Important questions raised in this text and a fair amount of self-criticism confronting the problems faced by the ICC. Just one point here - the question of parasitism and decomposition as rejected by the IBRP/CWO. I think it takes a certain amount of courage to confront or even to raise these problems because they are so "touchy" for elements of the proletarian milieu including some of its left communist components. As far as the IBRP/CWO goes, these two questions are not so much touchy but proof of the ICC's "idealism" or its "demoralisation" and "defeat" (“And where is the ICC today? A demoralised and defeated remnant of a once larger organisation built on the illusion that revolution was just around the corner. Today it consoles itself with talk of chaos and decomposition (which is true but is a result of the deepening capitalist crisis and not some paralysis in the class war as the ICC maintain). When the ICC maintains that today they are just a "fraction" (and then openly lies by saying it has always only been a fraction!) what they are saying is that there is nothing to be done but write silly polemics to other organisations (but then that has been ICC methodology since 1975)”. Post signed by the forum’s editor Cleishbotham on the ICT forum following a discussion about the balance of class forces with a sympathiser of the ICC".) and it doesn't just reject the concept of parasitism but sees the latter as an opportunity to work against the ICC as with the Argentinian parasite and adventurer B.around the "Circulo" question who it wasn't just happy to work with and repeat his slanders (while having its tummy tickled) but, to this day, is unable to draw out the obvious dangers that parasitism represents to the necessary long-term approach needed for new elements coming close to left communist positions. It is quite happy to denigrate or ignore such positions giving it a false sense of security that will come back and bite it (as it's done already). We can expect to see more of these parasitic elements which, as the text says, come from the "noxious moral atmosphere of decomposition".
Clieshbottoms jibe about the ICC's overestimation of the class struggle has a basis and it's a basis that has provoked further analysis and self-criticism over this question of overestimation within the ICC and its public press. Of course the CWO wasn't immune from these "overestimations" in its analyses of the class struggle in Europe in the 1980's which, here and there, showed gross irresponsible overestimations. And now, today, the IBRP/CWO apparantly has an analysis of the general weakness of the proletariat but, extraordinarily, this doesn't stop it from proclaiming the need for the party in France in order to overcome the weaknesses of the Yellow Vest movement, a movement that it has generally supported. Thus it seems for the IBRP?CWO, in order to overcome the present weakness of the working class, the party needs to be created over and above it. And they call the ICC "idealists".