that if there are attacks on us it's basically all our own fault. But this does not prevent us from reflecting on how the way we present our ideas can sometimes harm our own case.

An example: the 'myth' about our idea of parasitism is that this is a basically a term of abuse or slander we hurl at anyone who disagree with us. It is no more true than an idea we also hear with monotonous regularity - that we consider all other organisations to be the left wing of capital. But if we are going to counter these myths our analyses and our writings have to be extremely precise; and there have been occasions where we have fed the myths through either faulty analysis or imprecise formulations. In the 70s, for example we wrote articles which defined the Bordigist current as leftist, or dismissed efforts by some groups (eg Union Ouvriere in France) to break from Trotskyism. This gave rise to the whole discussion on proletarian political groups and the resolution at our 1977 congress. In the 90s, I would argue that there were comparable examples of us misusing the term parasitism (I mentioned the case of the AF earlier on in this thread, for instance). This is part of the discussion we have been having.

Well you've also called the AF the left wing of capital (and worse) so don't give me none of this self serving crap.

Alf's last couple of posts are quite heartening. This is the first time I have seen any doubt about this whole issue and the damage it has done over the years not least to the reputation of the ICC itself. Amongst other things it partly stems from the conviction that every area has to quickly become a group position which rapidly hardens into an immutable barrier to any further thought. It is my belief that starting with the Chenier events the ensuing hysteria and outrage led the ICC into a serious misjudgent of how to handle this. Instead of identifying the comrade as disruptive and removing him from the organisation it entered into this farrago of calling him a state agent and calling all those who wouldnt accept this as parasites, gangsters and "avatars". Like Topsy the whole edifice just grew and grew.

The ICC remains at the heart of the communist project and I hope they can, however painfully, resolve this.

But there is a policy, which I disagree with, of discussing things internally first. In some cases I think that this is actually correct, but I don't think it is at all necessary on economic questions, or things like some of the recent discussions in the ICC about science. In my opinion, they should be opened out to include more people from the start.

I don't think that it is all our fault either, but I think it would be wrong to assume that this therefore means that none of it is our fault.

What you mean then is that some of it is our fault.

Is the theory being misused, or is it in itself flawed?

Devrim

Bet you anything in six weeks time Devrim gets denounced as a parasitic masonic sect and expelled from the organisation .

~J.

To opening up every question that concerns militants on whatever level, to debate inside the organisation is the responsibility of the organisation and not a choice. Further on; in order to open up a debate in wider milleu, an organisation has to have a collective point of view on what the debate is on, what is the question. That requires an internal collective discussion which can not be avoided if the organisation really takes its militants seriously.

On the other hand, yes, it is more practical to leap over the questions and raise them in the wider movement. Following the same logic, it is also more practical to leap over the militants and set up a leadership that will determine the direction of the organisation... avoiding the "secterianism" caused by a long and -possibly- difficult process of internal discussion...

Alive collectivity of an organisation depends on its capacity to carry on internal debates, since only through these the collective awareness on the important questions and consciousness of the militants can be raised and the self-confidence of the militants strengthened. Otherwise it is for sure, brilliant "practical" leader who always repeat the same dogma plus robotic base militants schema is more practical and maybe even more "democratic" and "open"...

Not too sure what you're arguing here, Mikail. (I realise that English isn't your first language, and I'm ashamed to say my Turkish is non-existent).

. No argument with this - my argument is with the idea that the organisation has to have an answer. And with the idea that internal discussion must precede public discussion, and that an organisational position must be reached first too. To argue as I think you are arguing (and apologies if I am misunderstanding) seems to hold out the danger of polarising debate, closing down discussion, taking positions unnecessarily quickly, and leaving minority positions feeling steamrollered. And it seems to give the impression of the ICC being monolithic. I am not arguing for some kind of 'anything goes' approach, and I believe completely in a centralised organisation (though I feel we could be better at explaining what this means to anarchist/libertarians who tend to have a default revulsion to the word 'centralised'). Class lines must be clearly defended (though this doesn't mean they are incapable of being refined) but all other positions should be freely up for debate, internally and publicly - and this should be seen as a strength not a weakness.

I do not think that I implied that. On the contrary what I want to say is to let for polarisation -if it is necessary- but doing it by allowing the maturation of discussion for the comrades involved. After all the discussion we are talking about is not a mere discussion but a discussion which at least have direct or indirect political implications. And since the political question is somehow connected to the collective organisational question, it is logical to let the development of a discussion inside the organisation in order enable comrades to develop a collective stance.

Totally agree. But a communist organisation accomplish becoming an organisation if it can diffuse a question that needs to be discussed through the whole organisation. I never want to argue for a secret discussion for this. But at least a minimum level of maturation on the questions to be discussed inside the organisation is for me a prerequisite for discussing that question publicly; since not some abstract organisation but the militants of it are going to be the subjects of this discussion.

this is not to "hasten the discussion" but to let the comrades to get an idea on discussion. Afterall we are already discussing some issue like that - like religion. Moreover even the "political line" questions have many angles that might not be very clear. For instance the question of Kemalism. It is for me obviously a variant of state capitalism, but what might be its origins?... I am not very sure but still I have some ideas. I want to discuss my ideas on that first inside the organisation since - even though that discussion might lead different positions- by only then I may be self confident enough to see;

1- What is the org. political position's relevance on this question.
2- What is the point of discussion - its political importance -
3 - What is my positions difference from minority or majority comrades... etc.

also I believe this is the only way to let a minority position to mature itself enough to defend its position outside the organisation.

----------

sorry for my english by the way

I think that this is totally wrong. I don't think that it is necessary, or even healthy, for a revolutionary to have a position on every question.

Political organisations are defined by their adherence to a set of positions, in the ICC's case its platform. This means that membership of these organisations is based, amongst other things, on agreement with these positions. In the case of the ICC this means that disagreement with the 'Thesis on Parasitism' is not an obstacle to membership, for example.

Then there are certain events that organisations have to take positions on because they are vital in the class struggle, and in some cases must take them quickly. In these case, and one example could be the construction strikes in England earlier this year, it is necessary to adopt a position that orientates the organisations writings and activity. I think in this case it is necessary to have internal discussions. The section in the UK had disagreements about this and discussed it, and incidentally, in my opinion, analysed it correctly.

But where do we stop? Does every issue have to be discussed within the organisation first? I think that this is totally the wrong approach. Firstly, I think that there are many issues that a revolutionary organisation does not need to take a position on, specifically the scientific issues that I mentioned earlier. What is the ICC's position on the Dawkins vs Gould debate? Is it right or is it wrong? Fortunately we don't have one, and nor do I think that we should. A revolutionary organisation shouldn't consist of only people who take a specific side in a particular debate. Nor should it be artificially divided into a majority and minority over this question. I have my opinion about it, but have no problems being in the same organisation as somebody who takes the complete opposite view. Neither do I think that it is necessary for people to discuss this question internally before commenting on it. The current ICC discussion about Freud is a case in point. Yes, we should have discussed internally whether that article should appear in the review, but the political discussion on Freud in no way needs to be done internally first.

Secondly, the development of the media has completely changed the forms of discussion, and widened the number of topics that are being addressed. The development of the internet has meant that you can end up discussing anything with people from virtually anywhere in the world. Whereas in the past public discussion had a tendency to be focused around the printed word, today that is no longer true. The nature of this media means also that discussion can move very quickly. These factors add up to mean that not only can an organisation practically discuss every topic but also that by the time that it has the discussion will have moved on.

Finally, there seems to me to be a very important point about the way the ICC presents itself. There was talk at the last congress about transforming the ICC into a 'pole of reference' for discussions amongst internationalists. To a certain extent the ICC has always been this through its maintenance of certain positions, and acting as a memory of the politics of internationalism and the communist left, but it my opinion has not been able to accomplish it as an organisation. In my opinion becoming a 'pole of reference' means opening out discussions to those who are interested, and coming across as an organisation were discussion and differing opinions are not only tolerated but find an atmosphere in which they can develop. The ICC talks about how it doesn't see itself as a 'monolith', but that is the way that all to often, unfortunately, it has appeared to people in the past.

Devrim

Completely agree Devrim. An organistion must have agreement on the platform (in this case the class lines) and agreement when the needs of action demands it. Apart from this it has nothing to fear from the widest possible discussion and divergences.

I have to say that I completely disagree here with devrim. Obviously we have a different understanding on what an organisation really is.

First of all I should clarify something;

Obviously I have never implied anything to get that kind of a responce. To respond shug's post I said making internal discussion a priority does not mean oppressing minority. On the contrary a proper internal debate may enable -if necessary- the health development of any sort of minority by letting everyone to make their minds clearer. What I say is clear;

However even though this surface level difference might be caused by simply because Devrim did not reading what I post, I still think there is deep difference of understanding. Devrim says that;

This for me is only the part of the truth. I think an organisation is defined by both its positions and its statues. Anybody might accept the positions of any sort of group still not being a member of it. Why is that so? Most importantly because being a communist requires acting collectively in line with the statues or the way of practicing the principles of that organisation.

In that sense when it is talked about an organisation, what makes it different from reading groups or discussion circles is that it operates on the basis of a collective perception and solidarity.

This solidarity is not only expressed in the physical conditions like imprisonment or strikes. For me it should also be expressed in theoretical and intellectual level. That means, an organisational bondage among militants should unite them in such a way that, the problems or questions that raised in the minds of individual militants should get a collective life. Only by this, the isolation of communist militants can be overcome. Obviously capitalism also isolate people individually on intellectual level. And communist organisation helps the militants to overcome that through enabling a collective reflection. Hereby, questions which at first sight might be seen as irrelevant might become possible to connect to the real revolutionary practice. For me whatever my comrade says -how "unnecessary- it seems is important.

This does not necessarily imply taking up positions and I never said that. What I said are still here, remains to be read... I said that bypassing this collective organisational practice only leaves communist militants alone, face to face with "public". The most talkative ones obviously can defend what they think individually... What about the others who may not be able to see the problems involved in such and such a question... Obviously left alone.

This is not what I understand from militant discussion. Communists should openly share their questions, ideas with their comrades in order to let them develop their ideas and reflect upon whatever question concern the workers...

This obviously is a hasty generalization. From the beggining of the history of workers movement there were always "quicly moving, widened discussions". Only checking out the history of working class cafes -which actually still exist in turkey for instance- clearly shows that. Furthermore it is not correct to say that internet discussions are quicly moving. On the contrary they are periodically revolving, coming and going back to the same topic; first with the emergence of new people who want to discuss the same thing, second with the rising importance of the question again because of any sort of reason. In that sense two type of discussion; written and "informal" does not necessarily exclude each other. On the contrary they supplement. What internet did is to probably make easier the fusion of each still creating new other obstacles...

I wonder why? Is it because ICC makes internal discussions? Why there are so much organisation like Turkish leninists which does not allow the slightest internal discussion on any topic -banning them as irrelevant at best, burgeois at worst- which are at the same time so popular?

I think this is quite ironic really. Here let me put it for you again in big bold letters so that it is easy to understand:

No, I don't think that it is at all because of that. Again popularity isn't at all what I wrote about. I was referring to the view of the ICC as monolithic, or as it is more commonly expressed 'all being robots, which I think mostly comes from people who have no idea about the internal workings of the ICC or Turkish Leninist organisations.

Devrim

Mikail, you write

. Why does this have to be done internally and in private first?
At the very least, keeping debate, discussion and argument internal, carries the danger that public intervention, when made, appears monolithic rather than the synthesis of rich debate. And I think that this is a real problem for the way the ICC in print is perceived by many in the milieu. (It's interesting that a number of posters in the past few years have noted that meeting and discussing with ICC members leaves a very different impression from that gained by reading them in print.)
And again, I find it refreshing to read ICC members disagreeing and debating on a forum like this. I would hope the organisation sees this as positive rather than threatening.

As you might expect I tend to agree with the ex CBG comrades and subsequently with Devrims contributions on this.

Obviously any pro-revolutionary group which did not involve intensive political discussion amongst its members on a regular basis (and with a view where possible of collective agreement) wouldn't be worthy of the name but such an organisation doesn't need to have only one publicly proclaimed view on all issues.

This is especially so given the current historically relative weakness, isolation and fragillity of such organisations and their tiny size even when taken together ( in both anarchist communist and left/council communist traditions). In these circumstances the opening up of, and free development of, discussion amongst pro-revolutionaries on sites such as Libcom and also in open discussion meetings and 'circles' is absolutely essential. This cannot be done where individuals in such organisations are restrained by disciplining themselves to defend a collective group decision on such a wide range of issues or feel obliged to get their group sanction before raising issues in open debate.

I think Libcom has started to facilitate a more open debate in this way but it is just a start.

I think a communist is a person who is involved in a communist organisational work. Thus;

http://en.internationalism.org/specialtexts/IR033_functioning.htm

For me this means that communists are not alone in themselves to face directly or indirectly political questions. I think this might sound somehow anti-democratic. It is not important for me since I do not see democratic "freedom of thought" as something I should fearfully attach myself. For me human beings does not express themselves through their thoughts. They express themselves through their human social praxis. This is something impossible in capitalist society. Only chance of actual human practice to blossom, appears with the working class struggle and in the solidarity and collectivity it creates. I think that, communists approach to that struggle -whether it is expressed in political discussion inside class or in any kind of physical confrontation with state etc.,- collectively. "They represent the future in today". They do not come to these struggle as individuals. They come to these to intervene internationally and in solidarity.

That is why I see internal discussion so crucial. I know lots of people who are burnt out in leninist organisations. Lots of people who had great potentials and great things to contribute to the class struggle become totally alienated to communist politics after having an experience with leftism... What these kind of people are most frustrated is usually the "political discussion". What I feel is that their experience in leninist organisations in which, any position is determined from center, thus consciously excluding discussion, exhausts these people. They are only left with the choice of either expressing their disagreements openly -i.e. leaving or getting kicked out as a result- or shutting their mouth up. This situation in turn, forces these people becoming partyliners who does not have anything to say on any real living debate. This frustration and isolation caused by a "socialist" organisation break these people's trust to the idea of organisation.

Against that, in real communist organisations, the questions of comrades are or should be of interest to everyone in the organisation. This is reflected through discussions. And ultimately discussion determines the whole collective intervention in turn.

That is why I see it important to discuss political questions in the organisation. To sum up the reasons;

1. Communists have to discuss what they think politically right both in class and in the organisation.
2. But their responcibility is first towards their organisation, to the collective body made up of their comrades.
3. Hereby, communist politics could be expressed in a much more stronger and clearer manner...

That is not to say in "harmony". On the contrary. The point is it is the organisation's responcibility to generate the debate inside class and reflect the positions that became mature enough.

I feel that the problem is on the questions like "evoluton" or "freud". Some may argue that these does not have ANY relevance to the principal positions of the organisation. But to argue that is pure intellectualism. This comes to looking every issue at its face value superficially. It comes to say that workers are only interested in bread and butter issues. I feel totally different. I think everything that concerns workers' daily life is related to politics. And to clarify on what level a question is politically important to take position should be discussed. That is not to say that it is necessary to take a position on how the mammals evolved. It is to grasp the question of evolution in its political dimension that can be enriching for the militants of the organisation; thus provoking a collective awareness in the organisation; then in turn letting the organisation to get collectively mature enough on that question to open it up to debate.

I believe ICC is productive and succesful in both generating these kind of discussions and posing it to the wider milleu. Obviously being an ICC member it might not have any value me to say that. However we at least have an effort and I think it would be unjust to deny that.

My negative perception when I first encountered the ICC was not the result of its writings. It was because everybody seemed to be against the ICC. This has changed when I discussed with them.

And when I started to read ICC material I did not have anything against it because of its "style". My problem with the ICC articles was due to my background. Since the main body of the literature I read about marxism consisted of anarchists or councilist, its approach seemed weird to me at first. Not monolitic.

this is not what I say at all. On the contrary organisation is a tool for the class to generate these debates. That is what I say. If class gain something from a debate than it is a political debate for sure. And if communist militants are going to contribute to that than their contribution should be supported by their comrades in a way. I also never implied that a differing opinion in a "public" discussion can not be expressed and that is also not the way ICC does things

I guess when "Yearzero" triggered this discussion it was out of a sense of "devilment", perhaps inviting the ICC to make a public fool of themselves.
But actually, after 200+ posts, a genuine debate and discussion has begun to emerge.
Not about "Parasitism" or "Monolithism" (both all too easy to use as insults), but a very real discussion about how revolutionary fractions organise themselves.
I hope comrades (and you are all my comrades) can continue to display the "restraint" mentioned by Berot in an earlier post.

I think Rowntree is correct that the debate has developed into something more important than the name calling between "parasites" and the ICC. We are seeing mapped out in Mikail's posts the bare bones of an approach to organisation which lies at the heart of the ICC's troubles with the milieu. He sees clarity as the product, and the property of, the organisation reflecting and cogitating on the experience of the class. I think the process of clarification is much more than this. It involves the class, its struggles within capitalism, its growing consciousness - albeit fragmentary - and all the fractions and organisations it throws up. The process of clarification can never be a finished product. At moments in the struggle some elements will be clearer than others. An organisation must always be conscious of this and must always be open and receptive to the entire process. This is especially true in a period like the present when organisations and political fractions remain tiny and more or less completely isolated from the class. I think sometimes comrades lose sight of exactly how tiny we are. How can any single organisation numbering in the dozens hope to accurately embody the entire process of clarification? Comrades, have some modesty, some grasp of reality. Every left communist in the world would probably fit into a jumbo jet.

Mikail keeps insisting that the ICC maintains a vigourous and healthy internal debate. I know this for a fact from my own experience within the ICC. For a period, I was tasked with the physical production of the internal bulletins - call me Sisyphous - they seemed endless. Much of this was valuable and never saw the light of day in the external press. Thus it could never become a resource for the whole milieu. Why not? (Obviously I dont mean things which would compromise the security of the organisation.) (As an aside, this is the reason why the comrades who became the CBG insisted on retaining our personal copies of the internal bulletins.) More to the point, when the debate became too much to handle for the ICC it was closed down one way or another. Sometimes in the most scandalous way possible.

totally agree. If I "bent the stick" too much to the organisation side I did it in order to argue that consciousness is not something arose in "individuals". That is why I insisted to see debate as an organisational issue. Obviously you are perfectly right to argue that consciousness develops dialectically and organisation is not something that can produce it from itself. Again I agree. still I do not see why this comes up against the idea that organisations should try to discuss issues internally first.

does not have to be that way right? Does the priority of an organizational internal debate constitutes an obstacle for that?

By the way, I started to feel that we are talking about two different things. What I argue for is the necessity of internal discussion in communist organisation and the responcibility of the organisation to diffuse that both inside and outside.

However what you are saying seems to be that, ICC has some sort of a very secret internal discussion mentality as if it is jealous of its discussions! I do not see how you reach that conclusion though? If what I wrote came to that than I am sorry. But I did not meant that. If you mean it was incorrect for an organisation to demand internal discussion documents from a member who left the organisation... well I do not think that is about opening up debate right. That is about security of an organisation.

On an other level, every internal discussion is (for instance in my case) giving me a kind of motivation to look at certain issues the way I did not looked before thus trying to find new way of seeing those... Then logically I discuss these whit the people outside the organisation. For instance the ethics or psychoanalysis debate were that kind of things. I can say that they helped me to generate debate and oriented me, not the other way round.

I hope you will clarify that. what you meant with that seems to be like an accusation.

Fuck you.

sorry for my english if it comes as too stupid sometimes. Sometimes what I write might seem weird since this not my mother tongue. But still I don't think that I deserved an insult.

Don't worry mik, it wasn't about you. She's just having a hissyfit about something she saw in libcommunity.

~J.