Alf Post 32
There seems to be a widespread, almost unquestioning acceptance of the idea that the ICC has caused hostility to itself because of the theory of parasitism - the 'man running down the street stabbing himself' theory. In reality, hostility to the ICC, not just from leftists but from those who appear to share similar political ideas, long precedes the theory of parasitism; in fact, we developed the theory to try to understand some of the reasons for this hostility, to understand it as a general political phenomenon. Do you think that if we hadn't developed the theory, this hostility would not have existed?
I think we were wrong to describe Subversion as parasitic. It obviously had its own politics and was not primarily focused on attacking the ICC. On the other hand it was not averse to spreading the 'ICC are loony' argument ( I seem to recall one article about the ICC coming from another planet) and it was after one such attack in 1996 that we began to classify Subversion as parasitic, having previously considered it part of the proletarian milieu. I think this was an exaggerated reaction at a time when we had withdrawn into what we later called a 'fortress spirit' and were in general over-using the concept. But again: we didn't simply invent the hostility towards us. It was there within Subversion even if it wasn't the reason for their existence.
In my view, the above doesn't explain much. From its inception the ICC harshly criticised and denounced any tendency from the 'proletarian camp' that refused to 'regroup' with it. M Chirik even stated that groups in the UK like the CWO which refused integration were to be 'destroyed'. He didn't mean physical attacks but something like a 'political-theoretical demolition', in the style of Bolshevik hatchet jobs. Interestingly, the concept 'parasitism' was used in the aftermath of the split led by the late D Ross, from the US section, in the late 70s. Perhaps this was the first time.
As was to be expected, this approach and model created a cumulative reaction in the 'proletarian camp', as 'factions of capital' were amalgamated with pro-situs, anarchists, and others who kept their distance. This wasn't the only approach used, but it became the main one, especially from the top apparat. Instant polarisations were the norm, to further splits and attract the membership of the targeted groups. It never worked, but this hardly mattered then.
No point in trying the 'even handed' card now. It is true that the ICC caused most of the hostility to itself. This was to be expected, as the template is an intransigent Bolshevism. Historically there's much more to this, as 'Bolshevism' didn't originally exist prior to 1917. And the Lenin faction was one among others in the RSDLP. But the super-militant and militarised ideal became the Comintern's main export after 1919, and this is what survives in petrified form. Modulations of the approach evolved in US Trotskyist rackets, like Robertson's Spartacists, or Healy's WRP in the UK. The style is similar. The caricature 'Dave Spart' represented reality, but a 'Dave Eek' , or 'Icy Dave' would have been as right on for left communism.
Although immaturity could partially explain why, this didn't apply to Chirik, an 'experienced militant' with many years experience and a founding guru of the ICC. It would seem that a group 'suivisme' and a fawning desire to emulate great patriarchs explains the phenomenon better (Chirik being one of the last surviving Bolsheviks). Chirik steered the ICC with a steady and relentless hand after 1981, and it could be said that he owned it. After all, he placed it near the abyss in November 1981 and nobody complained. It was his racket. Funny 'proletarian minority' this, whose physical existence was at the whim of private passions and a pissed-off guru.
Alf's version above doesn't mention the internal consequences of this aggressive and intolerant approach to the 'milieu'. This was a 'monolithic' implosion, a totalitarian attempt to homogenise the membership so that nothing rocked the boat. Here the arguments that the organisation was 'immature' or 'fragile' were handy, and that it had to defend itself from alien influences. These were the conscious or unconscious ideological attacks from 'the bourgeoisie'. The initial hostility and implicit violence against external groups was turned inwards. A two-pronged attack from the seul contre tous band of brothers. But not that brotherly. You couldn't trust anyone, the top apparat itself had to be constantly purged, as it was the medium of 'councilist' deviations and ever-popping-up secret clans. A series of witch-hunts and splits took place, a miniature 'Bolshevisation' from 1981 onwards, lasting like 20 years. The political differences, if any, were never addressed. Other considerations mattered more: the need to protect the 'fortress' against larval clans which butterflied into 'parasites' on forced exit. The term immaturity doesn't explain anything, it just deflects attention with clichés like 'separation from the class due to the counter-revolution' or the even more banal 'mistakes'. So a 'proletarian minority' takes 20 or more years to 'mature'? Using what criteria or terms of reference, and who defines these? What are the social and political roots of 'mistakes'?
Another question would be: why the change? Is it the 'high level of class struggle?' But there was an ever higher level in 1968-75, and the 'fortress spirit' still took over. So there is no link. A more plausible explanation is the self-perception of dead end, which could be positive if it leads to a profound re-examination of a whole sterile trajectory. But that won't happen, it's not part of the approach and model and a racket can't change horses in midstream.
Alf's account about Subversion is self-serving, and still excuses calling them 'parasites':
On the other hand [Subversion] was not averse to spreading the 'ICC are loony' argument ( I seem to recall one article about the ICC coming from another planet) and it was after one such attack in 1996 that we began to classify Subversion as parasitic, having previously considered it part of the proletarian milieu.
In other words, it's admitted that the concept 'parasite' was used to excommunicate and punish, as a form of revenge against criticism. But in this case this was only a 'mistake', an 'over-using' of the concept. And how about the many other instances? This is truly an admission of theoretical and political bankruptcy, the incapacity of a group to take responsibility for its acts.
And a typical case of negative projection:
But again: we didn't simply invent the hostility towards us. It was there within Subversion even if it wasn't the reason for their existence.
The reason for their existence as a persecution criteria remains. The apparat decides how much time a 'parasite' is spending in 'attacking them' and if it's decided that it's a full-time job, not part-time, then that's not on, the mallet falls (fortunately sans Dzerzhinsky). That a political phenomenon with profound theoretical and practical implications requires persistent exploration and exchange of ideas is irrelevant to the paranoid inquisitors. They decide that any long-lasting criticism of their practice is 'parasitism' and thus of no significance. This circularity is deadly because it offers no way out, and the impasse is unlikely to be solved by a charm campaign towards 'revolutionary anarchists'.
The criticism and transcending of Bolshevism is relevant to those who imagine and strive for a human world without domination. What was the meaning of the period of 1917-28 is worth discussing and clarifying, as are many other issues. There are no final answers to these questions.
And it's also true that there are other productive issues in life.
So, no such thing as a 'proletarian political camp' then? At any rate, this wasn't our invention.