Who is allowed to oppose war?

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Link
Who is allowed to oppose war?
Printer-friendly version

I hope it is ok to transfer 4 posts from another thread to a new one as i wanted to raise this issue and focus on it without detracting from the discussion of the war in Ukraine.   Joan's original post was interesting in that it was just passing information and i see no problem with this, indeed there are other sites too who provide links like this and we should be open to reading what others have to say.  I agree that not all groups are the same size or of equal clarity. Some are more important than others and everybody criticises the IGCL.  I do think that the communist left is the clearest section of the workers movement but there are many others who have lots of interest to say and just as the ICC reposts a KRAS statement there are other anarchist organisations out there posting internationalist statements that we can all support.  The issue of the Ukraine war is causing plenty of divisions between the national defensive type positions and  genuine internationalism so i do think this is an good time to present a strong internationalist position but i think a main aim of this should be to influence and clarify those in rest of  the policitical milieu.  This is more important task of the moment

 

Post by Joan

Quote:

Only for information :

I saw on the website of "Controverses,Forum for the Internationalist Communist Left" in French a useful list of positions of various groups and websites related to the current war in Ukraine and historical texts on internationalism,war and imperialism.
Like the whole "Controverses" website the list, the different positions and the evaluation by Controverses are very critical to read.

Not all the groups and websites are of equal value.
Most of the groups and websites mentioned are known to me.
Others are not or hardly known to me.
 

Esclave Salarié Internationaliste 

Groupe International de la Gauche Communiste  = IGCL

Tendance Communiste Internationaliste  = ICT

Institut Onorato Damen 

Parti Communiste International-Le Prolétaire 

Fragments d’histoire de la gauche radicale 

Antonie Pannekoek Archives 

Controverses - FGCI 

Matériaux Critiques 

Guerre de Classe 

Mouvement Communiste 

Barbaria 

Courant Communiste International = ICC  (Of course known to me)

Internationalist Perspective 

Internationalist Voice 

KRAS-IWA 

Parti Communiste International-La Gauche Communiste (Firenze (Italy)

Un internationaliste.

 

Post by Forumteam

Quote:

In their post #18, “Only for information” Joan gives us a list of groups and websites defending the internationalist position against the war in Ukraine. Joan introduces the list with the words “Like the whole ‘Controverses’ website the list, the different positions and the evaluation by Controverses are very critical to read. Not all the groups and websites are of equal value.”

But this sentence “Not all the groups and websites are of equal value” is an understatement, because several of these groups should not have been taken up in the list and put on this forum.  Controverses, IGCL, Internationalist Perspective, Matériaux Critiques and some others belong to the parasitic milieu and have nothing to do with proletarian internationalism, even if they write about it and even if they put forward exactly the same position. Their activity is characterised by the sabotage of the communist activities and stands in the way of the possibility of united action by the authentic Communist Left.

The groups that belong to the Communist Left are: Il Partito Comunista, Il Programma Comunista, Instituto Onorato Damen, Program Communiste, Internationalist Communist Tendency, and Internationalist Voice. These groups have not just written about internationalism, but seriously defend the internationalist position in face of the war in Ukraine.

Some groups of the IWA, such as the KRAS (Moscow) and Anarcho-Syndicalist Initiative (Belgrade) also defend an internationalist position. However the internationalism of these groups is not the same as the communist internationalism. In contrast to the Communist Left these groups do not develop a fundamental and systematic denunciation of the pacifist campaigns for peace.

The publication of a list of groups and elements by mixing up the parasites with the authentic groups of the Communist Left, as Controverses has done, must not be imitated on this Forum. And even the warning to read it critically is not sufficient to counter any false identification between the two. While the parasites have every interest in blurring the distinction between the parasites and the authentic Communist Left, we don’t.  .

 

Post by Link

Quote:
It seems to me that Joan should be allowed to express her opinions. 

Controverses, IGCL, Internationalist Perspective, Matériaux Critiques and some others belong to the parasitic milieu and have nothing to do with proletarian internationalism, even if they write about it and even if they put forward exactly the same position.

And this is the biggest problem with the ICC's condemnation of others.  If these groups say exactly the same thing as the ICC then how can I differentiate let alone workers as a whole. Frankly it is the political perspective that groups present in their activities that is going to make this decision and not the fact that they did something wrong to the  ICC 40 years ago or whenever

How on earth can you accuse some groups of being parasites when you accept that the slaughter of workers in Kronstadt was done by an organisation of the working class?.

Post by Joan

Quote:

Please accept my profound apologies for my post #18 taking over the list of "Controverses".

The Forum Team wrote :
"The publication of a list of groups and elements by mixing up the parasites with the authentic groups of the Communist Left, as Controversies has done, must not be imitated on this Forum. And even the warning to read it critically is not sufficient to counter any false identification between the two. While the parasites have every interest in blurring the distinction between the parasites and the authentic Communist Left, we don't."

I completely agree.

I must confess that I fell into the trap that "Controversies" in particular is laying by mixing up all kinds of groups and websites, some of which are authentic expressions of the proletarian political milieu and some of which are outright enemies and saboteurs of that milieu.
Marx already said "Ignorance is no excuse" (to Wilhelm Weitling)
What makes my fault so much worse is the fact that I already knew for sure that the IGCL ("War or Revolution") is in word and deed an outspoken anti-ICC-group (made clear in several ICC-texts) and that "Internationalist Perspective", a continuation of the so called "Internal Fraction of the ICC"(IFICC)(had to look it up again), has split off from the ICC on very disputable grounds.

(And this is probably also an understatement).

It is very good that the Forum team once again makes things clear and draws an absolutely necessary line between the groups of the Communist Left and the parasitic and also clarifies the anarchist groups KRAS and the Anarcho-Syndicalist Initiative (Belgrade)(last group was unknown to me(*).

That is ,after all,a positive consequence,the only, of my serious fault .

It is clear that I must pay more attention.

I remember :
Communist Left : next to ICC
Il Partito Comunista,
Il Programma Comunista,
Instituto Onorato Damen,
Program Communiste,
Internationalist Communist Tendency,
Internationalist Voice
Internationalist anarchists :

KRAS(Moscow) and ASI (Belgrade) :

internationalist but not a fundamental and systematic denunciation of the pacifist campaigns for peace.
Parasitic milieu :
Controverses,
IGCL,
Internationalist Perspective,
Matériaux Critiques  
and some others

My apologies again.

 

.

Link
Joan, frankly I find it is a

Joan, frankly I find it is a rather sad and depressing discussion dragging up old quarrels from the dim and distant past like this. I responded quickly to the ICCs take on your earlier post precisely because this is the wrong time for such squabbling and yet you have now following this up supporting the ICCs divisiveness when there is a war going on in Europe. I know the ICC is pushing for a joint statement to be made but starting by being selective about who can sign up is, I would say, divisive.

Instead of joining with the CWO-ICT to lead the workers movement and letting anyone from the workers movement sign up, the ICC promotes its petty squabbles by only wanting 'serious' groups involved in the process (as stated by the ICC in a CWO meeting). Instead of looking at all in the workers movements, accepting their weaknesses and strengths, and being in the vanguard and leading others by providing clarity - and I would agree that this is a good point in time to draw a distinction between internationalists and those in the workers movement tempted by defencism - the ICC presents an approach that says something like - let's unite but that one, this one or you, no, we don't want you because you did or said something wrong 40 or 30 years ago so today you are no good!! Is there never such a thing as a mistake or a misunderstanding? Is there never is there any chance of correcting errors, can reconciliation and redemption never take place. Surely this is a point in time where a lead could be set for the whole worker's movement.  How are others in the workers movement supposed to respond to this type of divisiveness.

There is a war going on that probably won't start WW3 in the short term but it will change the world situation for some time to come. Yet we are supposed to be distracted by an argument against IP, Controverse or Círculo de Comunistas Internacionalistas? The ICC does not even publish a complete list of those we are suppose to guard against and the lack of clarity on this issue is just exacerbated by using vague terms like 'some other' and 'some groups'.

How can the rest of the working class know about all these issues? I think it is you Joan that underestimates the working class and overestimates the ICC by pushing a political line that is irrelevant at the moment; political differences between working class organisations will only be settled by the working class in time of mass struggle and revolution and by then the International, the new political party of the working class, should already have been formed in a process that the ICC will have to participate in irrespective of who joins in.

At this point in time I wonder just how the rest of us are supposed to know all these things. I note you also mention vaguely some other groups as parasitic, how do you tell who they are, how do you understand the ICCs analysis or are we supposed to just follow the rules laid down for us?

It's not as though the ICC is even consistent about these judgements. Joan has apparently been told that the ICC refuses them on the forum and in meetings but I dont think this is true. The IP who have apparently been parasites for 30 years or more but the ICC has within this period engaged with them in international conferences and signed a joint statement (see https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2006-north-korea-nuclear-bomb). Apparently groups have been identified with a parasitical colouring too but i don't think this has been explained either. I don't know if you are an ICC member or a sympathiser Joan but i note that you also closely follow the usually ICC practice of gratuitous insults towards the CWO about issues that few readers know anything about.

This lack on consistency also shows itself in  placing a split from the ICT in the list of serious groups.  How does this happen with a somewhat acrimonious split from the ICT yet all splits from the ICC have been by parasites! Why is this? What is it about the behaviour of the ICC that generates so much antagonism within itself that these political disagreements could not be resolved within it. Were they all disruptive elements when they were integrated into the ICC and if so why? Or is it only when they leave they become disruptive?

Does the ICC never dare discuss with such people because their arguments are so dangerous that it will be tainted. I would say ask the rest of the workers movement  to see what the general opinion is. Sounds a good idea but that wont happen because it is obvious that nobody agrees with the ICC in this; others may support the ICC's criticisms of certain organisations but nobody else will support its accusations of parasitism.

 

MH
A "serious group"?

Link wrote:
This lack on consistency also shows itself in placing a split from the ICT in the list of serious groups.

The group Link is referring to here is presumably the 'Istituto Onorato Damen', a split from the PCInt (Battaglia Comunista) in 2009. Here is what the comrades of the PCInt said about it at the time:

"To put forward the idea that there is a political deviation and then not to turn up at the congress called to discuss it cannot be taken seriously ... These comrades ... indulged in entirely destructive behaviour which has stuck two fingers up to the principle of democratic centralism. It is behaviour which is light years away from the political traditions of the communist left and the Internationalist Communist Party in particular."

The “Istituto Onorato Damen” - A Small Clarification | Leftcom

Based on this kind of behaviour,  I can only assume the IOD's inclusion in a list of "serious groups" of the Communist Left by the ICC is an error, otherwise it would surely be seen as a provocation to the comrades of the ICT?

 

 

KT
Who indeed?

It seems to me wrong that in starting this thread about parasitism by quoting posts from another thread, Link omits to include a rather important reply to him on that thread via the post of Joan because, in my opinion, it already answers many of the points raised. Here is a part of it:

“A reply to Link (# 25), from the thread Russia-Ukrain crisis: war is capitalisms way of life

……2) But at least as important: the parasitic.
I think Link seriously underestimates the pernicious influence of the parasitics on the proletarian political milieu.
Link wrote : "If these groups say exactly the same thing as the ICC then how can I differentiate let alone workers as a whole."
Herewith 2 remarks.
- It is not only about what one says, but also and at least as important about what one does.
And what e.g. the IGCL systematically did is clearly set out in several articles in the IKS press and can even be read on the IGCL's own website with the "History of the International Secretariat of the ICC 1996-2001" (only in French), a super detailed text with an overflow of names and sayings for which probably all police forces are very grateful to the IGCL.
– I think Link severely underestimates the capacity for differentiation of the working class, which often knows how to distinguish between its real friends and its false ones.
As is well known, I myself have recently fallen into the trap of the parasitic by listing them as quasi-equals together with several authentic expressions of the Communist Left and anarchist internationalists (#18), while I was aware of the deeds of these groups, certainly of those of the IGCL (specialised in slandering and threatening the ICC and its militants).
This makes it very clear, at least to me already, how dangerous these elements are, precisely also by taking or reproducing in "big politics" the same position as that of some real internationalists.
I would also like to refer to the repeated, very dangerous "openness" of the ICT towards parasitic elements, such as the "Círculo de Comunistas Internacionalistas" from Argentina and even towards openly bourgeois organisations such as the UCM from Iran.
I think Link, as a fairly experienced participant in the Discussion Forum, knows - or should know - what it is about when the ICC names a number of groups parasitic and also refuses them on her meetings and on this Forum.”

Important in this statement is the issue of ‘what one does’: or does not do. The ICC writes:

“There is no shame in revolutionaries disagreeing with each other. Nor is there shame for militants, even groups of militants, to leave an organisation where they no longer accept its platform or positions:

But there is great shame in:

  • Hijacking the internal apparatus of an organisation to further personal goals;
  • Spreading lies and defamation about individual comrades in secret in an effort to destroy them;
  • Refusing to follow the most basic elements of communist solidarity required of militants (i.e paying dues);
  • Stealing both funds and materials from the organisation to advance the interests of a particular clique and not the organisation or workers movement as a whole;
  • Making a constant stream of the vilest defamations against another organisation the centrepiece of your political existence;
  • Stealing contact addresses and using them in the most irresponsible manner - comrades who give their personal details to a revolutionary organisation are placing a great deal of trust and solidarity in that organisation and the behaviour of the IFICC in this regard is a heinous betrayal of that trust;
  • Making public the dates of internal meetings of a proletarian organisation, thus putting that organisation at risk of intervention by bourgeois security forces;
  • Making an effort to turn the national sections of an organisation against each other through flattery and lies;
  • Putting the personal safety of militants at risk by attempting to identify their individual contributions to the revolutionary press.” (In support of the ICC's struggle against parasitism and opportunism)

One could add to this litany of ‘bad behaviour’

  • Breaking into the homes of ICC militants
  • Stealing equipment vital for the production of the revolutionary press
  • Threatening to call the police in on the affairs of the communist milieu.
  • Hurling the accusation of Stalinism – in short, declaring an organisation to be bourgeois – for defending itself against such actions;
  • Inventing a whole new history for groups of the communist left as a cover for adventurism and empire-building, etc etc.

Link asks: “If these [parasitic] groups say exactly the same thing as the ICC then how can I differentiate let alone workers as a whole.” ?

But is it really so hard to recognize and reject behaviours such as those listed above – to understand that organisations which practice them are beyond the communist pale? Workers in general know very well how to deal with those who steal from strike funds or try to break strikes!

Link writes: the ICC presents an approach that says something like - let's unite but that one, this one or you, no, we don't want you because you did or said something wrong 40 or 30 years ago so today you are no good!! Is there never such a thing as a mistake or a misunderstanding?”

Stealing from comrades, exposing their files to state scrutiny, threatening to call the police…. These are ‘mistakes’ or, worse ‘misunderstandings’? Whose misunderstandings, exactly? And where are the apologies and clarifications concerning such behaviours, or theoretical attempts at understanding their root causes, by those who perpetrated them? Downplaying or minimizing corrosive and destructive activities like the methods of the thief, the snitch and the spy, doesn’t do anyone any favours.

And neither, unfortunately, is it simply the case that these are matters ‘from 30 or 40 years ago’, as the recent confrontation with the imposter Gaizka shows (See Who is who in “Nuevo Curso”?

Link asks how come these manifestations have occurred, repeatedly, in the ICC, but apparently dismisses the organisation’s attempt at an answer - the very real pressures emanating from the dominant ideology on the life of communist organisations who are ‘foreign bodies’ within capitalism, particularly in its epoch of decay and decomposition. Issues of opportunism, sectarianism and in particular parasitism are not inventions of the ICC, as the Theses on Parasitism amply illustrate and, unfortunately but unsurprisingly are not limited just to the ICC.

The ICC is alone in the milieu in investigating and explaining this? Not quite. But to the extent that other organisations choose to ‘turn a blind eye’, that’s a real weakness for the milieu.

The proletarian milieu is not just any old individual or organisation which sprouts radical language – Link might have learned this from his time in the ICC when its British section was ripped apart by clan loyalties, exploited to the hilt by a dubious element, Chenier, who came from Trotskyism and disappeared into trade unionism and ‘bourgeois socialism’. Link didn’t defend the organisation then, preferring instead to slink off into the shadows, and he’s not defending the milieu with his ‘unity’ calls now.  

To make common cause against war, it’s not enough to ask the question: ‘Who Is Allowed to Oppose War’?

When, many years ago, Link was a young man, the most popular and widespread slogan opposing the ‘Cold War’, against the very threat of nuclear annihilation itself, was “Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism”

While apparently originating from the US Workers Party of Max Shachtman and its publication Labor Action, in Britain this seemingly radical and internationalist slogan was adopted by an organisation which became known as The Socialist Workers Party (SWP). In the anti-war fervour of the late sixties and early 1970s, when a deterioration of workers’ living standards met a global revulsion against a barbaric inter-capitalist conflict in Vietnam, this slogan attracted many hundreds of thousands of budding militants who, if they did not join the SWP, marched along side, canvassed for, and donated to it.

The fact that this apparently anti-war, ‘internationalist’ slogan was propagated by a Trotskyist group whose organisation and function was and remains precisely to cloud, obscure, neutralize, disembowel, and mobilise against any real, fundamental change in the social organisation society that gives rise to war and social impoverishment just goes to show that it’s not and never has been enough simply to ask ‘who is allowed to oppose war’?

The question itself is asinine, a-political, a populist, democratist approach that seeks to ignore political aspects of an organisation’s trajectory, its history, its political positions and present practice. It obscures what the ‘divisive’ Marx and Lenin - both party men to the core – long ago recognized: the need to build, fight for and protect genuine political minorities of the working class, not to dissolve them into ‘the swamp’.

KT 28.3.2022

Link
I agree with KT that I should

I agree with KT that I should have included the additional contribution from Joan in the start of this thread. There was no particular reason to do so especially as i quoted it to argue against what was said. It was just a mistake. No doubt that is something else KT can hold against me and use as another personal jibe in another 40 years time at least you can be sure i wont be replying.

I am glad to see that, by his use of a personal jibe, KT also appears to agrees with me that he does not believe in forgetting or forgiving what he sees as transgressions. Presumably he believes this is correct policy for the ICC too. Does the ICC actually believe that too? Some clarification would be interesting.

I note also that KT fails to address the key issue i raised about the ICC signing joint statements with IP on war in 2006 but is not prepared to do so today. Such inconsistencies are destructive.

In addition KT in his usual manner of saying anything to disparage others suggests that Marx and Engels were party men through and through. This is the problem, when you become so enamoured of disparaging others who don't agree with you, the truth also becomes a victim.

Regarding what the trotskyists have to say, i remember Alf saying somewhere that the bourgeoisie has to say things with an element of truth in them otherwise they wouldn't be able to persuade the rest of society to follow them. The fact that the trots say some things that are the same as the ICC or others in the workers movement should therefore not surprise or upset you KT. It is certainly not a criticism of anybody in the workers movement.

Unity - what is unity in the working class movement. Solidarity, trust, open discussion, open disagreement. Are these not the starting points of unity, could it be said they are the be all and end all of unity? Frankly i find it impossible to believe that everybody in the working movement has or will behave faultlessly but i do not dispute that some groups and individuals we should be very wary about because of their behaviour, I see political statements and beliefs as the key feature however of who is in the workers movement and even then not everybody says the right thing about everything all the time. 

 

The betrayal by social democracy was at a far higher political and behavioural level but it was clearly a betrayal that kept social democracy outside the workers movement, did it put all members outside too or could they rejoin revolutionary groups?  So I do not  say that comrades and others don't behave badly and shouldn't be told so. Your list of bad behaviours is not defensible but does it put an organisation outside the working class? Even if all the criticisms KT lists are valid (although you don't say who each criticism applies to so its all very vague and as usual quite one sided ie only home invasions against the ICC are to be criticised) but which ones or do any justify expelling organisations or individuals out of the workers movement. Only the ICC gives itself the right to do such as thing and then it accuses others who disagree politically, as Joan did, of sucking up to or becoming parasites.

Now that really is self serving.  It contradicts any idea that political organisations can have different opinions yet remain comrades. I ask what puts an organisation outside of the working class movement is another issue KT fails to address and does this apply to individuals within those groups. Again I ask if the attack on Kronstadt doesn't, then how can the KTs list of bad behaviours do so?

KT does not represent here the unity of the working class movement, he represents the ICC's version of unity,

Parasitism and other criticisms such as opportunism, centrism, sectarianism, clanism, circle spirit are criticisms within the workers movement. If they aren't then, there is no need for them anyway - they would be organisations that are simply bourgeois just like the stalinists or the trotskyists or leftists in general.

There have been many positive internationalist statements from many anarchist, councilist and left comm organisations including the ICC. It is a good statement of which the major criticism I have is its selection of a few organisations who were allowed to sign it and the exclusion of many many more. This is divisive and a loss of an opportunity to draw positive elements in the workers movement together.

 

 

 

joan
I welcome the fairly extended

I welcome the fairly extended contribution of Link # 5
That is not to say that I agree with them, I would have to reread them very thoroughly to begin with.
I do think that there is at least one point on which we agree.
Link wrote : " Some clarification would be interesting", by ICC.
That's a criticism I also have on ICC and that I also expressed on several occasions, namely that they explain their practical actions too little or very late.
(I am thinking here e.g. of the changing of the frequency of a organ or of public meetings. There can and will be good reasons for this, but please explain them so quickly als possible to your sympathisers.)

I'm not going to get involved, at least not for the moment, in the exchange between KT and Link about the split in a ICC-section caused by Chénier or about a slogan used by Trotskyist organisations decades ago. 

To Link
I had been intending to reply to Link's and MH's objections regarding "Internationalist Pespective" (ex -EFICC / FECCI) and the "Istituto Onorato Damen" for some time.
But it had not happened so far for (among others) the following reasons :
1) The question "Who is allowed to oppose war?", as Link formulated the question of the relationship between possibly correct positions and reprehensible behaviour, is important and deserves a response.
But the exchange of ideas about the war in Ukraine, about proletarian internationalism is even more important to me.

See”Russia-Ukrain crisis: war is capitalisms way of life
2) I always want to respond as substantiated as possible.
3) Occasionally small or bigger technical problems cause (e.g. a part of an already written text to suddenly disappear and I have to start all over again).

Link wrote #
"It's not as though the ICC is even consistent about these judgements. Joan has apparently been told that the ICC refuses them [the parasitics] on the forum and in meetings but I dont think this is true. The IP who have apparently been parasites for 30 years or more but the ICC has within this period engaged with them in international conferences and signed a joint statement (see https://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2006-north-korea-nuclear-bomb)." (set in bold by me).
I wrote earlier (# 34)
"I think Link, as a fairly experienced participant in the Discussion Forum, knows - or should know - what it is about when the ICC names a number of groups parasitic and also refuses them on her meetings and on this Forum.
This while in general the ICC is very tolerant (at the moment I cannot find a better word) in her meetings and also on this Forum." (set in bold by me)
This was not correctly formulated by me.
I referred implicitely to post # 12 of "Tagore 2 banned "in which the Forumteam says "The ICC does not ban people from its forum lightly, and there are very few cases where we have decided to take such action.  Some time ago we (temporarily) suspended LBird for constantly derailing threads; we have also made it clear that we would not allow a member of the parasitic group the IGCL, which specialises in denigrating the ICC, to post here; and now we have the case of Tagore2."  (set in bold by me) and to the article "The ICC doesn't allow snitches into its public meetings" ( World Revolution no.267, September 2003,Submitted by World Revolution on 30 December, 2004 – 18:23,https://en.internationalism.org/267_snitches.htm
Although the article also says
"This decision would apply to anyone who devoted themselves to making public information that could facilitate the work of the bourgeois state's organs of repression."
both the Forum Team's post and the article refer only to the so-called "Internal Fraction of the ICC (IFICC /FICCI) "and/or its successor the so-called "International Group of the Communist Left" (IGCL), which fulfil the role of police spy.
I think that this continuous and systematic role has been convincingly demonstrated in several articles of the ICC.
So I understand that the refusal at the Forum and in public meetings does not apply to those who do not behave like "snitches against the ICC".
So I think this is not about "Internationalist Perspective"(IP),the ex-"External Fraction of the ICC (EFICC / FICCI").
Link is talking about the participating of the ICC together with IP as a non-Korean group in a conference organised by a group in South Korea and signing together with this group and individuals from Korea and with IP a declaration against the threat of war on the Korean peninsula.
This was clearly an initiative of the group in South Korea, which had also invited IP, and not an ICC meeting.
It is highly likely that at that time the ICC considered a joint conference and a joint statement with a group and individuals more important than no joint conference and no joint statement ,just because of IP's participation.
It would have been good if the ICC had explained the one time and exceptional fact (as far as I know) of sitting together and signing a joint statement with a group and individuals in South Korea and IP and made clear that this must not change anything in its criticism and rejection of the EFICC-IP's actions.
As already mentioned, this is a criticism I have of the ICC, namely that it explains its actions too little or very late.
This, while in my opinion, is so important for a good relationship between the organisation and its sympathisers.
And this can and must of course be done without exposing the whole "internal kitchen".

Of course, the circumstances are not completely identical between the war in Ukraine today and the situation during WW 1.
But today the ICC is making a comparison with the Zimmerwald conferences in 1915 where Lenin and the Bolsheviks sat together with centrists and social pacifists and signed a joint declaration, the "Manifesto to the proletarians of the world" (Note )
If I remember correctly, Lenin said of this declaration that it did not contain what it precisely should have contained.

But Lenin and the Bolsheviks considered it important at that time to publish a joint statement (with some correct positions), which did not prevent them from issuing a separate statement with their own, more far-reaching positions.

 

 

My comments on the relationship between the ICC and the "Istituto Onorato Damen", (MH # 3) will follow as soon as possible.

Clarification is all the more important now that with the signing by the IDO as 1 of the 4 organisations of the "Joint statement of groups of the international commuist left about the war in Ukraine" of 6 April,2022

 

One more thing : unlike KT, I have no problem that Link opened a separate thread to deal with the question of parasitism, of the relationship between possibly correct (internationalist) positions and possibly "a communist militant unworthy" behaviour and thereby "relieve" another thread ("Russia-Ukrain crisis: war is capitalisms way of life").

Note

See article "Zimmerwald Conference - An indispensable reference for the defence of internationalism" World Revolution 392 - Spring 2022

en.internationalism.org/wr/290_zimmerwald.html

with a reference to 3 earlier articles on Zimmerwald 1915

 

KT
Clarification

Joan Wrote (#6, above): “One more thing : unlike KT, I have no problem that Link opened a separate thread to deal with the question of parasitism, of the relationship between possibly correct (internationalist) positions and possibly "a communist militant unworthy" behaviour and thereby "relieve" another thread ("Russia-Ukrain crisis: war is capitalisms way of life").”

This is not correct. I did not and do not have a problem with Link opening a separate thread. On the contrary. I merely noted that it was a pity that in doing so he had not included the post by Joan which spoke of how it’s not just a question of what individuals and organisations say but above all how they act. Link agrees this should have been included.

joan
To KT

To KT
Please excuse my misunderstanding.
Thanks for the correction.

joan
As promised a response on MH

As promised a response on MH and the "Istituto Onorato Damen".

MH wrote #3
"The group Link is referring to here is presumably the 'Istituto Onorato Damen', a split from the PCInt (Battaglia Comunista) in 2009.
 Here is what the comrades of the PCInt said about it at the time:
"To put forward the idea that there is a political deviation and then not to turn up at the congress called to discuss it cannot be taken seriously ... "
The "Istituto Onorato Damen" - A Small Clarification | Leftcom
"

I was aware that the "Istituto Onorato Damen"(Note 1) was a split off from the "Partito1 Comunista Internazionalista", the section in Italy of the "Internationalist Communist Tendency (ICT)" and I was aware that the ICC in Italia ("Rivoluzione Internazionale") had organised at least one joint meeting together with the "Istituto Onorato Damen"(further also IDO)

(Note 2 and 3)

I had my questions about this before, but I never submitted them to ICC until now, due to many other events and concerns.
Also the fact that IDO was limited to Italy and as far as I know only published in Italian (this is not correct) contributed to the fact that I did not ask ,until now,the ICC any questions about the IDO.

The fact that a group only exist in one state and /or only plubished in one language
is not really an argument for internationalists, I admit.

To my knowledge, no statement has ever been published by the ICC, neither on the establishment of the IDO, nor on the cooperation with this group.

But now (6 April 2022) a joint statement has been published by the ICC and 3 other groups.
In itself, this is a very good thing and it is regrettable that no other groups were prepared to co-draft or sign this declaration.
But it turns out that one of the 3 other groups that signed this declaration in addition to the ICC is precisely the "Istituto Onorato Damen".

In my opinion, it would be appropriate for the ICC to clarify the "Istitutio Onorato Damen" and its cooperation with this group, and more specifically, to answer the question : is the "Istitutio Onorato Damen" not a parasitic group, split off from the PCInternazionalista (Battaglia Comunista) on unclear grounds ?
It is perhaps unfortunate and annoying that such clarification is requested and hopefully given during an imperialist war, with the immediate cause of a joint declaration in relation to this war.

The IDO cannot, in my opinion, be equated with groups like the IGCL (ex "Internal Fraction of the ICC"(IFICC-FICCI))that has been guilty and/or is guilty of systematic slandering and threatening of the ICC and its militants, of completely unnecessary disclosure of internal information, of theft, etc., etc. (See in this thread the list made by KT # 4)
That is a distinction that has to be made.

To be clear about the jount declaration : it is to be appreciated that a group helps to define and/or sign an internationalist declaration, which is certainly not evident, see the refusal or not answering of the ICT and (as in previous calls of the ICC) the different "bordigist" groups.
But there may and can be, not to say must be, some clarification about a group like the IDO.
Note 1
I also find it peculiar and a bit "haughty" (I cannot find a better word at the moment) to call themselves an institute, while they apparently want to be more than a mere research group, but rather a full-fledged political organisation, with its own political views. Witness their earlier joint organisation of open meetings with the ICC-section in Italy and now their signing of a joint declaration with outspoken political organisations like ICC and Internationalist Voice.
Note 2
A quick check on the ICC website in Italian reveals that there have been more joint meetings of ICC and IDO, or at least that they have been announced in this way (see below).
RIUNIONE PUBBLICA : 1917-2017 A CENTO ANNI DALLA RIVOLUZIONE D'OTTOBRE
Sabato 25 Novembre 2017
Ore 14.30 - 20.00
c/o La Città del Sole, Vico Giuseppe Maffei 4, 80132 Napoli
(traversa di Via San Gregorio Armeno, affianco all'ex Asilo Filangieri)
Corrente Comunista Internazionale Istituto Onorato Damen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Un incontro di riflessione e dibattito sulle lotte operaie del maggio '68
Venerdì 12 ottobre 2018, alle ore 17.30
presso la Libreria Calusca, via Conchetta 18 Milano
(tram 3, bus 59, 90, 91, Metrò 2 stazione Romolo, tel. 02.58.10.56.88)
 
Parteciperà al dibattito una delegazione dell'Istituto Onorato Damen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Un secolo dopo la Rivoluzione in Germania

  Sabato 30 Marzo 2019 Ore 15.00 - 18.00 c/o La Città del Sole, Vico Giuseppe Maffei 4, 80132 Napoli
Corrente Comunista Internazionale Istituto Onorato Damen
Note 3
So I do not think, contrary to what MH seems to think, that this is a simple one-off error by the ICC to place the IDO in the list of "serious" groups.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
One more remark about IP = "Internationalist Perspective", ex "External Fraction of the ICC". ex-"External Fraction of the ICC" (EFICC-FECCI)
This group did not commit any theft of material or money of the ICC itself (of course if I understood it correctly from the information given by the ICC, I have no other information), but there were good contacts or even cooperation with the CBG ("Communist Bulletin Group"), that originated from the "Chenier-group" and that did commit theft at the expense of the ICC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found another message concerning the ban against the IGCL (banned from the Discussion Forum of the ICC)

31 October, 2015 - 16:30
#1
The "IGCL" is banned from the ICC's public meetings, and from this forum
The so-called "International Group of the Communist Left" has long since been banned from attendance at our public meetings. The same holds good for our forum, and we have consequently blocked the user "Stavros" and will do the same for anyone else posting in the name of the "IGCL".
This ban has nothing to do with the political positions that the "IGCL" pretends to defend. It has everything to do with their behaviour, which is in flagrant contradiction with proletarian morality and worthy only of the bourgeois state."

joan
 

 

It was in the draft, but then it disappeared.

To the ICC :

Thanks in advance for your explanation about the "Istitutio Onorato Damen".

Link
I can see that Joan accepts

I can see that Joan accepts that ICC is not clear enough on occasions, something i very much agree with, and has also provided additional information about the ICCs ongoing relationship with the IDO which is interesting given MH's quote from the CWO on this organisation. I wonder if Joan has done a full research into the behaviours of the IDO which mean that they can be definitely excluded from the list of parasites because the justification above is very limited.  I also note that Joan is concerned that there are more important issues in periods of war but this latter point is precisely my area of concern. The ICC, in this period of war, will not invite all groups in the workers movement to sign its statement, only specific ones that it approves of. This is divisive and was the starting point for my concerns. It seems to me that signing up to the ICC statement would mean effectivly accepting the ICCs theory of parasitism.

The ICC is, as i have said, the only organisation that characterises other groups in the workers movement as 'parasites' - by which i think the ICC puts them outside the workers movement. According to Joan's contribution however, a group talking to one of these 'parasitic' groups means that it becomes also a parasite - the examples used by Joan being IP and CWO. If this is accepted then, everybody becomes a parasite - and as the ICC talks to them too, then we really are in a quandary now! This really cannot be justified as a way to behave towards others in the workers movement

Furthermore the ICC lists the following: Controverses, IGCL, Internationalist Perspective, Matériaux Critiques and some others belong to the parasitic milieu"

I have just searched on the ICC site and neither Controverses not Matériaux Critiques appear in any way other than in this thread and the thread i took the initial quotes from. Controverses is as far as i know a discussion or forum website not a political group. Can a forum really be parasitical? Also who are the unnamed 'some others', surely there ought to be a definitive listing of such groups to protect the rest of the world from such dangers!

I note also that nobody seems willing to discuss the Bolshevik Party in all this. From what i read, the IGCL behaved very badly and the ICC says it performed state like activities. Yet the Bolsheviks became the state, set up a secret service the CHEKA, slaughtered workers in Kronstadt, etc etc but the Bolsheviks haven't been labelled as parasites apparently. They were part of a degenerating revolution certainly but they became active in that degeneration through their statist activities

 

Forumteam
The joint statement and parasitism

Link writes “that signing up to the ICC statement would mean effectively accepting the ICCs theory of parasitism”. By excluding those groups who don’t agree with the notion of parasitism, the statement would be divisive, so the comrade tells us.

First we want to say that it is not a statement of the ICC, but a statement of the three groups that have signed it. So, Link may criticise the ICC for this, but he must be aware that his criticism is directed to all the three groups and even to the group in Korea.

This brings us to the second point: since one of the groups doesn’t agree with the notion of parasitism this automatically means that accepting parasitism is not a precondition for signing the statement, neither is the notion of decomposition. Even the word decadence is not taken up in the statement.

Is the statement divisive?

No, it is not divisive to groups that want to join the struggle against the war on a fundamental proletarian internationalist basis, which also includes the denunciation of the peace movement as a bourgeois reaction to the war. We encourage and welcome other groups who are in agreement with the statement to sign it as well. But the most important point of the statement is not that it is signed by as many groups and organisations as possible, but that it functions as a kind of beacon for other groups and organisations to position themselves. Even if groups are not completely in agreement with all the points of the statement, it is nevertheless important that they take up a position towards it. And some groups already have.

Are all groups in the workers’ movement invited to sign its statement? That depends on what you understand under the workers’ movement. Does it mean that a group as Angry Workers of the World also belongs to the workers’ movement? A clear internationalist position is a criterion for being part of the workers’ movement and until today the AWW has taken a very ambiguous and even defencist position on the war in Ukraine.

But the groups that have signed the joint statement place themselves in the tradition of the Communist Left and try work together with all descendants of this current, notably the Bordigist groups and the still existing expressions of council communism, as they have tried to do for instance in the case of this joint statement.

Yes, it is “divisive” to all parasitic groups and elements that pretend to defend an internationalist position against the war, but who

  • “impregnated by petty bourgeois ideology, impatient, individualist, elitist, preferring affinity relations to political relations;
  • “disappointed” by the working class which doesn’t move ahead quickly enough for them;
  • finding it hard to put up with organisational discipline, frustrated at not finding in militant activity the “satisfaction” they hoped for or the “posts” they aspired to,

[did] end up developing a deep hostility towards the proletarian organisation, even if this hostility is masked by “militant” pretensions.” (Theses on parasitism)

Furthermore, only organisations and groups are invited to sign the statement and this also excludes several “bloggers”, whether they are parasitic or not: Pantopolis, Free Retrievers’ Digest, Controversies, Le Prolétariat Universel, Inter-Rev., etc. The people behind these blogs only represent themselves, but not a political current within the working class

Link tries to outsmart the ICC with questions about groups that do or do not belong to the parasitic milieu. According the comrade the criteria to call a group parasitic are contradictory, or at least not consistent. But it is not clear what the concern of the comrade is behind these remarks. Does he think that the ICC has erroneously excluded an important group that should have been invited to sign the joint statement?

He talks about Controversies, the IGCL, Matériaux Critiques. But in our view all three are neither part of the Communist Left nor of the workers’ movement in general, because of their parasitic nature.

Link even doubts if it is right to call the IGCL parasitic because of its state like activities, while “the Bolsheviks became the state, set up a secret service the Cheka, slaughtered workers in Kronstadt”. It is true that the Bolsheviks identified with the state and the more the years passed, the more damaging it became for the Party. But the Bolshevik Party was a proletarian organisation from the start, while the IFICC/IGCL never belonged to the proletarian milieu. And the comrade has been around long enough to know that the ICC has explained in more than one article why the IFICC/IGCL must be considered as a parasitic group. He may be not in agreement with the argumentation of the ICC, but then he should better develop a systematic critique of the Theses on parasitism, instead of firing some blanks.

By the way, none of these groups mentioned by Link, have contacted the ICC or IOD or IV to express the wish to sign the statement.

joan
Not IDO,but IOD

Stupidity on my part again!

 

I only now discover that I mistakenly abbreviated the Istituto Onorato Damen to IDO instead of the correct IOD (#9).

(I (stituto) O (norato) D (amen))
Apologies for that.

I don't think there is anything against abbreviating the names of organisations and groups.
For instance, we almost always talk about the ICC (CCI, IKS,...), about the ICT (TCI, IKT,...), about the IGCL (GIGC, IGKL,...), etc.,

But the intention is that it remains clear which organisation or group it is about.
And with wrong abbreviations this is of course not the case.

My stupidity, my mistake, is not diminished by it, but it is curious that Link has gone along with my stupidity and mistake and is not correcting them. (# 11)

If I make mistakes they may always be corrected (as KT did recently in #7).
Gladly even.

 

joan
Still about the IOD

Apart from the already mentioned article of the "PCInt (Battaglia Comunista)" (of which the "Istituto Onorato Damen" is a split-off)(# 3)(Note 1) , there are also 2 texts in English on the website of the "Istituto Onorato Damen", explaining the how and why of the creation and existence of the "Institute".
See website Istituto Onorato Damen Tap on Chi siamo = Who we are and then on
- Announcement Creato: 20 Settembre 2009 Ultima modifica: 03 Ottobre 2016
- Starting over from scratch Creato: 28 Febbraio 2011 Ultima modifica: 17 Settembre 2016 
------------------------------------------

There is also an announcement of a new public meeting online in Italian, again a collaboration of the ICC and the Istituto Onorato Damen.

These joint meetings seem to be becoming the rule.

RIUNIONE PUBBLICA ONLINE Mercoledì 04 Maggio 2022 ore 19.30 L’incontro sarà tenuto via internet, e tutti coloro che vorranno partecipare sono invitati a inviare un messaggio a [email protected] o ad [email protected] per poter ricevere istruzioni sulle modalità tecniche per partecipare alla riunione. Corrente Comunista Internazionale Istituto Onorato Damen

(set in bold by me)

 

Note 1

The “Istituto Onorato Damen” - A Small Clarification | Leftcom

MH
The Onorato Damen Institute

Thanks to Joan for their digging on the 'ODI'. It would be interesting to know their view as a result? I've also taken a look at the ODI's website. Splits are always messy. Some of the issues are not clear, especially in translation, the arguments convoluted, "movementist and spontaneist deviations" and all. 

http://www.istitutoonoratodamen.it/joomla34/index.php/chi-siamo/puntoeacapo

But according to the PCInt (Battaglia), the ODI was formed by comrades who were formally expelled at its 2009 AGM (Congress). The PCInt accused them of failing to raise their differences or produce documents for discussion in party meetings and refusing to participate in the Party’s AGM. They then allegedly used the PCInt’s subscription list, which they took with them, to circulate a document which, according to the PCInt, “attribute[d] positions to us which are absolutely no part of our political heritage, positions which we condemn and fight against.” Apparently, they sent copies of this document not only to the ICC but also to “its splitters”, ie. to all those groups the ICC today considers ‘parasites’!

The “Istituto Onorato Damen” - A Small Clarification | Leftcom

This is the group the ICC now describes as a “serious group” and allows to sign its “joint statement of groups of the international communist left about the war in Ukraine”.

Now, of course it’s possible that all of the PCInt’s allegations against the IOD are completely wrong. But if they are substantially true, the IOD sounds very like the kind of group the ICC would denounce as 'parasitic' if it had split from its own organisation. In any case, there do appear to be some questions about the ICC's decision to include it in a list of "serious groups", especially when this would surely be seen as a provocation to the ICT. 

Which inevitably prompts the question: was the ICC's relationship with the IOD in any way a factor in the failure of the ICT to sign the joint statement?

joan
Still about the IOD, continued

MH wrote :

Now, of course it’s possible that all of the PCInt’s allegations against the IOD are completely wrong.

But if they are substantially true, the IOD sounds very like the kind of group the ICC would denounce as 'parasitic' if it had split from its own organisation.

In any case, there do appear to be some questions about the ICC's decision to include it in a list of "serious groups", especially when this would surely be seen as a provocation to the ICT. 

Which inevitably prompts the question: was the ICC's relationship with the IOD in any way a factor in the failure of the ICT to sign the joint statement ?

I agree with this.

I must confess, however, that I have neither the full text of PCInt "The "Istituto Onorato Damen" - A Small Clarification | Leftcom" nor the 2 mentioned texts of the IOD read completely and thoroughly.

I want to read the 3 texts completely and thoroughly as soon as possible.

I also want to confess that this is a very difficult issue for me, given my long-standing "close" relationship with the ICC and its positions.

I am repeating what I wrote earlier (#9 ):

In my opinion, it would be appropriate for the ICC to clarify the "Istitutio Onorato Damen" and its cooperation with this group, and more specifically, to answer the question : is the "Istitutio Onorato Damen" not a parasitic group, split off from the PCInternazionalista (Battaglia Comunista) on unclear grounds ?
It is perhaps unfortunate and annoying that such clarification is requested and hopefully given during an imperialist war, with the immediate cause of a joint declaration in relation to this war.”

...there may and can be, not to say must be, some clarification about a group like the IDO. “

Correction: IOD

To the ICC : Thanks in advance for your explanation about the "Istitutio Onorato Damen".” (# 10 )

I hope that the ICC can and will give a satisfactory answer as soon as possible about the IOD and its cooperation with this group.

joan
Forumteam:joint statement &parasitism

Many thanks to the Forum team for "The joint statement and parasitism" (#12).

 

This position is very valuable and clarifies quite a few things.

But there are still some important questions.

I hope to elaborate on this position as soon as possible.

But, as I wrote before (# 6) "the question "Who is allowed to oppose war?", as Link formulated the question of the relationship between possibly correct positions and reprehensible behaviour, is important and deserves a response.

But the exchange of ideas about the war in Ukraine, about proletarian internationalism is even more important to me."
 

joan
"Istituto Onorato Damen"

In connection with the cooperation of the ICC with the "Istituto Onarato Damen" (IOD) in Italy and the co-signing of the “Joint statement of groups of the international communist left about the war in Ukraine” as one of the four signatories.

I have re-read the "Theses on Parasitism"of the ICC. (International Review no.94 - 3rd quarter 1998 https://en.internationalism.org/ir/94_parasitism).

I read in it (for the sake of clear understanding of the context, a long quote):

“ In response to the ICC’s analyses and concerns over parasitism, we are often told that the phenomenon only concerns our own organisation, whether as a target or as a “supplier”, through splits, of the parasitic milieu. It is true that today, the ICC is parasitism’s main target, which is explained easily enough by the fact that it is the largest and most widespread organisation of the proletarian movement. It consequently provokes the greatest hatred from the enemies of this movement, which never miss an occasion to stir up hostility towards it on the part of other proletarian organisations. Another reason for this “privilege” of the ICC is the fact precisely that our organisation has suffered the most splits leading to the creation of parasitic groups. We can suggest several explanations for this phenomenon.

Firstly, of all the organisations of the proletarian political milieu which have survived the 30 years since 1968, the ICC is the only new one, since all the others already existed at the time. Consequently, our organisation suffered from a greater weight of the circle spirit, which is the breeding ground for clans and parasitism. Moreover, the other organisations had already undergone a “natural selection” before the class’ historic resurgence, which had eliminated all the adventurers, semi-adventurers, and intellectuals in search of an audience, who lacked the patience to undertake an obscure labour in little organisations with a negligible impact on the working class. At the moment of the proletarian resurgence, this kind of element judged it easier to “rise” in a new organisation in the process of formation, than in an older organisation where the “places were already taken”.

Secondly, there is generally a fundamental difference between the (equally numerous) splits that have affected the Bordigist milieu (which was the most developed internationally until the end of the 1970s), and those which have affected the ICC. In the Bordigist organisations, which claim officially to be monolithic, splits are usually the result of the impossibility of developing political disagreements within the organisation, and do not therefore necessarily have a parasitic dynamic. By contrast, the splits within the ICC were not the result of monolithism or sectarianism, since our organisation has always allowed, indeed encouraged, debate and confrontation within it: the collective desertions were the result of impatience, individualist frustrations, a clan approach, and therefore bore within themselves a parasitic spirit and dynamic.”(Note ) (set in bold and in italics by me)

I don't know if I can agree with that.
As known,the IOD is a split off from "Battaglia Comunista".
And usually "Battaglia Comunista" is not counted as "the bordigists", although there is a common origin and even though the "Partito Comunista Internazionalista" has in common with the "bordigist parties" that they all call themselves parties, no matter how big or small and independent of the level of the international class struggle (Note)
But it could be that this is the explanation given by the ICC for its cooperation with the IOD.
Unfortunately, we have to say "it could be", because as far as I know, there has been no clarification from the ICC about its attitude and cooperation with the IOD.
Note
Following the foundation of the Trotskyist "4th International" in 1938, thus in the midst of the counter-revolution, "Battaglia Comunista" founded a "party" in the middle of world war 2, thus at the peak of the counter-revolution, the "Partito Comunista Internazionalista".
And in this it was followed by a whole series of "International Communist Parties".
The first of these “parties” was founded in 1952, still in the midst of the counter-revolution.
Others may have been founded together or even after with the revival of the workers' struggle (around May 1968) (which seems to contradict the ICC's explanation in the theses for the not necessarily parasitic character of splits of the bordigist organisations).
But even then, it was too early for the creation of real parties worthy of the name.

See the Platform of the ICC, point 16,e.

In the periods of intense class activity, these minorities have a direct influence on the practical course of events. One can then speak of the party to describe the organisation of the communist vanguard.(...) On the other hand, in periods of defeat or of downturn in the class struggle, revolutionaries no longer have a direct influence on the immediate course of history.
All that can exist at such times are organisations of a much smaller size whose function is no longer to influence the immediate movement, but to resist it, which means struggling against the current while the class is being disarmed and mobilised by the bourgeoisie (through class collaboration, ‘Sacred Union’, ‘the Resistance’, ‘anti-fascism’, etc). Their essential task then is to draw the lessons of previous experience and so prepare the theoretical and programmatic framework for the future proletarian party which must necessarily emerge in the next upsurge of the class. These groups and fractions who, when the class struggle is on the ebb, have detached themselves from the degenerating party or have survived its demise, have the task of constituting a political and organisational bridge until the re-emergence of the party. (set in bold by me)

One more remark on the foundation of the "Partito Comunista Internazionalista" in 1943-1945.
In a way, "Battaglia Comunista" did even worse than the Trotskyists.
Contrary to the Trotskyists who at least immediately spoke of an "International" in 1938 and who existed very modestly, very confusedly, also internationally with sections (often very small) in different countries and on different continents), the PCInt existed only in Italy (originally even only in Northern Italy) with only sympathising groups in Belgium and France.
The reason for the foundation of the PCInt was the workers' oppression in Northern Italy in 1943, i.e. the workers' struggle in one part of one country.

The "International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party" (IBRP,BIPR)was only founded in 1983-1984.

In 2009, the name was changed to "Internationalist Communist Tendency" (ICT,TCI).

 

 

 

joan
Correction of # 18

While re-reading #18, I read a writing error, which I hereby correct.

It states :

"The reason for the foundation of the PCInt was the workers' oppression in Northern Italy in 1943, i.e. the workers' struggle in one part of one country."

That should of course be :

"The reason for the foundation of the PCInt was the workers' uprising in Northern Italy in 1943, i.e. the workers' struggle in one part of one country."

(in both quotes set in bold by me)

Sorry for this mistake and for not having noticed and corrected it earlier.

joan
Again Institute Onorato Damen & ICC

I had expected a reaction, a clarification from the ICC about the relation between the ICC and the Istituto Onorato Damen(IOD), at least in the form of a reference to an ICC-article in Italian, that I and others would have "missed".

However, this is more than just an issue concerning Italy, also in view of the fact that 1) the ICC has been an international and internationalist organisation since its early beginnings and 2) the Partito Comunista Internazionalista (PCInt) (Battaglia Comunista) in Italy, of which the IOD is a split-off, is part of the Internationalist Communist Tendency (ICT), with also sections in the UK, Germany, the USA and Canada.

A clarification of the relation between the ICC and the IOD on the website of the ICC in different languages would certainly be appropriate and would join in the series of polemics of the ICC with the PCInt and the ICT (and its predecessor the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party (IBRP)).