Epilogue of the International Secretariat History or...
How the organizational principles of the ICC have been betrayed, then liquidated
During Summer and Winter 2001

Introduction

Again, we've received various correspondences of comrades and readers from different political horizons and different countries who ask us explanations about our expulsion of this organization. Not satisfied with the present ICC explanations and not getting to outline the political roots of the organizational crisis, these comrades rightly question themselves. The today ICC claims, and spreads around itself, that there were no political disagreements and that there was no reason for setting up a fraction within the organization. It explains that the opponents of that time, some has built up our fraction, were only driven by "clanism" and by their hostility, their "personal hatred", "their clanish and satanic hatred", up to the point it "recalls not only the methods of satanic sects, but also that of Nazism and Stalinism" (text on The Defence of the Organization adopted in January 2002) - unbelievable, isn't it (1) ? -, against other militants. The only explanation supposedly "political" to this psychological characterization is that these ruling (dirty) feelings we wouldn't have been able to repel, are the product of the weight of decomposition upon the communist militants. As for a political explanation, it's a little short, isn't it ?

Leaving aside the slanders which have "justified officially" (2) this expulsion, we want to come back on the real political questions : were there political divergences since Summer 2001 ? And if it's so, which ones ? For what political reasons have we constituted a fraction ? Was it politically, from a militant and communist point of view, justified ? In what - well before our supposed organizational and militant failures, our so-called indiscipline, which served afterwards to "legitimate" our expulsion - was there a process of giving up the organizational political principles and a breaking off with the spirit and the letter of the ICC Statutes which already justified the constitution of an organized minority, of an internal fraction such as provided by the Statutes of the ICC ?

The following text which is the Epilogue of the IS History, its last part, responds very precisely to these questions through the relation of all the period which comes from the 14th congress of the ICC when the crisis openly broke out, up to our expulsion 10 months later in March 2002. Thus the reader will be able to verify, whether he agrees or not with the ICC principles and positions on the organizational matter, the betrayal of the principles and the very Statutes of this organization.

We have no doubt that beyond the response to these questions and immediate questionings of our readers and correspondants, this experience will be a lesson for the future. In any case, it must. Indeed, the process which leads towards the futur communist party will inevitably face, under a form or another, this kind of organizational and militant "difficulties", indeed of organizational crisis. It's also the reason why we think important to publicly give elements of this crisis and to draw publicly political lessons. The question of communist organization and the question of communist militantism are for us fundamental political questions since they directly deal with the general principles and to the conception of the working class as the revolutionary class. Of course, the opportunist statements of the new Current on the international situation - defeatism and "indifferentism" in front of the workers struggles, opportunist concessions on the question of the imperialist war - and its revision of marxist basic positions - such as the open questioning of the historical alternative "socialism or barbarism" - find their roots in our ICC, the yesterday one, and in particular in the theory of decomposition as caracterized as "final period" of capitalism. But the fact remains that the betrayal and the liquidation of the organizational principles, and in particular the liquidation of the possibility for any internal political confrontation being politically and organizationally consistent - it means included up to the building up of organized minorities,tendency or fraction - which occurred in Summer 2001, has come to reinforce and to make definitively ruling the opportunist and revisionist drift also at the level of the general positions within the ICC of today. There is a dynamic link between both. The organizational crisis, the betrayal of the principles and the substitution of the communist discipline by a new discipline opposed to the principles has sped up the drift at the level of the general positions. Only by the simple fact it isn't any more possible, not to express an individual opposed point of view, but to assume a true political and militant confrontation which would be consistent... unless going again by the same way our fraction had to go.

For helping to understand the following text, we want to give a quick summary, a short presentation of the internal situation which preceded the 14th congress as our IS History puts it clearly to light. It can also be verified from the activities reports presented and unanimously adopted all along these years.

From 1996, just after the previous organizational crisis of our organization (1993-1995), militant and political difficulties, and even personal ones of different kinds - endangering, directly or indirectly, the communist commitment of militants who suffered them - developed in different parts of the ICC up to the 2001 crisis (3). They were particularly crystallized by a couple of parisian militants with central responsabilities within the organization, Peter and Louise. Mixing and "fusionning" ["merging" in english ?] personal life and militant life, these militants, amongst others, have developed and have particularly illustrated an erroneous, petit-bourgeois, individualistic and élitist, indeed carreerist, political vision and practice of communist militantism. This militantism that the ICC had characterized and criticized as "integral militantism", drags on since the origin of the organization and this one never fully succeeded to rid itself of it despite the political clarifications done on this matter all along its history. Linked with their petit-bourgeois vision of militantism, the two militants have succeeded, particularly Louise, to impose their "sentimental and couple problems" as political problems of the organization. With the passing of the time, and particularly from 1999, they took as hostage and "utilized" the central organs - clear illustration of their political weakness - of which they were member, International Secretariat (IS) and Secretariat (SE) of the central organ (CE) of the french section, to tackle their sentimental and family "disagreements" in the midst of a permanent and growing psychodrama.

For the essential, these difficulties were only known by the two secretariats and, at a less degree, by the International Bureau (IB) which unanimously adopted all along these years a political orientation that the IS tried to put into practice. In front of the continuing worsening of the situation at the "family" and militant levels, delegations of the IB were constituted to discuss with these militants of their personal problems. These ones being carried on, at least "officially", those delegations has been transformed, by a trick, into an "Investigation Commission" (IC) in January 2001 by request of Peter and Louise to look if they weren't rests of... clanism directed against them which would have provoked their personal and militant difficulties (4). Since then, this IC begun to substitute - first break with the organizational principles of the ICC and with the spirit of the Statutes - to the central organs mandated by the organization, the IS and IB ; it produced a report (directly dictated by the couple Peter-Louise) and presented it a few days before the international congress. This report concluded that they were no political disagreements but that there was a clan, suddenly appearing from nowhere, formed by 5 members of the IS against the 6th, Peter, because they were "jealous" of him - the 5 whose age average was more than 50 years old were jealous of the affection that the old militant MC, died more than 10 years ago, had to Peter (5) ! Everybody can clearly see here how the theory of clanism replaces, eliminates, the political and militant terrain and substitutes it for the psychological terrain which is particularly favourable to manipulations and to the destruction of the political consciounesses. Here there is a political, opportunist, liquidation of the marxist understanding and of the communist position on communist militantism.

During the May 2001 congress, the IB which normally doesn't exist anymore since it is supposed to give back its mandate, carried on meeting aside, but outside the congress, in special night and endless meetings. It adopted this report "in the name of Confidence", in the most total political confusion, and despite our opposition. It decided that this report and the accusations directed against the majority of the IS should remain secret, should not been presented to the congress and, therefore, not discussed by this one which is yet the "sovereign" organ - second break with the ICC principles and with the experience of all the history of the workers movement - because nor itself (the IB), and even less the congress, had the concrete elements for its discussion and for having an opinion (!). Thus the congress has been consciously kept in complete ignorance of the grave charges brought against militants... it was called to reappoint [to "reelect"] to be again members of the new IS (it will be done unanimously) after having "greeted and approved" the positive work they had accomplished during the two previous years. And this, while this same work was already rejected by the secret report which really drew the activities orientations of the organization for the years to come, the IC one which was at that moment the illegitimate but real central organ !

The two single concrete facts given to support the thesis of the "accusation" report were that the IS would have wanted to prematurely close, to "bury" a debate on the confidence and that it wanted that the couple Peter-Louise split and divorce. It was for trying to respond to these two single arguments given and accepted without any "verification" - other revision of principles of organization - which based the thesis of clanism, that the members of the former IS took back the minutes of the meetings to verify the reality of the charges. They begun to write what was going to be the 6th chapter of the History of the IS quoting important extracts of the minutes of the IS meetings. These refute without any possible doubt those two accusations. But the central organs, by order of the Investigation Commission, refused to take them into account and forbad us for using them.

The Epilogue we reproduce here, comes thus to just relate the facts and the incredible acceleration of the liquidation of the organizational principles one after the other just after this congress from May 2001 until our expulsion in March 2002. It carries on basing itself on the minutes of the meetings or extracts of the internal bulletins. But it's not anymore articulated around the minutes. Nevertheless, the reality of the related facts is irrefutable and one can refer to our first bulletins, specially for the period opened up from October 2001.

The reader "not well informed" thus must, to be able to make sense, keep in memory that the last chapters of the History of the IS show how the Investigation Commission substituted for the central organs mandated by the organization, included for the 14th international congress of the ICC ; he must know that the whole History shows the genesis of the crisis, destroys the report of the IC and the thesis of clanism, and underlines the maneuvers, the manipulations, the gossips, the slanders in the corridors and during the family and friendly meals of a true clique regrouped around the couple Peter-Louise ; it too reveals, with no possible objection, Louise's behaviours which are "indignant for a communist militant", not to say worse ; in particular, her systematic use of the sentimental difficulties of couples, specially their psychological difficulties and, even sometimes psychological illness, to manipulate, to destroy personal, family, sentimental, friendly relations and militants... So many concrete, real and verified facts and incidents to which nor Louise of course, nor the IC, nor the present ICC, have never responded to.

Thus, there were quite two opposed and contradictory analisis of the organizational ICC crisis after its 14th congress and two diverging political orientations requiring a political confrontation through the debate that we didn't succeed to impose within our organization. The Epilogue shows how, by opposing to this debate, by trying to smother it, by refusing that the whole organization and its militants could discuss the balance-sheet of the IS and its crisis as a central priority, the liquidationist faction inescapably drove the whole ICC and its militants who supported the thesis of clanism in the name of the "unity of the organization", into the liquidation of the organizational principles in order to silence us by all means. As the workers movement experience tells us, the organizational form which corresponds to the defence of principles about to be betrayed, is the fraction one.

To conclude, and even if it seems to us indispensable to give concrete political facts, for us it's not a matter to press the readers, whoever they are, to take position on the facts, on the accusations, nor even on the political correctness of our internal struggle. We know we are the only ones who can lead this struggle against the opportunist drift of our organization at this precise level, it means at the internal level - whether we are formally expelled doesn't change anything : we're the continuity of the ICC and we carry on insisting on our formal reintegration.

On the other hand, as organizations as the IBRP and the ICP-Le Prolétaire have already done, it matters to recall the tradition of the Communist Left in these situations of organizational crisis. And in particular, it's essential to understand how organizational principles have been betrayed, and then liquidated, in the name of the unity - formal one - of an organization already politically divided, it means really divided. Because, even if the accusations against us would have been valid, even if there would have been no political reason for building up an organized minority, even if we should have respected the new discipline - nothing to do with the discipline such as the true ICC had always considered it - which was imposed against us (6), even from the point of view of the "honest" militant who was then thinking to save the organization through the "saving of its unity" - unity, let's repeat it, which was already no more than formal - the cure is worse than the supposed "clanish" disease that we were, and others (actually all the parisian militants and a great majority of the ICC militants, amongst them the IB, according the IC thesis) supposed to be the carriers. Yet it was a lesson drawn by the Communist Left, specially the Italian Left, in the years 1920 and 1930. It's what the ICC militants had forgotten, may be what they ignored. It's what illustrates one more time the Epilogue of the 2001 organizational crisis of the ICC.

May 2004.

Information : the reader is already familiarized with the initials of the central organs, IS and IB, SE and CE. The two firsts are the permanent secretariats of the international central organ (IB) and of the section in France (CE). These central organs hold plenary meetings. And beyond its weekly meetings, the IS hold enlarged meetings during the summer 2001 in which participate European members of the IB. That's why there are "June IS, July IS meetings", etc... The reader will find too in the Epilogue the initials IIB and BIRI. They correspond to the International Internal Bulletin and to the Bulletin Interne de RI.

EPILOGUE

Our History of the IS ends with the last chapter, Chapter 24, which relates the 14th congress and the end of the former IS of the ICC. In this epilogue, we just come back to a serie of events which followed in order the reader can grasp the dramatical and irreversible consequences of the failure of the former IS and of the former IB to defend the ICC, its organizational and militant rules and principles.

May 9th 2001, two days after the congress, there is a section meeting in Paris which opens the beginning of a new phase of the struggle between two political antagonistic orientations. They now exist clearly and openly within the organization. From that day on, the supporters of the "liquidationist" orientation make all they can in order to exploit the advantage they've "won" at the congress and to make all the opponents give in or to eliminate them.

It's highly revealing that the IS named by the congress is a reduced IS and called "technical", it means an IS to dispose of some day-to-day matters, without political responsibility. The political responsability of the IS is actually assumed by the Investigation Commission. It's there the first break with the tradition, the principles and the organizational rules of the ICC.

This new phase is also immediatly opened up by a disciplinary process of sanctions against any expression of political opposition to the new analisis and to the new orientation which are carried by the single IC, the "liquidationist's" tool. This process is completly similar, in its "mechanism", less dramatical of course and in other historical circumstances, to the bolchevization process lived by the Communist Parties from 1924-1925 and which tended to impose the discipline for the discipline in itself, to smother any political life, to impose the renunciations, the self-criticisms and the political capitulation amongst the opponents ; then, for those who don't give in, to discredit them, to slander them, to set "traps" for them and to make up completly from start to finish untrue accusations and trials up to get their suspension with no limit of time and finally their expulsion.

We're going to come back more particularly to the period which goes from the congress (May 2001) to the IB plenary meeting in September 2001 since it's certainly this period that the militants know less. From September, the facts appear more clearly and we can refer to our bulletins to see the irreversible chain of sanctions looking for silencing any consequent opposition and for expelling those who refuse to capitulate. During that period, and on the basis of the unlimited and "by principle" confidence that the IB and the congress have granted it, the Investigation Commission is the true central organ of the ICC. Of course, and we could verify it concretely in various occasions, Peter, Louise and Bruno who aren't members of the IC, know all its works, ofently even before some of the members of this IC. Olivier, who is formally one of its members since the congress, is kept out of most of its works and discussions. The meetings in which he participates, have oftenly been already "prepared" by François, Krespel (members of the IC), Peter, Louise, and Bruno. Disgusted and conscious that it's all manipulated and controlled, Olivier resigns of this IC in July. After having noticed and verified the partiality of its "method" of work and its frequent "forgettings" in relation to concrete and irrefutable facts which question the liquidationists, their subterranean intrigues and their "policy"...

It's interesting to notice while studying this period, that the sanctions concern for the essential the political questionings of the IC as well as the interrogations (of political nature and expressed within the organizational framework) about Louise's militant behaviour. While the new minoritarians raise questions of principles (the recognition of the organized minority and the open political debate), of method (the rejection of the Text of Orientation 7), and of organizational practices (the rejection of the permanent use of force ["coup de force" in french which could be translated also by "putchism" or "fait accompli"], of the maneuvers and grafts, in the name of the struggle against the supposed clanism), what is significant is that the liquidationist faction only takes in consideration (and react in an hysterical and brutal way against) the questionings of the IC (the tool of its policy) and of Louise.

The meeting of May 9th and the opposition (still majoritarian) in Paris.

May 9th, two days after the congress, it's held thus in Paris the meeting which may present the works of the congress. Being a congress of delegations, a certain number of parisian comrades didn't attend it. It's Bruno who introduces the discussion which an other illustration of the liquidationists' seizure of the organization.

What does say his presentation of the works of the congress ? It mentions "very big difficulties within the secretariat of the central organ (OC) of the ICC" [therefore in Paris] and the existence of an Investigation Commission "at comrade Peter's suggestion" which has given a preliminary report to the congress. Bruno's presentation even quotes extracts of this report which mention that if "disagreements (...) express in tensions, in problems of functioning related to the organizational tissue, this is the sign of other problems [it gives to understand that the political disagreements have, to say the least, no great importance and that the problems are actually linked with clanism] that we must at once identify and tackle (...), that somewhere the conception of organization has been lost". These given extracts even make clear that the organization "can well have relapse" of crisis and difficulties, but that "we must clearly struggle against any demoralization which would arise on the basis of «it starts over again»" [that's an explicit innuendo to the revival of a clan in Paris]. Moreover the presentation ends with the conclusion of the report of the IC which says : "we think there is a manifestation of clanish spirit we'll have to investigate and specify" [all the quotations of the internal bulletins are translated from french into english by us].

Unless to consider the Paris comrades as idiots, this presentation clearly takes up Peter's accusations of the existence of "clan-pavillon-bis" in Paris. These accusations up until now have just been vaguely heard in the corridors. The militant of the section don't share them at all - except then Bruno, Peter and Louise. Thus, they are particularly demoralizing, destructive for the comrades and for the organizational "tissue" [atmosphere, trust, confidence, fraternity, frankness, honesty amongst the militants, note for the bulletin 25 in english] of the section because they are presented here as adopted by the IB and by the congress. The destructive effect of these accusations is even more fearsome since they aren't precised, nor concretized. As they're just vague innuendos in the form, they confuse the parisian militants who are unable to grasp the real content (the concrete facts they are reproached for) and thus unable to respond them. And even, as they're going to quickly discover it, it's forbidden to mention them and to question them !

Juan considers urgent to respond to this presentation which fully takes up the thesis of the IC, it means of the liquidationists, that above all the ICC must not discuss (???). What does he say ?

"Since past January in particular, we know it in Paris, the situation has accelerated, especially in the last 15 days. The unity of the organization was at stake at this congress. There was the risk that the functioning problems exploded. At that level, the congress is a success since it could maintain the unity of the organization. But, we must not hide the situation. The congress has been undergone by a true political struggle which developed openly within the IB and implicitly, partly in an hidden way, within the congress (...). We're going to put the cards on the table : This report [of the IC] said (...) that the Paris section, the IS, were infiltrated by clans. This report, without giving any concrete elements, took up this accusation of a "clan-pavillon" (...). The IB as such didn't take up the idea according to which there was a clan in the Paris section, that it was against Peter, Bruno and Louise, and thus that the organizational tissue of the Paris section was at the roots of the present difficulties".

He finishes his intervention in this manner : "the terms for a debate and for a political struggle on divergent political positions on the organization question, on the functioning and militantism, and on militant commitment, are posed and won't be put under the table anymore, nor hidden, nor even evaded" (this intervention is published in the bulletin of RI n°244, May 16th 2001).

Numerous delegates of other sections are still present in Paris and participate in this meeting. The great majority of the participants aren't offended by Juan's intervention. Many comes even to meet him at the end and express him their relief in regards with the uneasiness which developed the last weeks and during the congress. On the other hand, all are surprised of Peter's reaction who, interrupting Juan in many occasions, provokes a true scandal calling the presidium of the meeting to silence Juan because he would break the decisions of the congress.

Peter, Louise and Bruno can't accept that the thesis of the supposed clan adopted by the single IC, is discussed within the organization and is openly debated. If the whole organization takes over the question of the clan and above all if the organization resumes the idea that there is quite two contradictory political orientations, they won't avoid the discussion and the debate on the political level. Therefore it's in the name of the discipline, of the respect of the IB and of the congress "decision" (decision which has been taken in the greatest confusion, decision which doesn't even appear in the minutes of the congress, and which turns its back to the open debate), that Peter and the IC prohibit to raise openly the question and, thus, to open up a debate about the existence or not of a "clan-pavillon-bis". For Peter, Juan's intervention is an unbearable questioning of the policy of the liquidationist faction, of the IC, of its conclusions and of its "method".

The convening of the Extraordinary EC (french central organ) for May 19th and 20th

In the followings days, Peter thus tries - and succeeds - to create a fantastic panic and an incredible turmoil in all the ICC by presenting the Paris section on the verge of exploding. His goal is to make adopt a resolution condemning Juan who would have broken, with his intervention in the North section, the "decision" of the congress for not evoking the discussions of the IB. But he's confronted to an argumented refusal. None of the militants, in particular none of the IB members who attended this meeting in Paris, adheres to the catastrofic vision he attempts to make to accept, and even less his resolution against Juan. From then, Peter uses all the means, he organizes a real "coup d'Etat", a real putsch, to make pass his decision : three days after the meeting, he tries to force the hand of the secretariat of the section in France which rejects his resolution by 5 against 3 (Peter, Bruno and Elise who however expresses reserves). Never mind, Peter continues his pressure in the private discussions, by telephone and by mail, keeping all the "opponents" out of things of his policy. He decides to overstep all the recommandations and all the decisions taken collectively (specially the one for providing the members of the central organs with all the documents indispensable in order they can serenely base their political positioning) ; he also multiplies the telephone contacts and mails with the IB members in Europe and in Paris in order "his" understandings of the events prevail and in order to urgently convene, on this basis, an extraordinary meeting of the central organ in France (with a numerous delegation of IB members "worked" beforehand and all behind Peter's cause). It's a policy which will become systematic in the following weeks at the level of the IB as well as the one of the CE of RI. But above all, this vision breaks with the spirit and the letter of the ICC Statutes (see the last chapters of our History of the IS).

Then there's no more rules and all the maneuvers are possible. Aren't they going to be supported by the IC ?

It's the same at the level of the IB. Here is how Juan - member of the IB as Michel who is also called in the same conditions - reports the facts :

"I am cordially called to an Extraordinary CE meeting whose existence I don't know, at the end of the Public Meeting in Paris with a small note (8). I don't know anything about the existence of an IB delegation. On the other hand, I know how comrade Peter has presented in many occasions in a particularly unilateral way his telephone contacts with the members of the IB in Europe and in Paris. Specially, at the SE of May 11, he presents the opinion and the statements of some members of the IB who responded him as a position adopted by the IB [as the IB had formally adopted it]. In that occasion, he doesn't mention that comrades Michel, Olivier and Pedro, present at the Paris section meeting, have denied - rightly or not, it's not the point here - to adopt the resolution he proposes. He doesn't mention that Jonas, Leonardo (still present in Paris) and myself have not been informed. They are 6 members of the IB. And I don't know what comrade Peter passes on while I estimate - rightly or not - that the situation in Paris isn't the one which the few IB members contacted seem to understand. Comrades, you'll concede me, I hope so, that Peter's clumsiness didn't help to establish an atmosphere of confidence. I don't enter into all the details.
Moreover, I'm surprised of my being out of things. I was one of those who had proposed to the IB not to rename the same IS (which actually implied that I wasn't reelected as IB member). The IB decided differently. OK. But obviously, it doesn't trust me. In itself, it doesn't offend me. But I don't think this is coherent. And I like people tells me things frankly.
Therefore, it's ignoring the discussions within the IB, or within a part of the IB, and as member of the IB, that I deny then, in a first time, to the comrades present whose individual positions I don't know, to speak in the name of the IB. But obviously, comrade Peter's concern is not to warn me, nor to convince, nor even to avoid me any possible error from his point of view when he gives me the convocation and while there is only one hour left before the CE meeting. I have the feeling he prefers to push me to make a fault. And with no doubt Michel too. I can't believe it could be a behaviour of revenge" (IIB 283, "Personal" Outline of the History of the Present Crisis).

With all the supposed weight up of the IB, the CE lets itself being impressed, accepts the clanish explanation and condemns Juan's intervention of May 9th. In that moment, engaged in the same logic of giving up that've adopted the congress when it blindly put itself in the hands of the IC, being in a panic in front of the dramatization to extremes fostered by Peter, the CE falls too into the abandon of the ICC principles in the name of "the defence of the organization and its unity".

The resolution which is adopted by that "CE" sentences Juan, but above all it gives its backing to the liquidationists and actually dissolves the Paris section central organ (CO) which had let Juan speak at the May 9th meeting.

"After the reading of the presentation, comrade Juan has made an intervention which gave informations about the IB meetings that this one had decided not to communicate to the whole organization for the moment (...). It is a characterized questioning of our centralization principles and a very serious breach of the organizational discipline. Consequently, the SE [the CE takes up the resolution proposed at the SE meeting of May 11th] condemns the totally irresponsible behaviour of comrade Juan (...).
Moreover, the presidium of the [Paris section] meeting which nevertheless knew the presentation of the congress and which had been called twice for a point of order by an IB member [Peter], not only let comrade Juan followed his intervention, but also made criticisms to the IB member's intervention who asked for this point of order. Consequently, the SE (...) asks the North section of RI to endow itself with a presidium capable to impose the respect of the decisions of the organization for the period to come".

This last measure decides the end of the Organization Commission of Paris without refering to the section which yet has elected and mantaded it. From now on, the presidium of the section meetings will be held alternativelly by Peter and Bruno. During various months, curious situation for the least, the Paris meetings will see two militants, sometimes even one, impose the agendas, the conclusions and the orientations in the name of a "discipline" that the whole section doesn't share. Here too, there is a complete break with the ICC conception of... centralization. Actually, it's not useless to recall that a debate had taken place on this matter in 1983 at the time of the constitution of the tendency which was going to form the FECCI [whose publication is still today Internationalist Perspectives]. An IB delegate named directly by a territorial section, and not directly by the congress (9), defended the positions of the tendency ; he had been maintained as delegate until the tendency positions minoritarian within the whole ICC were remaining majoritarian in his section. And it was when the majority changed in this section, that the delegate named by the section had been changed. It was MC himself who defended this conception.

But it's clear that in the struggle for power it has then engaged, the liquidationist faction has decided to go into the most violent and quick offensive in the name of the so-called "defence" of the organization, without being burdened with the respect of the organizational rules and the Statutes. It is now "in power" of the IC, the IS, the IB, the CE and already the SE where Bruno decides all and where the opponents (ST and Aglaé) are kept out of the decisions. Peter'll even go to claim in a meeting that if the Paris section won't submit, the "ICC" won't hesitate to dissolve it.

All the political disagreements are reduced to personal hatred and clanism

After this episode, the struggle between the two opposed political lines focuses on two essential fronts : on one hand, bringing to heel the Paris section which is the only one which can and also wants to oppose to the analisis of clanism ; and on the other hand, around the discussion of the Orientation Text on Confidence put forwards by the liquidationist faction which seeks to theoretically "base" the "new" militant and organizational practices. The aim is to make the new orientation accepted by the great majority of the miltants from the sections, who remain dumbfound and unbelieving in front of the situation and the growing accusations against militants whom they trusted during years, militants who have just been renamed to the IB, unanimously at the congress, in order to be again members of the IS.

The monthly IS held in June (in which various European members of the IB participate) confirms the vision of the supposed clan which was gangrening the former IS and which is again presented by the IC. Now its most obvious manifestation has became Juan's intervention of May 9th and the reactions of the SE and the Paris section which denied to condemn him. It's this monthly IS which inaugurates a new practice with no precedent in the ICC : it adopts the Orientation Text on Confidence (10) on the only basis of its oral presentation. For our part, in front of a majority of inbelieving participants, we warn this monthly IS that the adoption of the clanism thesis inevitably breaks with all the IB policy since 1996.

The July monthly IS sees Olivier, still member of the IC (11), presenting an alternative report to the IC one. His report questions and rejects the analisis of the supposed clan and in particular it sets the facts on the basis of the SE minutes. This Olivier's report again raises the question of Louise's behaviour. For his part, Juan presents the first chapter of the History of the IS, Chapter 6, written from the IS minutes which show, without any possible doubt, that the main argument of the IC, the supposed willingness of the IS to make the couple Peter-Louise split, is a deliberated and conscious lie. Nevertheless, it turns out that the riposte of these two comrades is too late ; thus, despite the obviousnesses, the IB decides not to take into account these concrete elements and, following the IC recommendations, bans the use of the IS minutes without... the authorization of the IC.

The fact of consciously ignoring the reality of the facts, of dismissing anything which could present them, in this case the minutes of the IS, and under an alleged "superior reason" such as the "defence of the organization" according to the liquidationist sauce, inevitably opens the doors to a process of rewriting of history with catastrophical political consequences in the end.

Any utilization of the minutes to base and argue the political opposition to the analisis of the supposed clan and which dismantles the IC "reports", must firstly be submitted to the authorization of the IC... which hastens to forbid it.

But, the stakes don't really focuse at the IB level. They focuse in the sections, and firstly in the Paris section and on the Orientation Text on The Confidence. Never in the ICC history, a text presented by the central organ has been so minoritarian and has been confronted with such an opposition. But the question of clanism will succeeds to smother any political opposition.

The bulletin of RI n°247 publishes the report of the discussion of this text in the Paris section. One after the other, Juan, ST, Sarah, Hector, Fausto, affirm their opposition to the text (12). We spare the reader the content of their interventions and their various political arguments. Peter and Bruno are on holidays and only Elise attempts to respond on the political level to the arguments which are given against the text. "Sure" militants of other sections of RI have been convened to Paris to assume the presidium in the interim. Their interventions are particularly significant of the spirit and the drift provoked by the adoption of the clanish vision and the reduction of any political position to it.

Thus, after Juan's intervention, this presidium flings : "we heckle comrade Juan on the fact he rejects from start to finish a text issued by the IB. It's grave for the organization. We never saw such a statement".

This attitude of rejection, of fear of the political confrontation, manifests also in one of the first statements of the SE about the discussions of this text : "The discussion on the Orientation Text has been above all the occasion, for a part of the comrades of the North section who were present, to express a contesting [and not a political disagreement] against this text and consequently against the central organs" (the SE, August 22, 2001, BIRI n°247, we underline). Any political disagreement is at once denounced as a contesting of the central organs and, actually, as a manifestation of clanism.

The introduction of the International Internal Bulletin n°283 (June 2001) has already labelled Leonardo, Juan, Sven and Sarah's written contributions as "anti-Peter-Louise polarization", of "antiorganizational frenzy", "of anti-Peter fury", "of aggressiveness" in stead of responding to the political arguments presented in these texts. The presentation of the bulletin n°286 (October 2001) goes in the same direction for qualifying the criticisms to the Orientation Text on "Confidence and Solidarity" (published in International Review 111 and 112) : "The expression of the disagreements, in certain parts of the section, have been superposed to clanish, contesting, or even in the best case insufficiently responsible, atttitude (to convince oneself, it suffices to have a look at the BIRI 245)". It suffices then to label a text as clanish in order it's discredited and it's not discussed.

The political opposition to the IC is sanctionned as an act of indiscipline

During the discussions July on the Orientation Text, Juan - the only member of the "IB minority" who isn't on holidays - writes a proposal of activities report (see our bulletin n°1) for the Extraordinary IB meeting planned for September 2001. This report wants to present an alternative analisis and orientation to the ones already given by the IC reports and by the Orientation Text on Confidence, which are necesarily going to determine the activities report of the majority. The project of activities report of the new majority is presented at the meeting of the monthly IS of August 4th, 2001. Beside the analisis of clanism, it puts forwards the proposal for a change of the Statutes for the creation of a permanent Investigation Commission.

On the other hand, the "counter-report", opposing the explanation of the organizational crisis by the supposed clan, defends the policy led by the organization from 1996 to 2001 and it develops an other orientation (see our bulletin n°1). By presenting an alternative analisis for the organizational crisis, it directly and explicitly questions and it politically and openly oppose to the IC, to its conclusions and to its "method" ; and, moreover, it criticizes Louise's behaviour. Normally, within an organization of the proletariat, the fact a militant, or a group of militants, in disagreement with the analisis, with the balance-sheet and the general orientations of the organization, makes the effort to propose an alternative analisis and orientation, moveover a month before the meeting which'll discuss this balance-sheet and these orientations, should be greeted even if one is in disagreement with it. With the clanish vision, all different is the reaction. Here is how react the other IB members present that day :

"Krespel : on this counter-report : it's clear that any IB member is free to give his point of view on the activities of the ICC and to give it the title he wants. If they want to write «counter-report», they can. Me, I think it's a maneuver. Not because he is dishonest, but because he's caught in a clanish dynamic. (Juan : maneuver in front of the whole organization ?). The comrade says : «counter-report» while he hasn't read the report ! It's for impress the comrades in the ICC. It's a bluff. If he thinks that the report of the 14th congress is valid, it's not worth to call it «counter-report». He's just bluffing (...).
From the point of view of method, the comrade must take position on the activities resolution of the 14th congress.
(Stanley : in what is this a maneuver ?)
Krespel : he's bluffing ! He doesn't take position on the report of the Delegation [the IC], or other.
(Altercation between Juan and Krespel)" during which Krespel threatens Juan in the following terms : "you'll do like Olivier [who withdrew his IC counter-report in July], you'll withdraw this report !" (minutes of the August 4th 2001 IS monthly meeting).

There, we begin to see the panic and the hysteria which take possession of the liquidationists, here Krespel, as soon as the IC and its "framework" are questionned and aren't respected. This political disagreement about the framework that the IC wants to impose, and thus the opposition to the IC, will become very quickly a mark of... indiscipline, of "hatred clanism" and of "irrational madness" as Juan will be accused 7 days later.

August 11th (Juan is absent of Paris, Olivier is still on holidays and Michel refuses to attend), an Extraordinary meeting of the European delegates of the IB is convened. During that meeting, one more time, all the disagreements are presented as expression of clanish weaknesses of the ones and the others and, above all, of their supposed psychologicial characteristics (Olivier, Aglaé, Michel, Juan, etc...).

"Why an Extraordinary convening today ? The IB members in Germany (...) have came to the conclusion we're facing a very dangerous situation. Why ? Because comrade Juan's behaviour is out of control (...). He doesn't control hismself (...). The comrade doesn't seem to be anymore capable, and probably he has not anymore willingness, to respect the rules of functioning of the organization : his proposal of counter-report opposed to the project of report presented for the Extraordinary IB meeting [of September] (...). The comrade is carrying an irrational phenomenon, no more sense of the fraternal debate, of fraternal criticism, but a blinded hatred (...)" (minutes of the August 11th 2001 IB meeting).

Then follows a whole serie of psychological considerations on Juan and on the weight of decomposition (13). Finally, all except one comrade, agree for the adoption of a sanction. They just hesitate between a suspension or a "blame" ["reprimand" in english ?]. For what motive ?

"Krashen : the counter-report implies a measure such a a suspension, but in the context [he mentions the case that it wouldn't be understood by the whole militants of the organization] we must adress him a Reprimand (14)".

Here the reason of the sanction against Juan appears clearly : his proposal of a counter-report. Therefore, it's quite for a political disagreement, or rather for the open expression of a political disagreement, that the liquidationist faction launches openly a disciplinary and sanction policy. Peter will confirm it in various occasions : "Peter : quickly, I want to say a little word on the begining of the presentation that Aglaé made and which speaks about the Collectif based on the counter-report written by Juan in August. This text has brought a Reprimand for the comrade [Juan]" (bulletin of RI n°251, minutes of the Paris section meeting of November 11th, 2001).

As well, the IS Statement about comrade Juan's behaviour of September 30th, 2001 (International Bulletin 287) :

"In reality, the fact that, during this Plenary IB meeting [the September one], comrade Juan had presented again to the discussion the counter-report which brought him a Reprimand in August 11th, should have been sanctionned as such, a sanction which should have equally imposed also to the two other IB members [Michel and Olivier] who gave their support to this report".

No doubt, it's a "Première" in the ICC history : a militant is officially sanctionned for having proposed a counter-report !

In no moment in this August meeting, the content of the counter-report is discussed. But it's not only for having presented an alternative report that Juan is sanctionned. It's above all for having presented a report which rejects the IC, which points out the organizational and political roots of the crisis and which dare to raise, in the organizational framework and in front of everybody (not in the corridor), the Louise's question.

All political reason disappears in a panic and in an hysteria which will go increasing every time those questions (the IC and Louise) are questionned. This panic had already revealed when Olivier had announced to the IC only, just before the July monthly IS, that he proposes an alternative report for the IC. He had then suffered very strong pressures and intimidations so as he withdrew this report. It's in that moment he definitively and concretely became aware of the fact that Peter, Bruno, and Louise know perfectly all the IC works and that they controlled it.

The adoption of the Reprimand against Juan opens the doors to the policy of systematic sanctions against the opponents. It initiates the abandon of the Communist Left and workers movement tradition which allways favour the debate and the discussion of the political positions. The process is then openly engaged. There won't be any resistance except the minoritarian militants who will feel more and more the need to regroup within the ICC. First they do it trough a "Collectif" in August 2001, and then as a fraction from October. These facts and these betrayals of the ICC principles and practices are largely enough to justify, politically and "historically", the building up of a fraction. We well see here that there are not secundary divergences, nor of orientation on a particular point. The political opposition is on the defence of organizational principles which are openly betrayed.

Any political disagreement with the IC becomes then a mark of distrust and of "disloyalty" towards the organization. A mark of clanism.

The irresistible disciplinary process

The following of the events is much more known in and outside the ICC. We'll just recall the different moments which mark the process that led from September 2001 to our expulsion. Any interested reader or militant can, from our bulletins and our statements for one part, and from the ICC statements in its press, rebuild the thread of the events and the political lessons to draw.

It's after Juan's presentation of his activities counter-report and around the orientations it puts forwards, that the parisian minoritarians begin to discuss and to decide to regroup. In agreement to reject the analisis of clanism defended by the IC and to defend the political orientation adopted from 1996 to 2001, they form a Collective of work in August which openly declares itself the 24th of August 2001 by an Adress (see our bulletin n°1) to all the militants of the ICC. It means openly and in front of all the organization and not secretly as the today ICC presents it.

At the beginning of September, the Extraordinary IB meeting is held and its great majority swings over definitively to the liquidationists in the name of the struggle against clanism and against the Collective and its so-called "secrete meetings". It's this same IB which adopts the principle of a change of the Statutes in order to create a permanent and autonomous Investigation Commission.

As the open and frontal expression of the political disagreements has been felt by many comrades - see the chapter about the IB meetings during the 14th congress - as a catastrophe, as well the constitution of the Collective is at once felt as an obstacle for the unity of the organization and as a scissionist danger. Here there is a particularly acute political weakness which reflects the real state of the ICC and of its militants, on which the liquidationist faction had effectively played.

Numerous militants reactions express important lack of understanding in front of the constitution of a minority. They are blinded by the "all clanism" vision and any minority is necesarily seen by them as a threat for the organization unity. Thus, facing all this reactions, the Collective decides to dissolve during this Extraordinary IB. It so believed to remove any "subjective" obstacle to the openess of a true debate on the analisis of the IC relating to the supposed clan, on the Orientation Text, on the activities report of the majority and its proposal for a permanent and autonomous IC. It's with relief and an illusory hope - two feelings which reveal the fear of the confrontation of the positions - that the great majority of the present militants (much no-members of the IB have been invited) welcome the dissolution of the Collective and even greet the minoritarians.

Nevertheless, as soon as the meeting ends, the liquidationist faction, firstly Peter, closes the door again to the debate, removes any hope for discussion on the general political questions by insisting that the members of the former Collective make their individual self-criticism as a precondition for any discussion and, thus, that they repudiate their own political conviction. It means that they have to situate themselves (and thus accept) into the new organizational framework and the new political analisis imposed by the IC in the name of "discipline" , of "Confidence and loyalty". The disagreemeent with the IC and the political rejection of its method and conclusions, and thus the refusal for individual self-criticism, become the mark of indiscipline, of distrust and of disloyalty towards the organization !

The burial of the open and fraternal debate is definitively ratified the 21st of September while the Collective is dissolved and while our fraction is not yet built up. The CE of RI adopts a Resolution which takes a measure with no precedent of censorship against the militants in opposition :

"The CE of RI decides not to publish or let publish in the internal bulletins any written contribution on the organizational questions coming from a participant of the «Collectif» until he hasn't done in writing such a criticism. Actually, the organization can't tolerate that its internal bulletins are utilized against itself by militants who behave like ennemies of the ICC or who, after having behaved as such, have not made a serious criticism of their attitude" (underlined in the text adopted, International bulletin n°287). It's the first time in the ICC history that militants are forbidden of publication in the internal bulletins.

This "orientation" looks whether to silence and to demoralize individually the militants, or to push them to make their personal self-criticism in order they aknowledge their supposed clanish failures, and this against their own political conviction. The demoralization and the despair of these militants won't last to express. They'll carry some to resignation and, let's aknowledge it, they almost succeeded to carry us too (the future members of the fraction) one after the other. This willingness to eliminate energies, experiences and militant consciousness will be later publicly claimed in Révolution internationale n°324 (15).

Louise's question and Juan's definitive "suspension"

The next day, September 22nd,, during an Extraordinary meeting of the Paris section in which participate a great number of militants of other territorial sections, some militants' refusal to vote the Resolution which clears Louise of all its acts and behaviours (without explaning any) is the opportunity for incredible pressures against them. Those pressures provokes Michel and Stanley's resignations and the political capitulation of some other parisian militants. For his part, Juan (16) who had already voted against this Resolution during the September IB meeting, dares to justify and to base his vote on the concrete study of the IS minutes. He claims - to politically justify his vote - he's convinced that Louise's behaviour is indignant [unworthy] for a communist militant. After this intervention, Peter becomes completly hysterical and his "arguments" are completly irrational.

Using the "revolutionary indignation" (see the presentation of our bulletin 13), he accuses Juan to present Louise as a cop (a police agent). He makes vote his suspension for 15 days (17) in front of an audience of militants driven crazy, panicked, or feeling guilty by... their own past distrust and doubts about Louise's behaviour. Much, too much infortunately, begin to wallow without restraint and without decency in declarations, for one part, of indignation against those who refuse to vote the Resolution and, for the other, of "solidarity" with Louise and Peter in front of the "suffering", and the "hell", that the former IS would have make them suffer during all these years. With the passing of the time, it's highly ridiculous. At the moment, it's particularly distressing and appalling to see our own comrades of struggle giving up one after the other any political reason and sinking into individual self-criticism and into psychological guiltyness. We're not any more in a political meeting of a communist organization but in a psychodrama of the most miserable. Then too begins for some - others have already begun for some times now - an "overbid" to proove they are in the forefront of the struggle against clanism...

While his suspension ended the next day, Juan receives a phone call Saturday 6th of October at around 9 P.M. by François. He is mandated by the SE that he is suspended again since he carries on with the willingness to take notes in the meetings in which he participates and that, for this reason, he doesn't respect the discipline - the new discipline - of the organization. Sunday 7th, Olivier is also suspended for having taken notes during a meeting with a delegation (see our bulletin n°1). The litany of sanctions carries on all along October (see our bulletin n°2), Reprimand ["blame"] for Aglaé and Sarah, 4 more weeks of suspension for Olivier and Juan for having refused to attend a pretence of trial during a monthly IS meeting (October 20th, 2001).

Moreover, Juan is suspended without limit of time - it means until his expulsion which is planned since at least August and the presentation of his activities report - after a rough setting by Peter according to which Juan would have accused Louise of being a State agent - always the same process - to the Mexican militants during his holidays - which is false and denied by all the participants in the encounter, included by the main "accuser" whose "confidences" has been provoked by Peter (18). The sanction is taken before Juan could even been heard by anyone. Before being "invited" to meet delegations, he is accused by Peter in the Paris section meeting and is condemned without he could defend himself (see our bulletin n°2) which is in complete break with the Statutes. He is now forbidden to the ICC militants to have any contact with Juan. This aims at isolate him completly from his comrades and friends. There too, there is a complete break with the ICC tradition in this kind of situation : until then, the ICC systematically favoured the contacts of comrades with the militants it thought that they were "losing themselves". But it's true that, at that time, the ICC and its militants were convinced of the positions and of the policy they adopted. This time, they're too afraid that the "delegates" are subjected by the influence of Juan's arguments... bases on the minutes of the IS.

The expulsion of the members of the fraction enables Louise's return

November 2001 sees the liquidationist faction doing all it can so as the members of our fraction hand it over the first part of this History of the IS (see our bulletin n°3) which denounces them without any possible refutations. It even tries to make them sign a note in which they compromise to publish nothing on the ICC crisis during... 5 years (19). November 28th, the last parisian members of the fraction still present at the meetings, Sarah and Aglaé, are ordered to quit the meeting of the Paris section under the pretext that they refuse to "pay their dues". They can't argue and defend their point of view (see our bulletin n°4). Same thing December 5th. In the name of the "revolutionary indignation", it's a true relation of "oral" and physical violence that Peter and Bruno "bravely" impose in the section meetings (see our bulletin n°4) towards Aglaé and Sarah and before the awkward and shameful silence of the other comrades. They too try to impose this relation of violence outside the meetings up to the comrades's home and in front of their family.

One can imagine the violence of the oral insults in the meetings by only reading the Resolution adopted by the Monthly SE meeting of November 21st (the text has no date but we suppose it was written the 21st). This document "denounces" "the duplicity and the hypocrisy of the militants (...) whose only goal is to bloody throw shit within the organization (in french "foutre la merde dans l'organisation"](...), their repugnant grafts, their dirty little tricks, their menial pettiness of clique (...) it's particularly villainous to accuse the organization (...) the fraction with its hypocrisy, its cowardice and its duplicity..." (the Resolution of censorship already quoted above, International bulletin n°287).

It's particularly instructive and significant that Louise sets foot in the Paris section again the very day when the last members of the fraction are finally kicked out. A year after her "militant time off". More than two years after her voluntary exit of the SE for "illness". All the militants who, at one moment or another, have raised within the organizational framework the question of Louise's behaviour, have became plague-stricken and hooligans. For them, all the means (lies, discredit, provocations, police style settings and traps, insults) have been good for expell them of the organization :

- Jonas has raised his accusations against Louise in front of a delegation of the IC and, then, when the militants came to see him and to ask him why he had resigned ;

- Olivier has raised the question during the IB meetings at the congress (see Chapter 23) , and then in the framework of his participation to the IC ; and finally in a confrontation with Louise - very significant of the embarrassment of Louise and of the IC when there were very precise questions and facts to respond to - despite the fact it was organized by the IC itself ;

- Juan has done it in the Chapter 6 of this History of the IS that he has presented at the July Monthly IS and that it gave a copy to the IC ; he votes against the Resolution clearing Louise during the Plenary IB meeting of September 2001 , and he justifies in front of the organization his vote during the Paris meeting of September 22nd where he maintained his accusations against Louise as an unworthy ["indigne" in french] behaviour for a militant ;

- Aglaé has raised her questions and doubts in an interview with the IC... in April 2001 - on that occasion, she provided to the IC minutes of the SE pointing out Louise's talks and attitude ;

- Michel and Stanley (ST) refuse to vote the Resolution clearing Louise and are then methodically destroyed and pushed towards resignation (20).

Here it's worth to point out that none of these militants has ever hidden to the organization his position on Louise; They always raised their questionings in the formal framework of the organization. It's through Peter's scandals and provocations, firstly in the organization, then in the press of the ICC, that this question of Louise behaviour and the doubts which accompany it, became "public".

Olivier and Juan, suspended for eternity, are "invited" to the Plenary IB meeting of January 2002. They present and defend another alternative activities report and a statement on the international situation (see our bulletin n°6) which is in opposition to the ICC statement at the level of the historical signification of the September 11th attacks as well as at the level of the workers struggles in Argentina. Many participants in this meeting tend to share their point of view on the international situation, in particular on the struggles in Argentina. But none of them dares openly pronounce himself in the same sense for fear to be accused of weakness, or even connivance, towards our "supposed" clanism. One more time, the destructive "logic" of the "all-clanism" distorts and smothers the political debate and clarification. On the other hand, other members of the IB feeling obliged to show the "clanish" drift at the level of the political positions and to prove they are at the forefront of this struggle, take the exact opposite of our position and goes up, for instance, to deny the existence of the tendencies towards the constitution of imperialist blocs in the present period.

But the true aim for Olivier and Juan's invitations to this IB meeting is not to listen, nor discuss the political positions they put forwards. It's the occasion to try to "commit" them in Jonas expulsion as "provocator agent" (see our bulletin n°6). This meeting is full of maneuvers and tactics worthy of the worse leftists. In particular, a whole serie of unknown Resolutions are presented one after the other and they have to be voted urgently, at once, without being allowed to ask for a time of reflection. In that case, we receive summons and insults. All this looks for trapping the two members of the fraction and to drive them to vote Jonas' condemnation. There only are tactics and manoeuvres and no principles (see the Declaration of the fraction to the ICC and to all of its militants, bulletin n°6). Besides the fact that the Resolutions aim at compromising the two present members of the fraction into an ignominy, Jonas' expulsion and public denunciation desperatly attempt to cut short the questionings about Louise behaviour.

Why this fixation and obsession about Louise from part of Peter (her husband) and of the liquidationist faction ? Why this true hysteria and panic when her behaviours are posed on the table and questionned ?

And why always reducing everything to this question while it was for us, and carries on being for us, only one element amongst others of the present crisis of the ICC ?

Whatsoever is the nature of Louise's behaviours, and even if they became in one particular moment a determining element for the open explosion of the crisis, they aren't, in no way, the basic reasons. This question is perfectly clear for us : the content of our bulletins since their beginning proves it.

The only one response we can give to these legitimate interrogations is that Louise is foremost a problem for the liquidationists ; and it's a problem whose solution contains their own questioning.

The expulsion of the fraction

Finally, an Extraordinary Conference is held March 2002. It must, the activities report adopted in January announces it in advance, decide the definitive expulsion of the members of the fraction under the "motive" they put themselves outside. The conditions required individually to the members of the fraction for their participation to the Conference are inacceptable unless they repudiate their political conviction (see our bulletin n°8). Of course, not any recognition of the fraction is considered.

The expulsion of our fraction at this Conference signs the end of a whole opportunist process which made the ICC cross all kind of different steps from where there is no chance to come back. It opens an other phase of the historical struggle for the construction of the world party of the proletariat from which the present ICC tends to exclude itself. Sooner or later but inevitably, unless there is a complete break with the present policy on the basis of a radical criticism, the present ICC will disappear smothered by opportunism and sectarism. A threshold has already been crossed despite our numerous warnings : the liquidationist faction has won and, obviously, there is no more opposition within the organization. Its distinguished members, its original hardcore, the family clique, who aspire to take again the red thread of Marx, Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, MC... actually entered into the history of the workers movement and of its organization as the liquidators of one of its finest and exalting organizational experiences.

January 2003

(translation into english : July 2004).

Notes: