International Communist Current

View related topics

Political currents and reference >> Outside the Communist Left >> NWBCW
Political currents and reference >> Parasitism

Soon after the war in Kosovo started a discussion group began to meet weekly in London under the banner 'No War but the Class War'. The ICC regularly intervened in its meetings.The main aim of the our intervention was to advance the debate along class lines: to denounce leftism and its defence of 'the right of oppressed nations to self-determination'; to support the internationalist tendencies that existed within the group; and in general to push for the widest confrontation of political positions.

It quickly became clear that there were different class forces at work within the group. The meetings were organised mainly by people who have a history of attacking the ICC and who belong to the trend of political parasitism. They twice tried to have the ICC excluded and their whole activity aimed to divert the energies of the group onto the sterile ground of activism and/or academic debate. The ICC gave a clear warning that

" we should have no illusions about the strength of the parasites' influence within this group. In a milieu thithin this group. In a milieu that is profoundly sceptical about the need for any kind of revolutionary political organisation, it is not difficult for the parasites to play on this scepticism and direct it against the organisations of the communist left." (WR 225).

At the September meeting this became a reality when the parasites successfully manoeuvred against the ICC and had us excluded.

What is political parasitism?

Throughout the history of the workers' movement this trend has appeared several times. The classical example of political parasitism was Bakunin's Alliance for Socialist Democracy which sought to destroy the First International from the inside, and more recently we have the existence of groups like the 'Communist' Bulletin Group:

"In the marxist movement we call such people parasites, blood suckers living on the backs of the revolutionary forces. They do not attack the marxist camp out of allegiance to capital, but out of a blind and impotent hatred for the mode of life of the working class, the collective and impersonal nature of its struggle. Such petty-bourgeois and declassed elements are motivated by a spirit of vengeance towards a politica vengeance towards a political movement which cannot afford to make concessions to their individual needs, to their cravings for self-presentation, flattery and pompousness."

(International Review 83, 'The "CBG" does the bourgeoisie's work')

Although at the programmatic level parasitism may adhere to certain proletarian positions, such as rejecting support for national liberation struggles and being against trade unionism, it is at the level of organisational practice that its true class nature is revealed. The main activity of parasitism is to denigrate and manoeuvre against the communist camp in order to sabotage the development of open debate and proletarian clarification. It thus voluntarily assists the work of the bourgeoisie to isolate, discredit, and ultimately destroy the communist left..

When the parasitic groups stepped up their campaign against the ICC in 1996 we were accused of being 'paranoid' and exaggerating the significance of certain events, such as the disruption of an ICC public meeting in Manchester, of re-writing the history of the ICC and the workers' movement to fit our own 'warped' view of reality. But those who take the time to really examine what we have written on the subj we have written on the subject will see that political parasitism is not a figment of the ICC's 'sick' imagination but a very real and dangerous threat to the proletariat and its revolutionary organisations (see our 'Theses on parasitism' in IR 94) The recent exclusion of the ICC from a 'No War but the Class War' meeting is another practical confirmation of our analysis.

Parasites manoeuvre against the ICC

It was clear from the very beginning that the parasitic elements were not happy with the presence of the ICC. They took the initiative to organise the meetings and obviously wanted their own little affinity club where they could invite their friends. They deliberately chose a proletarian slogan to attract genuine searching elements, in order to try and trap them and block their evolution. It came as no surprise that they tried to get the ICC expelled and it was a sign of the general positive dynamic of the first meetings that they failed. While the war in Kosovo raged the parasites could not reveal their true ambitions. But with the end of the war the meetings lost their original impetus and this increased the parasites' margin of manoeuvre.

The principal organiser of the group, the parasite Mark, opened the meetsite Mark, opened the meeting at the beginning of September with an attack on the ICC, the main thrust of which went something like this:

"For those of you who don't know about the ICC, they are a Leninist group. Their politics are interesting because they are left communist, but the way they behave is typical of the left. They are sectarian and spread lies and gossip in their press. In their articles on these meetings they attack me and call me a parasite, which I don't like at all. They are dogmatic and dominate meetings. Because of the way they behave my friend Fabian doesn't want to be in the same room as them and won't come to these meetings. They create a bad atmosphere and stop us from having a proper discussion. I don't want them here and I know the majority of others present feel the same. This needs to be sorted out before the meeting can continue."

The ICC is not new to such attacks (this one was pretty lame compared to others) but it does contain the classic parasitic hallmarks. On paper the ICC is 'interesting' because it has its origins in the communist left, but in practice it is 'Leninist', which for them means Stalinist.

It looked as if the ICC wasn't going to be given the chance to defend itsn the chance to defend itself but we insisted, and some people wanted to hear what we had to say. It was pointed out that this was not the first time that Mark had called for the ICC to be excluded. He had failed previously because the ICC had more support than some of the Trotskyists he had invited to the earlier meetings, and who despite being openly bourgeois nationalists and pro-KLA never seem to anger him as much as the ICC does

Contrary to the nationalism of the leftists, the whole activity of the ICC during the war had concentrated on defending internationalist positions while many of the elements at the meetings had not criticised the group's initial policy of tail-ending the pro-Serb 'pacifist' demonstrations. As for designating someone as a parasite, this is a political definition of someone's activity, not a personal attack. Political parasitism is the virulent hostility towards revolutionary organisations and the wish to see them destroyed. Mark has now called for our expulsion three times which amongst other things makes him a parasite. The ICC called on the healthy and open elements present to reject the expulsion proposal and allow the ICC to stay and contribute to the meeting. We should add that at no stage in the series of meetings had the ICC tried to 'dominate' or disrupt proceedings. We accepted thet proceedings. We accepted the discipline of the chair at all times, and all our interventions had the aim of bringing out the most essential points of political agreement and of divergence.

What were the ICC being excluded from?

The next to speak, 'A', ex-Wildcat, who had more than once been compelled to agree with the ICC in previous meetings, hit the nail on the head when he asked exactly what the ICC were being excluded from? Was this a public meeting where class positions should be discussed openly or was it a private study circle of friends where admission is by invitation only? Who gives out the invitations? He also quite rightly pointed out that Fabian had done some very dubious things and asked why should the ICC be kicked out and not Fabian? This question of what the meetings represented had been raised at nearly every meeting and it had never really been clarified. Some people had proposed a set of minimum political criteria for admission but the ICC stressed the importance of these meetings being open to everyone to allow the fullest confrontation of political positions. But it was an open secret that behind the scenes it was the parasites who called the shots and decided who was 'in' and who was 'out'.

Ev>Eventually the motion was moved "to exclude the ICC from this and all future meetings" and the vote narrowly went against the ICC, by six votes to five. There were seven abstentions, which indicates that by no means all the participants were convinced by the parasites' arguments (and certainly not a majority as Mark claimed). Unfortunately, A. had "reluctantly" changed his position and had decided to vote against us, which seems to be in total contradiction to his previous attitude, but confirms the negative influence that parasitism can exert on those who are seeking to defend revolutionary positions. Although this was a travesty of proletarian democracy the ICC accepted the decision and left the meeting to a stream of insults and abuse. The parasites had clearly packed the meeting with their supporters and the ICC was the victim of a classic leftist-type manoeuvre. So much for the ICC behaving typically like the 'left'!

Only the bourgeoisie gains when discussion within the working class is sabotaged

The ICC will continue to fight against this coup, and against such manoeuvres in every arena where proletarian interests are being discussed. We don't write off those who have fallen victim to parasitism; and don't rule outo parasitism; and don't rule out the possibility that even some of its more virulent purveyors can make the break towards proletarian ground. Above all however we are interested in the impersonal process of political confrontation and clarification. Those who pushed for the exclusion of a communist organisation from meetings that claim to be on the terrain of the class war have taken a very grave step. Let them justify their decision in an open confrontation of positions, so that the issues can be clear for all those who have taken part in this group, and all those who have followed its evolution. If they once again run away or hide from this debate, this can only confirm that they have no serious political arguments to defend.

ICC, October 2 1999 -------- Fabian/Luther Blisset is another individual who in our view falls into the definition of parasitism. For a long time he has tried to play the role of jester to the communist movement, but his jests have always been aimed at ridiculing the very idea of collective revolutionary activity. Having expressed his wish to "smash the ICC" in one of his ephemeral publications (Swamp Thing), Fabian then sought to drag the ICC into his recent attempts to fuse communism with occultism. His loathing for the ICC hsm. His loathing for the ICC has been greatly intensified by its repudiation of this enterprise. Having run away from previous meetings when we were present, he was not there to vote against us but has no doubt expressed his views behind the scenes. One who on this occasion was there to vote against us also falls into the same political category. Juan McIver. McIver was once a revolutionary who played an important part in the formation of the ICC, but left it in the early 80s having been entangled in the clan manipulated by the state agent Chenier. After his departure he produced a pamphlet denouncing the ICC as a Stalinist sect. Politically invisible for 18 years, the fact that he too has on several occasions left the 'No War....' meetings because of the presence of the ICC indicates that he has lost none of his hostility during those years. At the same time he has not once spoken out against us at the meetings.

Mark, ex-Radical Chains, the main organiser of 'No War but the Class War's' practical affairs, has frequently been criticised by others in the grouping for his apparent inability to distinguish proletarian politics from the capitalist left. But this permanent fudging of class lines is precisely Mark's politics. It takes concrete expression in his close relationship with the state-sponsored academic Trotskyism of Hillel Ticktin's Critique. This is parasitism in its leftist form: communist positions are recuperated in order to preserve an essentially leftist practice.