DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

theoretical unity?

125 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anna's picture
Anna
Offline
Joined: 13-11-07
Dec 6 2007 09:37

I don't think Devrim sounds like a politician, rather it just sounds as if he chooses his words carefully, which may well be a side-product of writing in a language that is not your first. Native English speakers are more likely to just splurge all over the page.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Dec 6 2007 10:02
Carousel wrote:
Quote:
writing about politics in a political forum is a political activity

Politics being arguing a set of positions? Sounds rubbish. The only type of organisation required for that is a bureau.

Who are you? You posts are brilliant. I'm not sure if you're taking the piss or not.

http://libcom.org/library/how-to-talk-like-a-situationist

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Dec 6 2007 10:05
Quote:
1) Their own behaviour, which I believe that they are trying to change.
2) The fact that a lot of anarchists don't like what they have to say.
3) The fact that the way that some of these anarchists deal with this is to start throwing smears instead of dealing with the political arguments. I think the comments on this thread saying I am like a politician are a good example of this.

Its not just anarchists. No one on the left seems to like them. Trots, anarchos, even those close to their politics like Aufheben or people on this site, everyone thinks they are cultish. That's not to say they're a cult but it is a fucked up way to present you politics.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 6 2007 10:27

GS - he's lazy riser.

Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
In general your right, but again I've definitely had people from various anarchist forums (including this one) that I don't even know write me with positive feedback when I've said something which even I thought was out of line. I assume this is because they don't like the intellectual-snottiness-disguised-as-polite-debate and can appreciate it when someone just cuts through the bullshit and calls people out on a very basic level. Different strokes for different folks.

Do you not remember you moaning about people being rude to you on here, and saying you wouldn't talk to them in real life because they were so mean on the internet?

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 6 2007 10:58
Devrim wrote:
Saii wrote:
Almost everyone I know think that the ICC are a bunch of weirdos, and that's definitely a large part of it.

And how many of these people have actually talked to them, or is it just what the scene says?

I've met several people from the ICC and I think they're a looney cult, which I've never thought about the CWO.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Dec 6 2007 12:21

I think the ICC are quite nice in person, when I was at their stall they seemed genuinely surprised that people found it weird that they referred to each other as comrade and never used names.
Of course I could be biased because baboon said I was doing 'good work' smile

Quote:
I don't think Devrim sounds like a politician, rather it just sounds as if he chooses his words carefully, which may well be a side-product of writing in a language that is not your first. Native English speakers are more likely to just splurge all over the page.

That's how it appears to me, I am always surprised when I see a spelling or grammar mistake in one of his posts for this reason.

Dev never struck me as a politician, he struck me as someone who is rock solid on his positions, so while he will contribute to debates on issues and tactics etc his fundamental positions are always the same. I don't see anything wrong with this. I think that the ICC have improved a bit online, although mostly they've stopped posting here.

Can't Lazy Riser be called Lazy Riser? People can't change angry
And who'd want Lazy to change anyway.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Dec 6 2007 13:05

As I say, I'm talking there about the impression given, mostly online, rather than the active content of what they say. I don't throw in words like that for the sake of it, if I wanted to say they were a cult I would say so outright.

My intimate knowledge of how they operate as an organisation is zero, so I'm not going to judge.I've met a couple of ICC people briefly, one came across as a bit barmy, the other seemed okay, which I'm not going to judge as representative of their organisation.

But it doesn't matter who's talked to them and who hasn't, if the general impression is that they're a bunch of weirdos (as opposed to just wrong on some issues), then their extreme level of unity is clearly hammering their ability to get the message out in a way people are prepared to listen to. If that's an opening for people who don't agree with them to attack and discredit them, they should look at how to close said opening.

If we're talking about how a group is seen on the outside this is exactly the point, Revol's behaviour is probably out of order if it's actively damaging the ability of his group to organise and propagandise, but equally, if too great a degree of communicatory cohesion is damaging ouput, it also has to go. It's no good banning swearing if people reckon you're too weird to take seriously.

edit: Yes they do split and expel, but that means nothing unless we know what the splits were about, if it's on really unimportant shit that simply reinforces the impression that the group can't handle/tolerate any decent levels of internal debate.

Carousel
Offline
Joined: 19-09-07
Dec 6 2007 13:45
Quote:
the group can't handle/tolerate any decent levels of internal debate.

It depends on what outcomes the group sets out to generate. Sure, theoretical unity is important if the group wants to spread ideas, as are the behavioural peccadilloes of its members, but 1) Spreading ideas by theoretical debate is a futile exercise and 2) If organisations are debating internally what tasks are to be undertaken, rather than how to undertake the tasks it has set itself then they’ve formed an organisation too soon. None is required. They should all expel themselves and come back when they’ve worked out what they’re for.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Dec 6 2007 16:13
John. wrote:
GS - he's lazy riser.
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
In general your right, but again I've definitely had people from various anarchist forums (including this one) that I don't even know write me with positive feedback when I've said something which even I thought was out of line. I assume this is because they don't like the intellectual-snottiness-disguised-as-polite-debate and can appreciate it when someone just cuts through the bullshit and calls people out on a very basic level. Different strokes for different folks.

Do you not remember you moaning about people being rude to you on here, and saying you wouldn't talk to them in real life because they were so mean on the internet?

That was just you and Revol. I'm fine with occasional swipes and some nastiness here and there from people, but you both come off as complete pricks pretty much all the time. Are you really that hurt knowing I wouldn't want to hang out with you?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Dec 6 2007 16:25

In fairness, I think you and John are pre-destined to rub each other up the wrong way rather than him inherently being a prick (or indeed you being same).

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 6 2007 16:46
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
John. wrote:
GS - he's lazy riser.
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
In general your right, but again I've definitely had people from various anarchist forums (including this one) that I don't even know write me with positive feedback when I've said something which even I thought was out of line. I assume this is because they don't like the intellectual-snottiness-disguised-as-polite-debate and can appreciate it when someone just cuts through the bullshit and calls people out on a very basic level. Different strokes for different folks.

Do you not remember you moaning about people being rude to you on here, and saying you wouldn't talk to them in real life because they were so mean on the internet?

That was just you and Revol. I'm fine with occasional swipes and some nastiness here and there from people, but you both come off as complete pricks pretty much all the time. Are you really that hurt knowing I wouldn't want to hang out with you?

Not at all, I hate anarchists in general, especially weirdo subcultural punk/goth/metal types, of which i gather you are one kind or another. I was just pointing out that you trying to score points over Devrim being a prissy "intellectual" and you being a salt-of-the-earth tell-it-like-it-is man of the people was a bit hypocritical when you throw your toys out of the pram at people saying things you don't like. And I'm not even rude mostly.

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Dec 6 2007 16:49
Leo Uilleann wrote:
Quote:
The problem is more that they seem to solve their internal disagreements by regular purges of "parasitical elements"...

Do you really know anything about their splits or about how they handle with their internal disagreements?

Well, I don't have any first hand knowledge of it, so I only know what I read in the websites and publications of the ICC and their various splits. But really, I think it's enough to read what the ICC themselves write about these splits to see that there are major problems with the group.

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Dec 6 2007 17:00

I think there's two things going on in this thread. One is about an organization's "line" or aims and principles etc. The other is about how individuals represent a group by their behavior. On the first, I'm pretty open to disagreements. I'm not part of any group that has the level of agreement and discipline that it sounds like Devrim's group has. I don't know if I would be any good at being in a group like that.

On the second, I'm mostly with Devrim here, and EdWob. I do think that SRB is right that sometimes there is "intellectual-snottiness-disguised-as-polite-debate," but that's passive aggressiveness, which is not the same thing as genuinely polite debate.

I think it's always quite clear that Revol doesn't speak for Organise! politically on this board - his opinions are all in a personal capacity. But based on his behavior on this board I don't like the guy. Given that almost all I know about Organise! is the following: Revol's a member, I find his behavior objectionable, to the best of my knowledge Organise! don't care about his behavior, I have a pretty poor impression of Organise! as a result. I would not want to be a member of a group that had formal mechanisms for that kind of thing, but I would want any group I was in to be made up of people who would use informal discipline to police that kind of behavior. (Begin flaming.)

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Dec 6 2007 17:29
Devrim wrote:
Saii wrote:
The ICC come across to most people as cult-like precisely because they appear to form no critical positions on their own organisations regardless of how much anyone argues with them

Yet as people have pointed out, the ICC has had many splits:

Felix Frost wrote:
The problem is more that they seem to solve their internal disagreements by regular purges of "parasitical elements"...

Am I the only one to see the contradiction here?

In my opinion there are reasons that the ICC is perceived like that:
1) Their own behaviour, which I believe that they are trying to change.
2) The fact that a lot of anarchists don't like what they have to say.
3) The fact that the way that some of these anarchists deal with this is to start throwing smears instead of dealing with the political arguments. I think the comments on this thread saying I am like a politician are a good example of this.

Devrim

There is really no contradiction here: If a group doesn't allow dissent, then any internal criticism is likely to lead to expulsions or splits. The more tight a group is ideologically, the more likely it is to have splits.

I don't think it's about their political arguments either, which is definitely better than most groups on the left. The problem is that despite all their valid criticisms of leftist groups, they end up as just another small political sect, largely irrelevant for the wider class struggle.

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Dec 6 2007 17:36

Where does this idea that the ICC "doesn't allow dissent" come from? The irony is that many of those who left the ICC and then went on to slag it off did so when the majority encouraged them to stay and discuss their differences.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 6 2007 17:49

I doesn't allow factions does it.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Dec 6 2007 17:54

Personally I didn't say the ICC doesn't allow dissent, I said that it doesn't (seem to) allow public dissent from its positions.

When you say discuss, was this on the basis of talking through it an remaining on the same line or was there a possibility of that line changing once it had been set? Are they allowed to disagree as along as they're publicly supportive of the ICC line?

I'm mainly interested in how flexible the ICC is internally once it has decided a position as a unit and how far people are allowed to deviate publically (genuinely interested rather than setting up to flame).

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Dec 6 2007 19:24

Saii, questions about their internal life are for them to answer directly. I do know there are disagreements on a whole range of questions in the ICC ranging from the ethics to economics.

As far as I understand it, militants are expected to support the organisation's formal positions. On the other hand, they wouldn't expect a comrade who disagreed with, say, a particular analysis on a strike to give a presentation on it at a public meeting.

From the Introduction to their recently published Communism book: "While the fundamental ideas in this book are those of the ICC, the more exploratory ideas it contains have not been debated to the point where they can be formally adopted. We should say in this regard that we are not the first organisation of the workers' movement to publish exploratory analyses emanating from certain militants without a prior internal debate."

Carousel
Offline
Joined: 19-09-07
Dec 6 2007 19:44
Quote:
I said that it doesn't (seem to) allow public dissent from its positions.

To be fair, its only position is "communism". If the organisational task is to advocate communism, there's no other course of action open.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Dec 6 2007 19:56
John. wrote:
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
John. wrote:
GS - he's lazy riser.
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
In general your right, but again I've definitely had people from various anarchist forums (including this one) that I don't even know write me with positive feedback when I've said something which even I thought was out of line. I assume this is because they don't like the intellectual-snottiness-disguised-as-polite-debate and can appreciate it when someone just cuts through the bullshit and calls people out on a very basic level. Different strokes for different folks.

Do you not remember you moaning about people being rude to you on here, and saying you wouldn't talk to them in real life because they were so mean on the internet?

That was just you and Revol. I'm fine with occasional swipes and some nastiness here and there from people, but you both come off as complete pricks pretty much all the time. Are you really that hurt knowing I wouldn't want to hang out with you?

Not at all, I hate anarchists in general, especially weirdo subcultural punk/goth/metal types, of which i gather you are one kind or another. I was just pointing out that you trying to score points over Devrim being a prissy "intellectual" and you being a salt-of-the-earth tell-it-like-it-is man of the people was a bit hypocritical when you throw your toys out of the pram at people saying things you don't like. And I'm not even rude mostly.

Throw my toys out of my pram? What are you talking about? What toys? All I said is that you rub me the wrong way and don't really seem like someone I'd wanna waste any energy trying to be comradely with. I don't like alot of people (anarchist or otherwise), I wouldn't really lose any sleep over it if I were you.

That said, I wasn't singling Devrim out as an intellectual snot or whatever. It was a general statement. There's plenty of ways to be rude, passive aggressive, politically dishonest, etc, aside from being an unabashed jerk. That's all I was saying.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 6 2007 22:52
Quote:
Well, I don't have any first hand knowledge of it, so I only know what I read in the websites and publications of the ICC and their various splits. But really, I think it's enough to read what the ICC themselves write about these splits to see that there are major problems with the group.

Why? Because they call the groups who split parasitic? Do you have any idea why they call them parasitic? Did you read their piece on parasitism? Are you following the press of those groups?

What do you know about the splits and the circumstances in which those splits took place?

Quote:
There is really no contradiction here: If a group doesn't allow dissent, then any internal criticism is likely to lead to expulsions or splits.

What makes you think that the group in question doesn't allow dissident?

Quote:
I've met several people from the ICC and I think they're a looney cult, which I've never thought about the CWO.

Oh shit, they must have forgotten to change from their robes and to leave their ceremonial daggers in the secret catacombs of the castle in which they have their secret meetings when they met you!

You've met several people from the ICC, may I ask what you talked about with them?

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 6 2007 23:17

Not sure why Jef thinks we've stopped posting here - although we do have to limit the time we spend on the boards.

Also not sure where this thread is going. We've had this 'is the ICC a cult' discussion so many times that it seems like a wearisome task to answer all the accusations made about us, which, as Leo points out, are so rarely based on anything more than a 'well that's what I've heard' type of argument. But wasn't this thread posing a more general question than one about the ICC? Wasn't the question simply about what should be the common points of agreement for a revolutionary group to organise around?

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 6 2007 23:30

"although we do have to limit the time we spend on the boards".

I realise in retrospect that the above statement could be interpreted in two ways: we have to limit it because we have other political activities, and also we have other areas of our lives which are not political actvities. Or we have to limit it because we are commanded to do so by the cult leader who provides us with a comprehensive programme of events for every part of every day.

or am I just being paranoid?

In any case, my first question still stands. Could those who think that we demand too high a level of agreement from our members outline what they think should be the basic points of agreement for a revolutionary organisation?

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Dec 6 2007 23:51
Alf wrote:
Not sure why Jef thinks we've stopped posting here - although we do have to limit the time we spend on the boards.

I said mostly. You've cut down, baboon posts a lot less, jaycee doesn't post, I've not seen much of beltov recently, nor alibadani (altough he's a supporter iirc) plus ernie posts less he's a supporter too I think. At one point ICC members and supporters were making a large proportion of the posts on the forum and at the moment they aren't. It was just something that I'd noticed.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Dec 6 2007 23:52
Leo Uilleann wrote:
Quote:
I've met several people from the ICC and I think they're a looney cult, which I've never thought about the CWO.

You've met several people from the ICC, may I ask what you talked about with them?

The decadence of capitalism of course. What else?

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 7 2007 09:03

Class struggle, unions, history, anarchism, football, work, novels, cinema, art, music, tv shows... I can count more if you want.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 7 2007 13:50

Jeff

You are right there has been a reduced activity on our part in recent weeks but that is because we have had other work to carry out. However, it is only a few weeks since we were involved in the protracted discussions on fictitious capital and decadence. Please do not forget that intervening on the forums is only part of our activity. We would love to be able to intervene more and more consistently.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 7 2007 14:23

I agree with alf's question concerning what people thinks the level of agreement should be.
On the question of there being no decent in the ICC, because we do not publically disagree with the positions of our organization. Well, firstly we belong to the ICC because we support and are militantly committed to defending it, thus we will seek to do this as consistently as possible. For us it is not a question of defending our individual positions (our own little bit of intellectual property) but the collective positions of the organization. Secondly, we are pretty consistent and homogeneous in the way we argue our positions because they come from a process of rigorous internal discussion in every part of the organisation. Thirdly, comrades who do not agree with a position is not expected to defend it in public. If the disagreement is important and a discussion begins around it within the organisation and it is considered to be an important question for the whole movement and the class then the organization will express this discussion in public: as we did in the 1970's with the question of the period of transition, or in the middle of the 1980s around the question of centrism/opportunism. The majority position in the organisation has the duty to enable the most effective expression of minority positions and there can be no disciplinary response to the expression of minority positions. A minority also has responsibilities to ensure the most effective discussion of their positions. Within the history of the ICC, those that have split have done so after refusing to defend their positons within the organisation within the organisational statutes THEY HAD AGREED TO and were happy to defend when they were in a majority or when they did not have open disagreements with the ICC. It should also not be forgotten that the crises of the early 80's, 90's and the beginning of this century were based upon behaviours contrary to those of a communist organisation and not minority positions. Also each of the crisis within the ICC have not been blamed on the individuals involved -though they have to be held responsible for their behaviour and attitudes- but on organsational problems within the ICC and these problems have been analysed and presented in public through our press (not the usual attitude of a sect).
It is very interesting that we are criticised because we have had to go through a series of crises as we have developed our organisation and activity. The same criticism was made by the opportunists in the 1900's about the Bolsheviks (who also went through a whole series of organisational crisis).
It would be very useful if those who say that we do not allow internal dissent could provide some form of proof of this very easily banded about claim.
As for the way we come over, yes we are trying to overcome what could be a pretty defensive attitude. We have absolutely no interest in people not coming to our meetigns etc because they do not feel they can discuss with us, if this how we appear we certainly need to overcome this.
For us discussion is the very core of militant activity within the class as a whole and within a revolutionary organisation, as we have tried to explain in an article in our International Review on the question of the culture of debate http://en.internationalism.org/ir/131/culture-of-debate. Perhaps this text could provide the basis of another thread.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 7 2007 14:33

A comrade said that we did not allow fractions within the ICC. This is not the case.

Quote:
A fraction is an expression of the fact that the organisation is in crisis, that a process of degeneration, of capitulation to the dominant ideology, has appeared within it. Contrary to the tendency, which emerges a around differences of orientation on circumstantial questions, the fraction is formed around programmatic differences which can only result either in the bourgeois positions being expunged from the organisation, or in the departure of the communist fraction. Since the fraction expresses a demarcation between two positions which have become incompatible within the organisation, it tends to take on an organised form with its own organs of propaganda.

It's because the organisation of the class is never guaranteed against degeneration that the role of revolutionaries is to constantly struggle against the bourgeois positions which can appear within it. And when they find themselves in a minority in this struggle their task is to organise themselves into a fraction, either to win the whole organisation to communist positions and to exclude the bourgeois positions or, when this struggle has become sterile because the organisation - generally in a period of re-flux - has abandoned the proletarian terrain to constitute a bridge towards the reforging of the class party, which can only emerge in a historic period of rising class struggle.

In all these cases the concern that must guide revolutionaries is one that is valid for the class in general: not to waste the already tiny revolutionary energies that the class possesses; to ensure at all times the maintenance and development of an instrument which is so indispensable and yet so fragile - the organisation of revolutionaries.

Report on structure and functioning of the revolutionary organisation http://en.internationalism.org/specialtexts/IR033_functioning.htm

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 7 2007 14:39

The above report also deals with the question of the divergences:

Quote:
While the existence of divergences within the organisation is a sign that it is alive, only by respecting a certain number of rules in the discussion of these divergences can we ensure that such discussion is a real contribution to the strengthening of the organisation and to the improvement of the tasks for which the class has engendered it. We can thus enumerate certain of these rules:

*

having regular meetings of local sections, and putting on the agenda of these meetings the main questions being discussed in the organisation: in no way must this debate be stifled;
*

the widest possible circulation of different contributions within the organisation through the appropriate instruments;
*

consequently, the rejection of secret and bilateral correspondence which, far from allowing debate to be more clear, can only obscure it by giving rise to misunderstanding, distrust and a tendency towards the formation of an organisation within the organisation;
*

respect by the minority for the indispensable organisational discipline (as we saw in the last point);
*

rejection of any disciplinary or administrative measure on the part of the organisation with regard to members who raise disagreements: just as the minority must know how to be a minority inside the organisation, the majority must know how to be a majority, and in particular it must not abuse the fact that its position has become the position of the organisation and annihilate debate in any way, for example, by compelling members of the minority to be spokesmen for positions they don't adhere to;
*

the whole organisation is interested in discussion being as wide-ranging and as clear as possible (even when it deals with divergences of principle which can only lead to an organisational separation): it's up to both the minority and the majority to do all they can (obviously without this paralysing or weakening the tasks of the organisation) to convince each other of the validity of their respective analyses, or at least to allow the greatest possible clarity to emerge on the nature and significance of these disagreements.

To the extent that the debates going on in the organisation generally concern the whole proletariat they should be expressed publicly while respecting the following conditions:

*

that these debates involve general political questions and that they have matured sufficiently for their publication to be a real contribution to the developments of class consciousness;
*

the place given to these debates should not disrupt the general balance of the publications;
*

it's the organisation as a whole which decides on and carries out the publication of such contributions, basing such decisions on criteria which apply to any other article in the press: whether it's clearly written, whether it's of interest to the working class as a whole, etc. We must therefore reject the publication of texts outside of the organs responsible for publications, on the 'private' initiative of a certain number of members of the organisation. Similarly, there is no formal 'right' of anyone in the organisation (individual or tendency) to have a text published if the responsible organs don't feel that it is useful or opportune.

And in relation to the overall question of this thread: theoretical unity and the relationship of the individual to the organisation it makes these central points:

Quote:
A fundamental precondition for a communist organisation being able to carry out its tasks in the class is a correct understanding of the relations that should exist between the organisation and its militants. This is a particularly difficult question to understand today, given the weight of the organic break with past fractions and of the influence of elements from the student milieu in the revolutionary organisations after 1968. This has allowed the reappearance of one of the ball-and-chains carried by the workers' movement in the 19th century - individualism.

In a general manner, the relations between the militants and the organisation are based on the same principles as those mentioned above concerning the relations between the parts and the whole. More precisely, the following points need to be made on this question:

1.

The working class doesn't give rise to revolutionary militants but to revolutionary organisations: there is no direct relationship between the militants and the class. The militants participate in the class struggle in so far as they become members and carry out the tasks of the organisation. They have no particular 'salvation' to gain in front of the class or of history. The only 'salvation' that matters to them is that of the class and of the organisation which it has given rise to.
2.

The same relations which exist between a particular organ (group or party) and the class exists between the organisation and the militant. And just as the class does not exist to respond to the needs of the communist organisation, so communist organisations don't exist to resolve the problems of the individual militant. The organisation is not the product of the needs of the militant. One is a militant to the extent that one has understood and adheres to the tasks and functions of the organisation.
3.

Following on from this, the division of tasks and of responsibilities within the organisation is not aimed at the 'realisation' of individual militants. Tasks must be divided up in a way that enables the organisation as a whole to function in the optimal way. While the organisation must as much as possible look to the well-being of each of its militants, this is above all because it's in the interest of the organisation that all of its 'cells' are able to carry out their part in the organisation's work. This doesn't mean ignoring the individuality and the problems of the militant; it means that the point of departure, and the point of arrival, is the capacity of the organisation to carry out its tasks in the class struggle.
4.

Within the organisation there are no 'noble' tasks and no 'secondary' or 'less noble' tasks. Both the work of theoretical elaboration and the realisation of practical tasks, both the work in central organs and the specific work of local sections, are equally important for the organisation and should not be put in a hierarchical order (it's capitalism which establishes such hierarchies). This is why we must completely reject, as a bourgeois conception, the idea that the nomination of a militant to a central organ is some kind of 'promotion', the granting of an 'honour' or a 'privilege'. The spirit of careerism must be completely banished from the organisation as being totally opposed to the disinterested dedication which is one of the main characteristics of communist militantism.
5.

Although there do exist inequalities of ability between individuals and militants, and these are maintained and strengthened by class society, the role of the organisation is not, as the utopian communists thought, to pretend to abolish them. The organisation must try to ensure the maximum development of the political capacities of its militants because this is a preconditions for its own strengthening, but it never poses this in terms of an individual, scholarly formation, nor of an equalisation of everyone's formation.
The real equality between militants consists in the maximum of what they can give for the life of the orgainsation ("from each according to his means", a quote from St. Simon which Marx adopted). The true 'realisation' of a militant, as a militant, is to do all they can to help the organisation carry out the tasks for which the class has engendered it.
6.

All these points imply that the militant does not make a personal 'investment' in the organisation, from which he expects dividends or which he can withdraw when he leaves the organisation. We must therefore reject, as totally alien to the proletariat, any practice of 'recuperating' material or funds from the organisation, even with the aim of setting up another political group.
7.

Similarly, "the relations between the militants", while they "necessarily bear the scars of capitalist society...cannot be in flagrant contradiction with the goal pursued by revolutionaries, and they must of necessity be based on that solidarity and mutual confidence which are the hallmarks of belonging to an organisation of the class which is the bearer of communism" (ICC Platform).

I apologise for the length of the quotes but if we are going to have a discussion about the ICC being a sect etc again, we should at least do it around what we exactly say adn do and not what comrades think or believe we do.