Statement of solidarity with the ICT

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
Crisanto
Statement of solidarity with the ICT
Printer-friendly version

The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: Statement of solidarity with the ICT. The discussion was initiated by Crisanto.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

Crisanto
Just wondering

First of all I salute the solidarity statement of the ICC to the ICT, despite the fact that the latter did not elaborate some details. Nevertheless, the former put up its reasons why it supports the latter against slanders.
I’m just wondering why one of the posters in the ICT forum said this: “I am sorry but, we don't need solidarity, we want only to denounce this dirty work. For us the object ends here.” It seems that his/her message is: “we just informed you, but please leave us alone”. Maybe I’m wrong and just misunderstood him/her?
Another point. I’m also wondering why when somebody (individuals/organizations/groups) published a statement that they are persecuted/suppressed by the ICC when they were members, several “concern” people immediately showed their “solidarity” to the “victims” of ICC blaming/condemning the “stalinist”, “dictatorial” ICC without listening/asking the ICC first what their side of the story.
But I’m just wondering why nobody from these “concern revolutionaries” immediately expressed their solidarity to the ICT? Or maybe these people would want to listen/wait the other side of the story first before saying something? If this the case, they have a point. I just hope that they would also do this in the accusation that the ICC "suppressing/persecuting" its former members.

Fred
Solidarity with both ICT and ICC

I too salute the Solidarity statement by the ICC to the ICT, and particularly noticed this.  

 

Quote:
The experience of the workers’ movement (as well as the experience of the ICC itself) attests that former militants can fall into the basest ignominy when they develop resentments against their former organisation, when they abandon the fight for the communist perspective in order to engage in a fight for their petty personal concerns. Disappointment, frustration, wounded pride, rancour then become the motive force for their behaviour, and no longer the revolt against this shameful society of exploitation. As the PCInt communiqué puts it, the “hateful attacks” against their former organisation “has become their main focus of their politics, if not their lives”, rather than the combat against capitalism, whose allies they thus become, whether they want to or not;  

I can understand that comrades may find points to disagree with in our existing revolutionary communist organisations, but am puzzled as to why these same comrades can deteriorate into the most degraded petty bourgeois slime on departing these organisations, if that's what they decide they have to do.  What pathology is at work here? 

Kommunist
the ICT supported the "left" nationalis

I can not express solidarity with the ICT. In the past the ICT politically and morally supported the "left" nationalists from the former USSR. This caused damage to the political reputation of the left communism in the former USSR.

I can not trust such an opportunist organization. I think that the ICC should be cautious in dealing with the ICT.

P.S.
I am not a member of the ICC (but I fully support the ICC and I want to be a member of the ICC) - this comment is only my personal opinion.

Sorry for my bad english

Alf
Kommunist, can you elaborate

Kommunist, can you elaborate on what you mean by the ICT supporting left nationalists?

I am aware that the ICT has made some serious errors in their relations with groups in Russia - first with the scam group Radical Communists of Ukraine, then with the 'national autonomists' of the Maximalist Communist group - but this does not mean that they are no longer a proletarian organisation which needs our soldiarity when it is under attack. 

Welcome to this forum by the way!

 

Kommunist
for Alf

Support of nationalists is not the first "adventure" of the ICT in the former USSR. Every time if the ICT begins to act in the former USSR - it harms the proletarian struggle. This is not just a coincidence. This regularity. The cause is that the ICT is an opportunistic organization, the ICT is infected immediatism.

Of course, if dishonest former activists unjustly attack the ICT, I condemn these attacks. But I will not forget the harm that the ICT has made against the left communism.

About ICT's support of nationalists in the former USSR:
http://eretik-samizdat.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-brown-masquerade.html

Rowntree
The ICT have made very clear

The ICT have made it very clear that they do not need or welcome these messages of solidarity, nor the attempt to link it to the latest problems in the ICC.  The ICC still behaves like they (like their pre 1975 antcedent) were a tiny sect in the 1950s - those organisational modes of practice (maybe useful then for survival of proletarian positions in an impossibility difficult period) have been incredibly destructive for 40 years.  Until this is confronted they will endure yet more spilts until eventual oblivion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fred
solidarity?

Rowntree makes it very clear that in his view the ICT needs no support from a left communist Organization of dubious quality like the ICC but appears to overlook or has maybe forgotten the needs of the world working class who not only generated both these organisations and others  - or does Rowntree believe the organization he favours most benefited from some higher intervention?- but also requires to see them grow, prosper and  one day unite.  

Rowntree's sentiments reflect those  of  "lotusflower" on the ICT  website who voiced similar anti-ICC comments, and seems to think once you've discovered the communist grouping  that best reflects your own limited grasp of what communist consciousness is, you have then immediately to  reject all others as suspect or just plain wrong because the "club" you've personally chosen must be best mustn't it?  

 

MH
No I'm fine really

The ICT is like a sufferer from a nasty and long-running infection who nevertheless declines all offers of help and sympathy; and then points out that its well-wishers are all going to die one day anyway…

But behind this sectarian bluster the most significant fact to keep hold of is that the PCInt felt it necessary to publish its statement in the first place, and that it is couched in such strong terms, ie clearly identifying the attack as "a political provocation in order to create suspicion", and making comparisons with the wartime actions of Togliatti’s thugs.

The ICT knew perfectly well that it would immediately invite comparisons with attacks on the ICC, which is why its members are trying so hard to close down any online discussion and to reject offers of solidarity.

In fact the CWO has tried so hard to downplay the seriousness of the attack they have contradicted what their sister organisation actually says in its statement.

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2015-04-16/response-to-a-vile-slander   

So all in all I think we just have to insist, after listening to the patient’s protestations of health and their refusals to accept help, that they really don’t seem quite as healthy as they think, and that perhaps their attitude is itself the symptom of a more serious underling illness.

 

Alf
point of clarification

It should be pointed out that Rowntree is, to my knowledge, not a member of the ICT but was a member of the former Communist Bulletin Group, which was itself responsible for a large number of attacks on the ICC, much of which is still online.

I agree however that the efforts of some comrades in the ICT to play down any similarity between the events in Italy and the attacks on the ICC is symptomatic of a wider problem in the milieu: not only the loss of the 'norms' of solidarity but also a refusal to develop any theoretical framework for understanding the kinds of behaviour exhibited by the ex-members of the PCInt in Italy - a framework which is needed and possible precisely because the behaviour is not only common but an increasing problem for the development of the revolutionary movement.   

Rowntree
Alf is quite correct - I am

Alf is quite correct - I am not a member of the ICT.  Nor was I posting on their behalf, or with their knowledge.  The views expressed are my own.  I should have made this clearer when I posted, as it appears I may have inadvertently confused some readers (perhaps including Fred) into thinking I was writing on behalf of the ICT.  My apologies for any misunderstanding caused!

 

MH
ICT paranoia?

MH wrote:

The ICT knew perfectly well that it would immediately invite comparisons with attacks on the ICC, which is why its members are trying so hard to close down any online discussion and to reject offers of solidarity.

 

Comrades may have noticed that the entire thread on the ICT’s English forum on ‘Solidarity with the ICC’ has suddenly disappeared from their website.

Needless to say this was not started by them; indeed they were planning to remove it ages ago before their failure to respond publicly to the attacks on the ICC finally provoked comment.

They also appear to be blocking any further comments on the PCInt’s own statement, even from their own members.

Update: And now they've deleted the statement of solidarity with the ICT posted by Internationalist Voice...

Crisanto
ICT paranoid of solidarity?

“Comrades may have noticed that the entire thread on the ICT’s English forum on ‘Solidarity with the ICC’ has suddenly disappeared from their website.
Needless to say this was not started by them; indeed they were planning to remove it ages ago before their failure to respond publicly to the attacks on the ICC finally provoked comment.
They also appear to be blocking any further comments on the PCInt’s own statement, even from their own members.
Update: And now they've deleted the statement of solidarity with the ICT posted by Internationalist Voice...” - MH

It seems that Rowntree, a non-ICT member and who said that he did not "posting on their behalf, or with their knowledge" was right that "The ICT have made it very clear that they do not need or welcome these messages of solidarity".
For me, other than underestimation of their problem, they're paranoid of any solidarity from other communist organizations.Why? I don't understand.
It seems that this line of thinking is like "mind your own business".
Or perhaps they think that they're the only communist organization existing? Or worst, they welcome any solidarity but not from the ICC and they perceived as ICC supporters? Just asking.

Jock
Clarifications re the ICT

Comrades

I have only just come across this thread but can I be allowed to make some responses.  First the ICC has allowed Kommunist to slander the ICT on the very thread where it professes solidarity.  He quotes the blog Eretik by Vlad Bugera which has a correct criticism of the national bolshevism of the GKM but which adds two slurs about the ICT. We did not support the GKM nor did we collude with them in the changes they made to their platform (impossible as we don't have Russian). Our response to the whole affair is here http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2014-03-04/the-problem-of-nationalism... and if Kommunist really wants express solidarity with the Communist Left he could point out on the Russian social media that Vlad has used at great length to denigrate us the substance of these two errors. The whole threat to the CL in Russia (or rather to the ICT I think) comes from repetition of this blog now.

On our site no comment has been blocked on the thread on the document about "a vile slander".  It seems that people just have not posted since we said we were saying no more. The thread about Solidarity with the ICC has been on our site for many months and though we were not happy about it we left it.  However one night we received an absurd and stupid attack on the ICC from the group which has as its core the former IFICC and I took the decision there and then to delete the whole lot. Why? Because it would be absurd for the ICT site to host a slanging match between 3 other groups (two of which have a grand total of 6 members between them) over an issue which had got nothing to do with us.  I immediately informed the ICT comrades what I had done and only one comrade voiced some concern that this might be setting a precedent - a genuine enough point of view.

Can I finally add that BC were forced to say something about the whispering campaign in Italy because it was affecting their younger contacts and members  (who were its chief targets as well as the sources of evidence).  If the stories, rumours etc had been out in the open they would have dealt with them via the normal political response but in this case that was not open to them.  A public criticism is not an attack in the same sense as we all have the tools and means to do that.  The reference in their statement to the ICT is because one of the 3 slanderers is active on English social media and it was feared that he might be doing the same there but as of now we have no evidence that this is a fact.  There was an attempt to nobble the CWO with the earliest version of these stories 6 years ago but once this failed we have heard no more.

As we said on our own site. Thanks you for your expression of solidarity but don't draw us into your political agenda of "the communist left is under attack".  The biggest threat to the CL is the perception that it is peopled by slef-regarding paranoics.  There is a bigger world out there.

 

 

Kommunist
the ICT is indirectly guilty of murder of proletarians in Ukrain

What I say is my personal opinion. But I believe that this opinion is correct.

The ICT supported the nationalists while these nationalists had split. This political and psychological assistance (which the ICC made for nationalists) helped nationalists quicker to return political confidence in their the forces.

In the past the ICT supported persons who now protect war in the southeast of Ukraine, so the ICT is indirectly guilty of murder of proletarians in Ukraine.

schalken
Unfair

Kommunist wrote:
 What I say is my personal opinion. But I believe that this opinion is correct. The ICT supported the nationalists while these nationalists had split. This political and psychological assistance (which the ICC made for nationalists) helped nationalists quicker to return political confidence in their the forces. In the past the ICT supported persons who now protect war in the southeast of Ukraine, so the ICT is indirectly guilty of murder of proletarians in Ukraine. 
 

Your criticism is well-meant, perhaps, but seems completely unfair and exaggerated, at least when it comes to their dealings with the GKM.

After reading the ICT's statement on this matter, the link to which is in Jock's post, I believe that the ICT has acted in a responsible manner that befits a communist organization. Here's why.

First, the ICT apparently posted the GKM's platform in order to publicize -- for the purpose of discussion and debate -- a new tendency that seemed to more or less adhere to the tradition of the communist left. This seems perfectly legitimate, especially if the ICT published the platform with a disclaimer to that effect (I can't find where they originally published the GKM's platform.)

Second, when questions were raised about the content of the GKM's platform, and when the GKM did not make the alterations they promised were forthcoming, the ICT had serious and frank discussions with the GKM, in which they criticized and questioned the GKM's tendency to tolerate or even court nationalists and other bourgeois elements. Again, this is exactly what we should expect of a genuinely communist group.

Third, when the GKM did not respond to these questions and criticisms as they had promised to, the very openly shared its conclusion that the GKM "The GKM's way of going about things is a clear break with internationalist principles and not least with the revolutionary tradition of Maximalism."

So I don't see how the ICT "indirectly supported" this group when all they did was to invite the communist left to scrutinize its platform. In the process, the communist left -- and the ICT, it would seem -- were able to conclude that the GKM is outside the pale of the communist left.

schalken
Disagree

Kommunist wrote:

What I say is my personal opinion. But I believe that this opinion is correct.

The ICT supported the nationalists while these nationalists had split. This political and psychological assistance (which the ICC made for nationalists) helped nationalists quicker to return political confidence in their the forces.

In the past the ICT supported persons who now protect war in the southeast of Ukraine, so the ICT is indirectly guilty of murder of proletarians in Ukraine.

Kommunist, I have to strongly disagree with this statement. Your criticism is well-meant, but seems completely unfair and exaggerated -- at least when it comes to the ICT's dealings with the GKM.

After reading the ICT's statement on this matter, the link to which is in Jock's post, I believe that the ICT has acted in a responsible manner that befits a communist organization. Here's why.

First, the ICT apparently posted the GKM's platform in order to publicize -- for the purpose of discussion and debate -- a new tendency that seemed to more or less adhere to the tradition of the communist left. This seems perfectly legitimate, especially if the ICT published the platform with a disclaimer to that effect. (This whole paragraph is couched in conditional language because I can't find where the the ICT originally published the GKM's platform.)

Second, when questions were raised about the content of the GKM's platform, and when the GKM did not make the alterations they promised were forthcoming, the ICT had serious and frank discussions with the GKM, in which they criticized and questioned the GKM's tendency to tolerate or even court nationalists and other bourgeois elements. Again, this is exactly what we should expect of a genuinely communist group.

Third, when the GKM did not respond to these questions and criticisms as they had promised to, the ICT very openly shared its conclusion that the GKM's "way of going about things is a clear break with internationalist principles and not least with the revolutionary tradition of Maximalism."

So I don't see how the ICT "indirectly supported" this group when all they did was to invite the communist left to scrutinize its platform. In the process, the communist left, including the ICT seemingly, were able to conclude that the GKM is outside the pale of the communist left.

Kommunist
The ICT have "repented" only

The ICT have "repented" only after when critics of alliance with nationalists published disclosure about cooperation the ICT with the nationalists in English. Therefore I do not believe in the honesty of the ICT. I do not believe that the ICT sincerely admitted the mistake. I think the "repentance" of the ICT is an attempt to justify himself.

I think the cause of this "error" of the ICT - petty-bourgeois immediatism, unprincipledism, opportunism and the pursuit of success at any price.

Of course, I can be wrong, but I do not see any arguments that refute my point of view.

P.S.
I agree with the Statement of the ICC that it is necessary to condemn attack of scoundrels on the ICT. But I do not agree with the Statement that the ICC need to express solidarity with the ICT, because in the past the ICT supported the nationalists from former USSR.

baboon
The ICT

It is indicative of the bad faith of the ICT that Jock can appear on here (he's always welcome, I'm sure) and blame the ICC for someone else's position. As Jock will or should know, the views expressed on the public discussion forum are not necessarily those expressed by the ICC, in fact in most cases they are not and the ICC can't be expected to respond to every post. A more constructive post by Jock would have been to address the issue and where it had come from but the first thing that he says is that "the ICC has allowed Kommunist to slander the ICT on the very thread where it professes solidarity". Why be constructive when there's a chance to have a dig at the ICC even when the post in question is nothing to do with it? Far better to conjure up some reason to demonstrate a lack of solidarity. I don't know about the discussion that Kommunist refers to and if I get time will have a look at it but what I do know is that over decades the CWO and the ICT have shown a tendency for opportunist dalliances with dodgy and dangerous elements.

 

Just one post from markyhaze on the Leftcom website on the subject of the attacks on the ICT and the discussion appeared to me to be shut down in no uncertain terms. The other thread that disappeared was disappeared because it contained elements of attacks on the ICC that the ICT weren't interested in. At least that's honest.

 

Facing just two choices, bourgeoisie or proletariat, Jock manages to pick the wrong one. It's not the proletariat or its minorities that are paranoic but the bourgeoisie. It's the bourgeoisie that live in fear of the working class and from its deformed class consciousness acts accordingly. I could refer Jock to the volumes of material both historical and recent that underline the paranoia and machiavellianism of the ruling class in relation to the working class and all threats against its continued rule but that could only be in the context of a constructive discussion which would have to be based on some sort of solidarity.

Kommunist
I am not a member of the ICC

I have to explain that I express only the my point of view. Unfortunately, I am not a member of the ICC. I completely support political positions of the ICC, but I am not the member of the ICC therefore the ICC doesn't bear responsibility for my opinion. I hope that I will be able to become a member of the ICC in the future, but now I am not a member of the ICC.

Again about the ICT. Most of proletarian internationalists (I assume that all proletarian internationalists) who live in the former USSR, despise the ICT, because the ICT supported the nationalists from former USSR. I think that the ICT has to bear political responsibility for a political crime.

The proletarian policy isn't Christian church where it is possible to come and receive forgiveness for the political sins. If the ICT doesn't analyse the mistake, if the ICT doesn't refuse the cause of this mistake (the cause of this mistake is a petty-bourgeois immediatism of the ICT, opportunism of the ICT and an unscrupulous pursuit of success at any cost), then the ICT can not be real left-communistic organization.

Only if the ICT carries out a serious correction of the mistakes, if the ICT refuses a petty-bourgeois immediatism, if the ICT refuses opportunism, if the ICT refuses an unscrupulous pursuit of success at any cost, only after that the left-communists can recognize that the ICT returned to camp of proletarian revolutionaries again. But I do not see a positive trend in this regard. Maybe I do not have enough information, but now I have such opinion

P.S.
I want to again remind the my opponents from the ICT, that I am not a member of the ICC (unfortunately).

P.P.S.
Excuse me for my bad English, I use the electronic translator

slothjabber
Solidarity is as solidarity does

When the ICC was attacked on the ICT's forum, the ICT took down the attack. That seems to me to be a responsible thing to do.

 

When the ICT is attacked on the ICC's forum - in a thread supposedly showing solidarity with ICT - the attack is applauded by supporters of the ICC.

 

A line from a Leonard Cohen song keeps running round in my head:

 

"All the bridges are burning that we might have crossed..."

Kommunist
You distort my position

You distort my position. I have written several times that I condemn the attack of former members of the ICT against the ICT. But I can not express solidarity with the ICT, because the ICT supported and promoted the nationalists.

The ICT is trying to justify himself, but the ICT needed to eliminate the causes due to which the ICT has supported and promoted the nationalists. These causes are immediatism, opportunism and unprincipledness for success at any cost.

slothjabber
what constitutes an attack?

I think I have your position very accurately, and you distort the position of the ICT.

 

You say the ICT supported nationalists and is complicit in the war in Ukraine. These are very serious allegations against an organisation that claims the heritage of the Communist Left and should be backed up, I would say.

 

But it didn't 'support nationalists'. It started a dialogue with a group that had contacted it but was not honest about what it believed - one might say, 'a group of lying nationalists'. The documents that would have demonstrated this were not at first open to the ICT. The documents that the GKM presented to the ICT were not the same as the documents that other people had access to (notably, Vlad Bugera/Heretik - who did not warn the ICT about the GKM, but chose to warn others about the ICT). The GKM then changed all of the documents several times, claiming to the ICT that they were developing their politics. The ICT broke off relations when it became clear to them that the GKM had hidden information from them and was pursuing a nationalist agenda.

 

I'm not sure what it is that you think that the ICT should have done.

Kommunist
Internet-magazine "Heretic"

Internet-magazine "Heretic" wrote a letter to the ICT. The letter warned that the ICT promotes nationalists on the site of the ICT. But the ICT has refused to stop promotion of nationalists. Only after this the Internet-magazine "Heretic" publicly denounced nationalist adventure of the ICT in the former USSR.

Site "Heretic" informs about this in the article "The Brown Masquerade ":

At first we thought that the Russian nationalists from the Group of Communist-Maximalists had deceived the ICT. We wrote the ICT a letter to tell them that they had placed a distorted text on their site and suggest that they remove it. The ICT replied that they would not remove it. They also admitted that they had deliberately distorted the text of the Platform of the GCM.

The ICT proposed that we enter into dialogue with the GCM, just as they had done. It was not enough that the ICT should have stepped into a big brown dunghill – now they wanted others to follow their example. We are in no hurry to do so, but merely ask this question. If the ICT are so keen to sink up to their ears in Nazi shit, then why do they need the GCM as intermediaries between themselves and the 100-percent Nazis? Why does the ICT not apply directly to join the «Blood and Honor» network?

Link: http://eretik-samizdat.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-brown-masquerade.html

Unfortunately, the comrades from the ICC does not agree with me. They even published Statement of solidarity with the ICT in Russian (link: https://ru.internationalism.org/content/%D0%B7%D0%...). They think they have to show solidarity with the ICT. I hope that this discussion will help comrades from the ICC to see that I am right when I say that it is impossible to express solidarity with the ICT.

This discussion shows that the ICT is not going to seriously criticize themselves, that the ICT is trying to justify himself. This means that the ICT will remain on the position of petty-bourgeois immediatism, on the position of opportunism and on the position of unprincipledness for success at any cost. The ICT does not want to draw the right conclusions from the support and promotion of nationalists in the past. I hope it will help me convince the comrades from ICC that I take the correct position.

Theft
!

baboon wrote:

Just one post from markyhaze on the Leftcom website on the subject of the attacks on the ICT and the discussion appeared to me to be shut down in no uncertain terms. The other thread that disappeared was disappeared because it contained elements of attacks on the ICC that the ICT weren't interested in. At least that's honest.

 I have just posted on it and it was never shutdown at all, markyhaze got this wrong or tried to make something of it that wasn't there. 

 

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2015-04-16/response-to-a-vile-slander...

 

Jock wrote:

However one night we received an absurd and stupid attack on the ICC from the group which has as its core the former IFICC and I took the decision there and then to delete the whole lot. Why? Because it would be absurd for the ICT site to host a slanging match between 3 other groups (two of which have a grand total of 6 members between them) over an issue which had got nothing to do with us.

Think that says all that is needed.

 

 

 

MH
well...

I think the post of Jock above is to be welcomed for its fraternal tone and for its thanks for expressions of solidarity - although he is surely mistaken to infer these were already expressed on the ICT website?

Jock wrote:

On our site no comment has been blocked on the thread on the document about "a vile slander".  It seems that people just have not posted since we said we were saying no more.

Well, perhaps this was the result of technical problems but for the record I certainly received notification of a further post on the ‘Vile Slander’ statement which did not appear, as well as one on the ‘Statement of Solidarity with the ICC’ presumably referred to by Jock above.

I also pointed out above that the ‘Statement of Solidarity with the ICT’ posted by ‘Internationalist Voice’ was deleted, which seems to contradict the spirit of his ‘thank you’ for expressions of solidarity.

So I think it is still fair to say the ICT (or the CWO) shut down discussion rather abruptly. After all, Cleishbotham’s post made it quite clear: “This is our final word on the question”, and I don’t think Theft’s posting of the word “Test” proves too much….

More substantially, Jock’s explanation of the reasons for the PCInt statement still in my view downplays the significance of the attacks and contradicts the tone and substance of the PCInt’s own statement, which does not seem to share his view that “The biggest threat to the CL is the perception that it is peopled by slef-regarding paranoics.”


lem_
hello, i just wanted to

hello, i just wanted to express surprise that there is so much "slander" around these parts - even that is if the stakes are so high that it's not really surprising 

 

:-)

commiegal
Isnt saying ICT are

Isnt saying ICT are responsible for the death of workers a bit of a hyperbolic statement considering jock has clarified their position. In any case the ICT is a fairly small group and i think saying its responsible for peoples death is a bit ridiculous and makes you look a bit daft. 

 

By the way there have been some fraudulent trotskyist groups out of ukraine that scammed many trot organisations over the years including my old party and ended up being expelled over it so it could be possible these guys have just moved to a new target. 

lem_
i don't think the icc sound

i don't think the icc sound pranoid exactly... allow me to offer an equation.

A psychological health = knowing what you can't do

B intelligence = knowing what you can do

i think that the icc balances these two in a fairly admirable way... no organisation is the perfect weapon against capital, but few would claim that the icc are unaware of latent abilities - and as to A well if an organisation like the icc cannot achieve its goals then literally anarchism is the only hope we have.

 

actually i believe labelling an organisation mentally ill is a pretty bad category error, as well as quite insulting to its supporters.

Kommunist
I was talking about political responsibility

commiegal wrote:

Isnt saying ICT are responsible for the death of workers a bit of a hyperbolic statement considering jock has clarified their position. In any case the ICT is a fairly small group and i think saying its responsible for peoples death is a bit ridiculous and makes you look a bit daft. 

I was talking about political responsibility. Also, I said that they are INDIRECTLY guilty for the murder of workers, I'm not talking about direct guilt. Their guilt is not criminal, but political. Even a small group should be held responsible for his political activities.

Alf
ICC's view

We want to make it quite clear that we do not agree with Kommunist’s refusal to express solidarity with the ICT (this was already expressed in Alf’s post number 5) or with his formulations about the ICT “indirectly supporting the murder of proletarians in Ukraine”. Such accusations are not the basis for the development of a proletarian discussion about these very real problems. A discussion that we of course want to continue with Kommunist himself, who is fully aware that his present view of the question of solidarity with the ICT differs from that of the ICC.

We have some serious criticisms of the ICT’s regroupment policy in general and its recent record with regard to certain groups in Russia in particular. We will not respond here to Jock’s points about the issue of the GKM, although we will certainly reflect on his views about what he sees as distortions in the Brown Masquerade article. Neither will we at this stage take up the issue of the attacks on the ICT, our statement of solidarity or the ICT’s response to it. These questions require a very carefully considered response and will probably take the form of articles in our press.

 

Alf for the ICC

slothjabber
Impasse

We've reached something of a stalemate I think as regards the GKM. As I understand the current positions of the participants, Heretik says it wrote to the ICT and the ICT said it had altered the GKM statement; meanwhile the ICT denies that this ever happened, and says that the GKM altered the statement.

 

As the Heretik blog quite clearly asks, if the ICT wants to get in bed with nazis, why not go the whole hog? Well, why not indeed? The fact that it hasn't suggests to me that it doesn't want to, and has never had any intention of doing so. But I suppose the question then is, which version of events is more plausible? Heretik's version of events doesn't make sense to me, whereas the ICT's version of events seems to make much more sense.

 

 

Kommunist
to slothjabber

Now I won't argue on nuances. I think that soon I will be able to publish correspondence between the magazine "The Heretic" and the ICT. Now I want to tell only that if the ICT wants to be the left-communistic organization, the ICT has to make self-criticism. If the ICT doesn't make self-criticism, it will continue to make opportunistic mistakes. Objectively, the ICT served the bourgeoisie in the past because the ICT supported nationalists and advertized nationalists. I understand that subjectively the ICT didn't want to serve the bourgeoisie. But objectively it was.

Unfortunately, the ICT doesn't understand that a problem is not only that nationalists deceived the ICT. This deception was possible because the ICT does not eliminate the CAUSES of ICT's mistakes. These causes are immediatism, opportunism and unprincipledness for success at any cost.