A year after the constitution of our fraction, we think necesary to make this introduction of our bulletin #13 as a balance-sheet. A balance-sheet of the ICC since then and a balance-sheet of the fraction. Thus this presentation has taken the form of an activities report such as we could have presented it within the ICC today if we weren't expelled. So, it's at the same time as presentation of this bulletin and even more as an "activities report", with a balance-sheet - of course a quick and incomplete one - and with proposed perspectives, of an internal fraction of the ICC - political choice that we do claim - that this presentation might be read.
We try to make it as readable as posible for the no-well informed reader. This is why we try to refer systematically our affirmations to the internal bulletins of the ICC not accessible for the no-members of the ICC or of our fraction. If it was to be necesary, any reader can contact us in order we give him precisions or we provide him, eventually and under certain conditions, the texts themselves. In any case, as usual, all our affirmations are verifiable.

A year. Already a year that we set up the internal fraction of the ICC and that we have published our first bulletin. This one is the thirteenth. At the beginning, we weren't thinking of publishing a bulletin every month. It's the circumstances and our own dinamic of political work and struggle which determined this publication rate. As we don't consider ourselves as a political group as such, in particular through a public expression with a publication, we didn't think, and we still don't think, to be obliged to a particular rate. Nevertheless, these thirteen bulletins do exist and are already an experience, one link, certainly a very small one, but a real link of the historical chain of the proletariat and of its political organizations (without forgetting the political texts written by the members of the fraction and published in the internal bulletins of the ICC before they suffer censorship).


Already a year since we were compelled to gather as an organized minority to confront the process of drift and questionning of the organizational principles and practices of the ICC. We had foreseen and announced this process from the very next day after the 14th congress (May 2001) within the organization through a written text. The new organizational methods and the new organizational internal practices which were introduced, were "justified" to the militants of our organization by an analysis appeared from no-where on the existence of a baleful clan, "the most dangerous of the clans", and of a "sect with nazi and stalinist methods" : the "pavillon-clan-2". This so-called "clan" which was organized around Simon and which had been already identified and "eliminated" in 1993-1995, would have reappeared again "mischievously and shiftily" with the alledged guru Michel manipulating all the IS (Secretariat of the international central organ of the ICC) and all the parisian militants ; and finally all the ICC. A true plot. And above all a complete questionning of all the balance-sheets of the internal activities since 1996 which defended and claimed the opposite of the new analysis. This "analysis" of a "pavillon-clan-2" which was, and still is, without any real concrete elements, which does contradict the real internal history of the ICC, which is without any political basis, was breaking, and inevitably breaks with all the past internal, organizational, political orientations of the ICC which had been adopted unanimously since 1996.

Two visions and two practices of the communist militantism were confronting within the ICC
In particular, the past orientation was fighting an increasing tendency towards a "mystical", a "merging" ["fusionnelle" in french, "fusionning" ?], sectarian vision and practice of communist militantism. It was defined as "integral militantism" because it mixes and merges ["fusion"] all the political and personal (included the sentimental and above all psychological ones in that precise case) dimensions of the communist militants' life. And this political orientation led in a systematic way within all the ICC, had reached the point where it was questionning directly the militant practice of certain "eminent" members of the organization ; and moreover manouverist and manipulating behaviours of one of these militants were going to be inevitably posed in front of all the organization. It's precisely this criticism and questionning of a certain kind of militantism that the accusation appearing suddenly for the greatest surprise of all the militants, of a clan prevailing within the ICC, succeeded to hush up first and then to eliminate. But by imposing without contradictory discussion the analysis of clanism, has been opened the door for a "true struggle for power", for a real policy of the "permanent bid for power", of the "coup d'Etat", where all the "blow under the belt" and all the manouvers, provocations and manipulations tipical of leftism were allowed (1) ; and yet worse, has been opened the door for an ineluctable opportunist process of questionning the internal organizational practices and principles of the ICC.

It's this clanish "analysis" - to tell the truth a psycholigizing analysis - which shows clearly the renunciation to the political terrain, which we opposed to. And then for the new familial "majority", real "secret faction" since years within the organization, this political opposition was an additional "proof" of clanism with an "unanswerable" and ubuesque logic : "not to acknowledge the clan is belonging to it" or "it's well known, nobody sees the horse he's riding on". Anyone in the sections who expressed his disagreements with the "theoretical" texts of the new leadership funding the new orientation (the different reports of the Investigation Commission which has been created to drive out in every nook and cranny the manifestations of the so-called clanism, the Orientation Text on confidence (2), was accused of clanism or of being driven by his personal sympathy or antipathy in his political choices. It was no question for the faction "now in power" to answer on the political terrain to the political arguments of the militants with disagreements. First these last ones had to aknowledge their clanish failure and to confess their willingness to injure people. It meant that they capitulated on their political convictions. And above all, there was no question that this woolly analysis should be fought and contradicted by concrete facts and by political arguments. Since May 9th 2001, in the following day of the 14th congress when exploded openly the crisis which was maturing at least since 1998-1999, the policy of the "new orientation" has got only one goal : to silence and hush up the consequent political disagreements. Whether by discredibilizing, by demoralizing, by pushing them to resign for some ; for others by setting up different "coups" and provocations to isolate them and to silence them with sanctions, with suspensions without limit of time under the most cranky pretexts (3) ; finally by expelling them since they refuse to capitulate and persisted willing to lead the struggle within the ICC as an organized and recognized minority, as internal fraction of the ICC.

Why do we still today carry on claiming as being an "internal fraction" of the ICC ?
A year already and we carry on considering that we are still in the phase of "internal fraction" such as the Left Oppositions within the Communist International lived it in the years 1920's - far from us to compare ourselves to these past oppositions and the today ICC to the CI of yesterday but the processes present some disturbing similarities. It's precisely this phase the International Review 110 article on the fraction and the discipline completely erases in order to deny the existence of our fraction and the possibility of an opportunist process today... which could affect the ICC. We answer in this issue and we show how the "liquidationnist faction" liquidates the history of the workers movement and its lessons to the benefit of its own immediate interests. Isn't it specific of opportunism ?

We think that the phase of "internal fraction" or of "the struggle for correcting ["redressement" in french] the organisation", far from being an "organizational label", far from being a "tactical game" with the present ICC, corresponds to and sets, does set us, a method and orientations of action and reflection very precise and very delimited. Many writes to us, or have been writing to us, to express their disagreement or their misunderstanding with this orientation. It's even a debate within our ranks since one member of the fraction thinks too that we should dedicate more directly to a more radical criticism, "without ostracism", to the ICC positions. We already dealt with this question with isolated militants who wrote us (see our previous bulletins). On the contrary, the IBRP for one part, and the militants of the CPInt-Le Prolétaire (bordiguist organization) with whom we have discussed, understand - obviously from their respective point of view - the need to lead an internal struggle against the opportunist drift, and this up to its end.

Our method certainly looks less brilliant and less attractive but it is the "method of organization". It goes step by step. Once the problem identified, it consists to examine, to analize and to go back step by step. It means, as "historical method", to take back the concrete process which led to the political problem. In the ICC case, the beginning of the crisis has been an organizational problem. Two irreconcilable political lines conflicted on the militant behaviour, on the question of militantism, on the "integral militantism" and on the method of the political discussion. It existed questions that were less conflictive but which were present too since already some time : in regards with the international situation, the question of the historical course and the reasons for the imperialist wars with their link with the "decomposition" ; and finally the question of the opening to the Political Proletarian Milieu (political organizations and individuals "in research" for communist political coherence).

The other method that some defend against ours, is the Kark Korsch and Pappalardi's one in the years 1920, also Souvarine afterwards. They sought to question all questions as a whole.This method finally led to the rejection of the October 1917 Rusian Revolution and of the experience of the bolchevik party since, according to them, the revolutionary wave had failed and had ended with the stalinism advent. By ignoring the various stages, they finally lost themselves. Souvarine and Pappalardi had made an excellent political work, a genuine revolutionaries' work. We salute them for what they brilliantly did. But they wanted to question the "redressment" ["redressement" in french] method, the "internal-fraction" method, against the "redressors" ["redresseurs" in french] as they called the Opposition and the Italian Fraction.
"The first split freed us of the disciplinary bigotrism where the "redressors" of the Comintern, pitiful centrists, still flounder. But this first split which we owe to the Prometeo elements and which allowed us to discover a wider horizon, is not enough" (editorial of l'ouvrier communiste n°1, August 1929, translated by us from french )(4). Then, this group found out the German Left and pulled apart with elements as Piero Coradi who joined Prometeo of the Italian Left because they understood where was likely to lose itself the group (the change of name for the publication shows clearly the change of political orientation : from Réveil communiste [Communist Rewakening], it became the Ouvrier communiste [Communist Worker] with a "Korschist" tendency). And, today we know where Souvarine and Pappalardi ended. One in the work for the CIA after World War 2 and the second in anarchism and finally in the political void.

On the other hand, the patient and less spectacular method of Bilan (the Left Fraction of the Italian Communist Party) bore fruits. It consisted, from the existing organizations, the CI and the CPs, to make their criticism while defending the political principles which had founded them and the communist program. It turned out to be the right path : it allowed the Communist Left to survive. It gave birth to the ICC, the CPInt-IBRP and to the bordiguist CPIs. It's why we, as "internal" fraction of the ICC, even excluded, we can't miss out the defence of the political principles of the ICC that we think they are in process of being abandonned and liquidated. More over, it's in this very defence itself that we'll be able to make a critical balance-sheet of the process which saw the ICC leading up to it last organizational crisis.

We consider that, despite its opportunist drift, the ICC has not betrayed yet the proletarian camp. The reader can refer to our criticism in this bulletin to the International Review 110's article on the Indo-Pakistan conflict to understand the reality and the rythm of the opportunist process which suffers the ICC, and its internal, political, contradictions, with which it is necessarily and inevitably confronted. What is at stake at that level is not that the ICC betrays openly today, at once, but that it, and with it its members, is more and more weakened, disorientated, unarmed, confused in front of the increasing acceleration of the historical situation and in front of more and more dramatical events. The reader will see in our critical text how the today ICC is more and more powerless to understand the present historical events and how it begins to open the door to the tomorrow most serious betrayals. But this process isn't a linear process and it allways exists a contradiction, a latent political confrontation, between two tendencies within the ICC even though the relation of forces already existing before the 14th congress has been completly, and maybe for ever, reversed. Thus, there is still a struggle to lead for jaming and eliminating its present opportunist dinamic and for saving what can still be saved on the organizational, militant, political, theoretical and principle levels. If our text on this article in our bulletin could help the militants of the present ICC to, at least, be conscious of the political drift at that level, if they can't stop it definitively, and to try to be more cautious, we would be the first satisfied.

Today, it means for the moment, this struggle imposes us to make a balance-sheet of the organizational crisis of the ICC that we have widely started (see in our bulletins #1 and #6 the two activities reports that we had presented and the IS History) for one part and, for the other, to defend its experience and political principles on the organizational level (see our texts in our bulletin on the organizational experience of the Italian Left and of the 1920's and 1930's oppositions) as well as political (see in particular our positions on the international situation in our bulletins).
Moreover in this bulletin #13, we carry on with our effort on this last level by publishing an individual contribution of comrade Jonas on the significance of the German elections outcome. We publish it as individual contribution because we had no time to discuss it up to today in the fraction. Nevertheless,we think important to put it at the disposal of all militants of the Proletarian Political Milieu without waiting our next bulletin.

To conclude on this level, the present phase of "internal fraction" is the one of the struggle for redressing our organization. This struggle can't be but in defence of the classical positions of the ICC and criticizing the "new positions" which are deviations and even betrayals in relation to the first ones. That we can assume it "from inside" or "from outside" doesn't change that we are and that we remain "internal fraction of the ICC". And it is only in this process of defence and criticism for one hand, and of balance-sheet on the other, that we'll might be led to reconsider - or not to reconsider - such or such "classical" position of the ICC and to develop certain positions. It can appear to be insufficient, or too slow, to some comrades. For us, it's a conscious political choice and fully within the tradition of the fractions and oppositions which fought, in particular in the second half of the years 1920, against the degeneration of the Communist International. We're convinced there is no other path.


One year and we can already present a first balance-sheet, or rather a first critical report of the ICC which is obvious and clear for anyone who wants to look at it seriously on the organizational and militant level as well as on the political and theoretical levels, as on the level of its intervention and its role in the process and the struggle for the regroupment of the revolutionaries. This balance-report is particularly negative. The reader can refer to the activities report we had presented at the International Bureau meeting of January 2002 (see our bulletin #6 which can be read on our english pages web site recently opened : which already announced what was going to occur and which shows the continuity of our political line since... at least 1996.

The loss, the resignation and the expulsion of militants
On the internal, militant and organizational, the balance-sheet of the present ICC policy is particularly negative.
The loss of 7 experienced militants in Paris and 4, amongst the more, if not the most, active in Mexico, is one particular expression of this. But still more significant is the acknowledgement of the loss of almost 20 militants in Paris since 1993 whose great majority was experienced militants.
Indeed there is a great difference between these militants and ourselves. For their part, within the ICC, they didn't lead any significant political struggle against the existence of the "pavillon-clan" during the former crisis of 1993. Most of them had even adopted and voted this analysis at the time acknowledging the reality of clanism (it's not our intention here to state if it was correct or not). For our part, we have always opposed this "analysis" of a pavillon-clan-2 within the organization and we've even wanted and tried - despite the fact it was forbidden for us since the monthly IS of July 2001 - to present an alternative analysis of the internal crisis. For their part, they ended with their resignation of the ICC and they don't want to get back to it. For our part, we've been expelled and we ask to get back as fraction in the ICC.
But what can be our political disagreements with most of them, and we believe that today they are profound, remains a question to which we have no response for the moment : why such a loss of militant energy ? Why and how the ICC - thus too ourselves at the time - hasn't been able to save all these militants ? Or at least a part of them ? The IBRP gives an answer that we don't share but that we must think about (5). For our part, we have some partial elements of response and some leads that we plan to go into and to present. Our IS History poses a certain number of questions and opens up a certain number of leads (6) on the subject.

The disorientation and the lack of conviction and enthusiasm of the militants still ICC members
But maybe even more serious is the state of disorientation of the militants still ICC members in relation to :
- the past orientation from 1996 to 2001 (amongst others the orientation against the "integral militantism"") today silently rejected ;
- the lack of conviction on the analysis of a clan and the supposed wrongdoings of the fraction (should they break any personal and militant relations with the members of the fraction, all old militants and up to the crisis "honourably" respected, and should they consider them as enemies to be destroyed with the risk of falling into sectarism ?) ;
- their passivity in front of the open abandon of the principles (the building up of a permanent investigation commission, the refusal of recognition of the fraction, the censorship in the Public Meetings...) ;
- their fear to express their doubts on the theoretical innovations (the great majority of the militants were in profound disagreement with the Orientation Text on the confidence founding the new orientation, but it's true that to express this disagreement was, and might still be, denounced at once as a manifestation of clanism and of distrust towards the central organs) ;
- the self-culpabilities and the individual self-criticisms on their personal feelings (in particular the general uneasiness provoked by militant behaviours, thus political, of a militant ) which were the expression of the abandon of the political terrain ;
- the obvious willingness for a great number to "bend their head until the storm is over" with the shamefull and demoralizing feeling that they didn't defend their convictions ;
- the fear in front of the political fight and the confrontation of ideas (seen and understood only as expressions of personal conflicts - with no doubt there is here a particularly perverted, destructive, effect of the theory on clanism posed as an absolute category. This is a fault in which the ICC finally fell) ;
- the generalised confusion on the analysis of the new international situation (September 11th, Argentina) which increasingly expresses in the heterogeneity and the contradictions of the ICC press articles.

All these characteristics - no doubt we do forget some - which undergo the ICC militant forces since a year, are at the same time factor and expression of a destructive process of the political consciousness and of the militant conviction of the honest (8) members - the great majority of them - of the ICC.

A general distrust
The liquidationnist faction is well conscious of the political and militant distrust it does inspire to most of the ICC members - stronger, more numerous, more solemn, are the declarations of confidence, more doubts are invading after what has just happenned. The faction is well conscious too of the lack of conviction on the new policy amongst the militants. If not, why had it to make adopted a motion - why doesn't it publish it ? - ordering all the ICC militants to break any link, even personal or familial, with our fraction members ? And banning us of oral intervention in its Public Meetings ? If the liquidationnist faction had confidence in its own policy and in the ICC militants, it wouldn't need to make adopt such measures typical of the sects and similar to what the stalinised CPs of the years 1920 and 1930 imposed to theirs militants. But the reduction of any political divergence and of any organizational difficulty to the category of "clanism", other theoretical innovation of the ICC, inevitably leads to the distrust towards and amongst the militants. It's exactly the justification which has been given for the proposal to change the statutes for the constitution of a permanent investigation commission which is autonomous - it means which is appointed by the liquidationnist faction - and which is independant - it means without control and without mandate of the organization as a whole.

The Investigation Commission (IC)
"The organisation has to fight with the greatest determination for confidence and trust within its ranks. The Investigation Commissions (IC) are a tools to re-establish this trust (...). They also serve as the tool to detect these alien ideologies and behaviours" (Activities report adopted in September 2001, underlined in the original text which is written in english). It means that the "IC" substitutes itself to the collective body constituted by the organization and to the collective life which has to be as wider as posible through the open debate. It's all the contrary of the tradition of all the workers movement.We don't developp here. Let's go on. "An Investigation Commission can only fulfill its task if it enjoys total independance (...) cannot be responsible to a central organ such as the IB [International Bureau : the central organ of the ICC appointed and mandated by the congresses !] or the IS [the permanent secretariat of the IB] only to the congresses". Thus, the IC has no mandate and actually isn't responsible to anyone, except during the congresses, it means two or three days every two years. Meanwhile it does what it wants (9).
The incredible logic runs its own course : "this why the organisation must have trust in the method used by the commission". By principle, it's forbiden to disagree with its method, and thus consequently with its conclusions. Why ? Because ! "Being realistic we have to expect the «element» that it [the IC] investigates to defend itself and to attack the IC". Kafkaesque ! Whether the "element under investigation" doesn't argue to defend himself and therefore he is guilty. Whether he defends himself and argues against the commission, and so does question its method and its conclusions, and then it's an additional proof that he's guilty ! Obviously, for our case, the "charge" was even heavier since we rejected and dismantled the "method" used (see our activities report, January 2002, bulletin #6, available in our english web pages)

What is the conclusion of this activities report adopted by the September 2001 IB meeting ? "We have to institutionalise such a body and adapt our statutes accordingly". Thus constituting permanently such an organ of "control", of surveillance, written in the statute, out of any criticism, independant of the rest of the organization and above all independant of the central organs even so appointed and mandated by the whole organization and responsible to it for the political orientations adopted. Is there any need to say that it's precisely a betrayal of all the ICC experience and tradition, as well as the Left Communist's and all the workers movement's ?

The liquidation of the organizational principles and practices
The fight against the opponents, then against our fraction, has led the new "leadership" to bring the ICC to increasingly call into question its organizational acquisitions and practices. For the first time, an organised minority hasn't been recognized in the organization ; for the first time, militants have been banned for publication in the internal bulletins until they hadn't made their selfcriticism ; for the first time, texts (the Text of orientation on the confidence - June and July 2001 monthly IS meetings -, activities resolutions - September 2001 IB meeting - have been adopted, voted even before they were written, just after an oral presentation and without real discussion, etc...(7) which constitutes real bid for power ["coup de force" in french] ; for the first time, sanctions against militants have been decided without having listen to them ; for the first time, a militant (Juan) has been condamned and threaten of exclusion, already, for having presented an alternative activities report (August 2001 monthly IS meeting as do testify the minutes - the activities report is published in our bulletin #1) ; for the first time, militants have been suspended for "having taken notes" (10) ; for the first time, willing to verify the confidence, as was Lenin's expression and position, in the central organs was an expression of disloyalty towards the organization ; for the first time, a permanent investigation commission, autonomous and independant, in charge of driving out any manifestation of... clanism and disloyalty, has been decided (September 2002 IB meeting, see above) following the example of the sinister Commissions of Control of the stalinized CPs. What does show that it breaks with all the tradition of the ICC on this ? Its proposal was accompanied with a changing of the statutes ! Thus needless to denounce us publicly as liars or slanderers as regularly do the "liquidators". We can prove all we advance. Of course, behind all this, there is a whole serie of other practices which goes with this process. We'll have occasion to get back on this.
It's a true liquidation of the organizational principles and practices of the ICC and the whole Left Communist which had occurred. It's why we have called the familial faction and theirs personal friends, the "liquidationnist faction". It is not an insult but a political caracterization.

The "theoretization" of this liquidation
It has been necessary to politically and theoretically justify this liquidation. It's really unfortunate that the ICC hasn't yet published any of its last brilliant and numerous innovations. Besides the Text of Orientation on the confidence which just justify "theoretically" the secrete, manouverist, manipulating behaviours of militants, and one in particular (11), besides the activities reports adopted in September 2001 and January 2002, other eminent written contributions which, no doubt, will remain in history, came into being. Some put forward a new theory : some militants would be more capable for representing the "red thread", the one of the theoretical and political continuity of the proletariat (12) such as Marx, Lenin, MC and... (the short list ended there while it strongly let to understand that someone was next). While others, for the contrary, would be more fragile, would wear out ["s'user" in french] quicker and would be inclined to fall into... clanism except if they were saved by the... first ones. In particular, a certain Michel of the IS was particularly covered by clanish "scars" not closed up and he was congenitally called to wear out (see one of the "pre-reports" of the investigation commission for the 14th congress)...

The defence of the organization, the danger of opportunism and the historic period
, other Text of Orientation (13) adopted by the January 2002 IB meeting, came to endorse the theory of the "red thread militants", to approve an elistist vision of the militant appeared some months before. It goes back too, one more time, on the psychological explanations of the existence of the so-called clan and the "jealousy" of its members. "The characteristic expression of this degeneration [previously defined as the "internal decomposition of clanism" (?)] is the open rejection of the principle of individual responsability, this central aspect of communist militantism (...). In particular, the fact that MC (14) never disguised the fact that, for certain tasks of theoretical elaboration or defence of the organization, he had more confidence in some comrades than in others, was a factor crystallising clanic resentments" (this text was written in english).
Let's leave aside the "kitchen" psychological explanation which joins the other affirmation that "the IS members were jealous of MC's particular affection toward the same militant". Let's too leave aside our own personal memories of the diverse, various and some times contradictory, talks and reflections that MC, as anyone in his daily life and in a given context, could be led to make to such or such comrade. At this game of "MC-told-me" as we denounced it within the ICC, the liquidationnists would be surprised.
More important is the political vision of the militant which appears here following other texts. This confining ad vitam eternaem of such communist individual in such or such "quality" is totally alien to the original conception of the ICC (and of MC), and of all the workers movement history. It's rightly the sane understanding of the importance of the reflection and the struggle in an organized framework, it means colletive, which founds the ability and the struggle in order the militants can precisely tend towards a maximum of militant capacities. And the examples are numerous, in the ICC and in the workers movement history, of militants who could ovecome theirs difficulties or past errors and who could assume all their responsability in the following collective fights.
We still would have a lot more to say on this text and its wild imaginings pseudo-theoretical. No doubt we'll have occasions to get back to it.

Finally, one of the last internal work that we had the occasion to know and that we keep - it's precious - in our archives, is particularly worth. It's entitled : "On the necessity of revolutionary indignation in the defence of the organisation". Firstly, this text aimed to justify the insults, the threats, the scandals and other cries, that the parisian liquidationnists opposed to our arguments in the Paris section meetings regardless to any organizational rule of debate and meetings. It is also a violent criticism to all the militants who were not, at least, in agreement with these skids (it is an euphemism !), criticism which doesn't seek but to culpabilize them. At last, it's an encouragement (an obligation ?) to do the same and to developp the denouncements. Selected extracts :

"The Monthly IS meeting of December 2001 has decided to draw the attention of the ICC to one of the most dangerous and most underestimated effects of opportunism in general, and of clanism and affinitarianism in particular : the way in which they erode the necessary
fervour in the defence of the organisation. The most visible sign of this erosion is the fact that it has taken such a long time for the outrageous activities of the present clan to provoke genuine outbursts of proletarian outrage (...). But the fact that many other comrades have listened to such calomnies without reactions of indignation, and that some comrades hesitate to report to the Investigation Commission about such practice, is something which undermines the revolutionary ardour without which no proletarian struggle against capitalism is possible (...). One recent manifestation of this problem is the malaise of certain comrades in face of the indignation of comrade Peter at the extraordinary meeting of RI North [Paris](...).
It is politically necessary, even indispensable, to be indignant in face of what the clan is doing (...). For the proletariat, revolutionary consciousness and passion do not contradict or blur, but condition and enforce each other (...).
It is striking that our weaknesses on this question today are not only expressed in practice, but here and there even at the theoretical level - for instance in the shrugging of shoulders in face of the affirmation of the 2001 
Text of Orientation on the confidence that the questions of confidence and solidarity - and with them that of the defence of the organisation - are affairs not only of the mind but also of the heart (...). In the present struggle, the two poles, the proletarian and the anti-proletarian one, are clearly distinguished at the emotional level also. The anti proletarian mentality is expressed first and foremost in the blind hatred of the clan. The proletarian mentality is expressed first and foremost in the indignation of face of the transgression of class principles. There is a world of difference - a class difference - between these two emotional reactions. The one is purely negative and destructive, characterised by the hatred of persons, seen as rivals or enemies. The other is positive and constructive, characterised by a profound attachment to the cause of the proletariat and a radical opposition to the capitalist system" (December 2001, Text of Orientation on the revolutionary indignation adopted by the ICC !)

Besides this large quotation says a lot on the "fraternal" and the meeting atmosphere - we can note the militants's resistances and passivity which is condemned here, in particular that they don't "denounce" enough to the Investigation Commission -, it'll enable the reader to have an idea of the arguments and the ground imposed by the liquidationnist fraction to the "debate". It'll too enable to verify the weakness of the militants' conviction in the struggle against the so-called clan. For the liquidationnists, it matters here to justify, as in the Text of Orientation on the confidence, various militant behaviours and attitudes of which the comrades present at the ICC public meetings in Paris and México, it means in front of our presence, could get a general survey. As for who is factor of hatred, slanders, insults, and who looks to the other as an enemy, is enough for the reader to have a look to the ICC articles on our fraction and the terms we're qualified of, and to compare them to the texts in our bulletin. Or, as well, to compare the attitudes in the public meetings (15).

Actually, this text means that there is no more communist organizational rules, nor in the holding of the meetings. Those who have the favourable relation of forces have the right to get indignant, to cut the others' oral interventions, to orientate their content with the game of questions such as "you don't answer to the questions, do answer to the question !", and to insult the other comrades... After the May 2002 ICC public meeting in Paris, the reader will be able to see the application of this "political" orientation in the Mexico public meeting last August in the report that we publish in this bulletin.
Of course, the great revolutionary indignants are very talented and particularly courageous in front of a yet favourable audience. But we have noticed in two, three, occasions, that they become all timid and all pityful when they are isolated in front of us despite our fraternal attitude. It is that the revolutionary indignation knows its "objective" limits and, conscious of the immediat political - physical ? - relation of forces, it withdraws from the terrain as a coward and then abandons our indignants who have nothing to their disposal but their little and weak conviction and their poor arguments. Is it necesary to say that there is nothing communist in this courageous indignation and a lot of political cowardice and leftism ?

At last, the present ICC is inevitably led to negate the real history, to rub out some parts of it, and to invent a new one. It's precisely what had occurred with the internal ICC history as our History of the IS proves it. But it's also what is happening in regards to the Left Fractions of the years 1920 and 1930. We call the reader to look in this bulletin issue at our criticism of the ICC article on the fractions published in the International Review 110.

Thus on the "internal", the balance-sheet is particularly catastrophic on the militant, organizational political and theoretical levels. Towards the "external", it means on the level of the intervention towards the working class, the situation isn't better.

The fetishism of the social decomposition or the speculative idealism of the ICC
Any attentive reader of the ICC press has noticed the heterogeneity and the confusion of the articles on the international situation, at least since September 11th 2001 (see our bulletins). The different positions of the ICC on the social situation in Argentina are particularly contradictory. For one hand, there is nothing to expect of these struggles ; for the other hand, there are expressions of the working class. The IBRP statement in Internationalist communist #21 makes a criticism whose some aspects we share even though our analysis framework remains the ICC one, the original one. We refer our reader to our statements in our bulletins. The criticism we make in this bulletin on the International Review #110 article on the Indo-Pakistan conflict, dismantles one more time the idealist and speculative method which increasingly prevails in the present ICC analysis. This method turns the phenomenon of the social decomposition into an absolute concept to which any event, whatever it is, is necessarily reduced. Needless to develop here. This makes that the ICC has more and more difficulties to understand and to take into account the historical reality which unfolds in front of its very eyes. And to take on its responsabilities towards the proletariat and the political proletarian milieu.

The abandon of the struggle for the revolutionary forces regroupment
That one does share or doesn't share the ICC conception of the revolutionary forces regroupment, doesn't matter here. What is striking is that the "previous" ICC would have done all it could, to invite the other groups of the Communist Left to fit in with an united internationalist step in front of the September 11th 2001, in front of the Afghanistan war, indeed even in front of the social revolt in Argentina. As well, it's sure that the "previous" ICC would be inviting the Left Communist groups to prepare for a joint internationalist riposte in front of the war to come against Irak. The ICC "of today" defends its present sectarian policy because the sectarianism of the other groups makes useless such initiatives. So it notes their supposed "sectarianism" - doubtless acquired for ever for the present ICC - and it deserts the struggle against this political disease of the workers movement. It's all the opposite of the traditional ICC policy.

But above all, with its public treatments of its present crisis - and we'll have to get back to its public treatment of the 1993 crisis, in particular on the publication of its pamphlet La paranoïa (only in french) which has been withdrawn from saling afterwards -, it discredits the very idea of a communist organisation, it lends credit to the councilist and anti-party confusions, and it weakens the whole Left Communist. As notes Internationalist Communist #21, "The ICC's condemnation of its splitters (16) as «parasites» generates much bitterness but little clarity and risks bringing opprobrium on all political minorities of the internationalist communist left". It's exactly what is occurring. In particular towards the new elements looking for political coherence and who moved closer to the ICC. The texts we publish in this issue from a mexican ICC sympathizer and whose solidarity letter to the ICC had been published in the July 2002 Revolucion Mundial, illustrates the evolution of the comrade and the destructive dinamic of the consciousness and the conviction of the sympathizers provoked by the present policy of the Current. We call the attention of the reader on his statements and to reflect on the outcomes of the ICC public meeting in Mexico on this comrade who, disgusted, risks to demoralize and to go away from the political groups of the Left Communist, as well as on the sympathisers of North-México who fall into the caricatural shortcomings of the leftist militants and who turn their back to the political opening-up and confrontation spirit of the communist militants.

Other mails that we receive - we can't publish all of them - from ICC sympathizers are also very revealing. We'll certainly publish some. In the 1993 internal crisis, a great number of sympathizers and former members had spontaneously expressed their solidarity with the ICC as begun to do the mexican comrade in the present crisis. In both cases, and with the concrete elements the comrades had at their disposal, they were right, sane and positive reactions that we saluted and that we carry on salutating. Today, the confidence whom old sympathizers and militants had in the ICC, has disappeared, or tends to disappear. It provokes amongt them an increasing distrust towards any political organization. Here is one of the results, external, palpable and verifiable result, of the liquidationnist policy of the ICC. It liquidates also its opening-up and reference tradition, its tradition of pole of regroupment. And the few integrations the ICC makes today, or will accelerate, will not change something to this balance-sheet given the conditions and the political basis of these integrations.


The fraction proposes today a consistent and resolute political orientation for the ICC against its opportunist drift
One year and a half after the explosion of the ICC crisis, the balance-sheet is already catastrophic and the present dinamic will accelerate. Except if rises up a consistent political opposition within the ICC itself which is unlikely today. There is just one force, our fraction, which, on the basis of the political and organizational continuity, on the basis of the orientation led since 1996, have a positive, concrete and realistic orientation to defend and to propose to the present ICC and to its militants. It goes by :
- the reinstatement of the fraction as an organized minority within the ICC and the withdrawal of all the disciplinary measures against it ;
- the public rehabilitation of the honour of all the excluded or resigning militants, member or not of the fraction, who has been with no reason, unjustly and precipitately sullied and slandered in the internal and external ICC press ;
- the open confrontation in the organizational framework and in front of all the political proletarian milieu of the two antagonistic and irreconcilable political lines that we noted since the next day of the 14th congress (publication in the International Review of our critical texts to the Text of Orientation on the confidence ; publication of the Investigation Commission reports with our critical positions, etc...) ;
- the defence of the political orientations put forwards by the former ICC majority crystallized in our two activities reports which are in frontal and irreconcilable opposition with the adopted orientations presented in the reports of the new majority ;
- the wider possible discussion of our History of the IS to get back to the origins and the roots of the crisis ;
- the real, fraternal, opening-up to the proletarian political milieu, the abandon of the sectarian policy and of the sterile polemics, and the taking into account of its criticisms and analysis ;
- the grasp of the new situation opened up with September 11th 2001 : a conscious and determined step of the great powers towards the imperialist war and their determination to impose this outcome on the international proletariat, in particular on the great workers concentrations of Europe and North-America ;
- the serious criticism of the speculative and idealist method which has became dominant within the ICC today on all the questions, organizational ones as well as political ones.

The intervention of the fraction towards the proletarian political milieu
Since we've decided to open our internal bulletins to the whole proletarian political milieu, organisations and their contacts and sympathizers, we consider that our area of internal discussion is not any more limited to the single ICC but to the whole political milieu which will have to become the active and determining factor for the building-up of the future world communist party. We think that the questions which are raised by the ICC crisis, its opportunist drift, concern and "belong" to the whole components of this milieu. Moreover, if we think we are still in the phase of "internal fraction", of "redressment", of the ICC with its method and its very precise political requirements, we have also to make up for the responsibities that the ICC is giving up, such as the struggle for the unity and the defence of the Left Communist. Or too, if it's the case, in front of a crucial event (such as September 11th (17), the war against Irak, or significant workers struggles) which would need the widest and the most united intervention of the revolutionaries.

The ICC is abandoning today any consistent "unitarian" intervention towards the proletarian political milieu. All groups and revolutionary elements are seen as enemies. Isn't the ICC accusing the IBRP of "conspiracy against the ICC" (Révolution internationale #326, September 2002) ? What is it going to say after the reaction of Le Prolétaire in front of the insults and the physical attack against one of its militants ? Again a plot ? A lie ? A slander ? That's why we defend the orientation which the "previous" ICC had towards the other groups but adapting it to the present reality : it's not any more the ICC "of today" that can play the role of pole of reference and regroupment - it's rather becoming a repulsive factor and is giving the image of a sect. We think on the contrary that the IBRP, in particular, is the organization which has the possibility and the historical responsability to play this role, on the basis of its attitude and of a dinamic it has developped since some years now.

This means for our fraction the study and the discussion of the positions developped by the other groups and isolated militants as well as their criticism of the ICC positions not for "storing up ammunitions" against these groups as liked to say some in the ICC, but for really understand the meaning and the "historical" review of their statements. Whether to politically fight them when we think they are erroneous, or to take them into account in our own reflection.

At the same time, this orientation goes through opening up to the whole milieu the organizational experience that we've just lived and through presenting the political lessons we're going to draw. Concretely, it undergoes with :
- a pamphlet, in the process of realization, on the 1925-1929 period with in particular the organizational lessons of the degeneracy of the French Communist Party which is worthwhile for all the communist and revolutionary organizations ;
- finishing to draw the lessons of the ICC crisis ;
- the defence of the ICC experience during more than 30 years of existence ;
- the debate on all these lessons within the Left Communist ;
- the discussion on the questions posed by the present international situation ;
- our active and practical support to the intervention of the Left Communist groups, included of the ICC when we'll be in agreement with its positions, particularly in front of the historical events of first importance.

Until we think being in the period of "internal fraction", the one where the "redressement" of the old organization is posible, we'll stick to these perspectives of work. For the present time, there is no question for us to constitute a new political group which would not but add to the division, to the dispersal, and to the discredit of the Left Communist groups provoked by the present liquidationnist policy of the ICC.

We said in the preamble of this introduction of the bulletin, that we consider it as an activities report for the ICC. It's as such, and although it is obviously uncomplete since we are excluded of the internal discussions of the ICC, that we present it "officially" to the ICC and its militants. We propose an orientation alternative to the opportunist, sectarian and "liquidationnist" drift which prevails in our organization today.
Thus we insist that this report is being presented to the next ICC congress - although we may join annexes afterwards.
We insist too for our reintegration within the ICC as an internal fraction.

October 2nd, 2002

(1) We'll have the occasion to get back to this period of time for leaving a trace of it in history.
(2) Our presentation is already written when we learn that the International Review 111 of the ICC contains this text "on the confidence". We'll get back on this.
(3) For instance, comrades Olivier and Juan had been suspended for having taking written notes during meetings.
(4) "La première scission nous a dégagé du bigotisme disciplinaire où pataugent encore, centristes piteux, les redresseurs du Comintern. Mais cette première scission dont nous sommes redevables aux éléments de Prometeo et qui nous a permis de découvrir un horizon plus large, n'était pas suffisante".
(5) We call the attention of the reader to the last issue of Internationalist communist #21.
(6) We don't think to make free to disposal this document which could be used by hostile forces to the Left Communist. Nevetheless, we think to send it to the groups of the proletarian political milieu and to the interested militants not so much to make them take position for or against the fraction, or the ICC. It's not our aim. But in order this text which relates concretly, from the minutes of the IS, it means from verifiable facts and from the daily concrete life of an organization, can serve as a reference and give a concrete experience on the methods, conscious or unconscious ones doesn't matter here, to make implose an organization by the means of manouvers, practices, dirty tricks, slanders, and by the psychological manipulation, etc... This is why we consider this text as an important historical document on a concrete organizational experience. For our part, we had always regretted that this same kind of work had not been done on the 1982 CPInt-Communist Program explosion. We're convinced that it could have been very useful for us.
(7) See our activities report for the IB plenum meeting of January 2002, part "The destructive use of "all-clanism", bulletin #6 available in our english web pages, or the text "Poids et mesures" ["Weight and measures"], bulletin #7 not available on our web site.
(8) Given the image and the individual caracterizations made against the members of the fraction for the ICC militants from whom they have been systematically isolated since a year now, we must affirm one more time to the ICC militants, even those who finally have directly and actively supported the liquidationnists' policy, and without they feel guilty of "disloyalty" towards our organization the ICC, nor our "accomplices", that we have no personal grievance towards them, nor feelings of betrayal as some could express it. We still have respect and fraternity to them as militant which doesn't mean we have no strong criticisms of their political "positionning". We still keep personal friendship with them. For our part, when we meet, we still salute them - it's a question of class principle of course - even though they refuse with, for some of them, an "indignant look" particularly ridiculous. Let it pass...
(9) We'll have the occasion to go back on the concrete application of this vision before, during and after the 14th congress of the ICC.
(10) In this kind of process, the acceleration of the drift can be particularly quick. Olivier and Juan, members of the fraction and still members of the IB were invited after many months of suspension to the January 2002 IB meeting which was going to expell Jonas. That's was even the true reason why they were invited. From the beginnning, they insisted to be allowed to take notes and to keep them as it has always existed before in the ICC. Otherwise, they were refusing to participate to the meeting. During the "free-for-all" ["foire d'empoigne" in french, a difficult and discussion-fight] which followed, it has been proposed to constitute another new commission, one more, whose mandate would have been to verify at the end of the meeting all the participants' notes and to decide what they would be allowed to keep and what wouldn't leave the room ! The two members of the fraction defended our principle right to the end despite the "collective" pressure and the "revolutionary indignation" of some people. Finally, it was decided to accept our requirement in order "they can participate to the meeting". It's true that it was a matter of trying to compromise them afterwards in comrade Jonas' exclusion (see our bulletin #6).
(11) We don't know at the time of the realization of this bulletin, if the International Review #111 is going to publish the initial version of this text or if it'll be "arranged". We base ourselves to the version adopted in September 2001.
(12) Some even got up to the point where they presented one of the militants as the greatest marxist of our time in front of the political criticisms he was receiving. Let's say here, to be precise, that we've no written proof of this affirmation which was just oral.
(13) It's in this text adopted by the IB, thus official, that we are accused of being a "satanic sect with nazi and stalinist methods".
(14) Old militant today disappeared, member of Bilan, then of the French Left Communist (GCF), and main foundator of the ICC and whose legacy the liquidationnists claim to be exclusive to themselves, which does say a lot on their conception.
(15) Or still worse, the attitude against any militant in disagreement, included those members of other communist groups (see Le Prolétaire article repubished in this issue).
(16) That's a mistake of the IBRP which refers here to the whole ICC organizational crisis : we're splitters. We've been excluded and we ask for our reintegration in the ICC as fraction.
(17) At the last ICC public meeting in Paris, September 2002, the presidium still dared to affirm that we had refused to assume the organization intervention after the September 11th bombings and the war in Afghanistan. We have vigourously denied it in front the participants at this meeting. Nevertheless, it's enough for the latest to consider the way with which the ICC leadership treats our fraction and its members («methods of hooligans» worthy of «nazism and stalinism») to be convinced that it had never, and for "good reason" !, appealed us for such a task (some of us were already suspended at the time of the interventions). It's usefull to know that, since we had expressed our opposition, we've been very quickly removed from any organizational activity. But we don't doubt that this last lie, amongt others, is propagated everywhere towards the ICC sympathizers who have no means to verify. It had happened the same thing in internal towards all the no-parisian militants who neither could verify. It is up to the January 2002 IB meeting, the last meeting to which we could attend, in front of our refutations and arguments, that the liquidationnist faction had to concede that its affirmation about our supposed refusal to intervene, didn't correspond to the reality. We don't argue here. But today this lie is taken up again publicly. One more. The untrue escalation carries on ! At the public meeting held in México in July 2002, it has been said that the members of the fraction wanted to give up any political activity and did'nt want to be militant anymore.