In the previous issue of our bulletin, we already denounced the new step the present ICC is being taking in its political opportunist drift, every day more accelerated, with now its brilliant theory of "another route to the apocalypse (...) through a “man- made” ecological meltdown" (ICC's International Review 129). This theory tends to throw away the historical alternative of decadent capitalism - that marxism, and in particular the organizations of the Communist Left, have brought to light since more than a century - between generalized imperialist war and international proletarian revolution ; moreover, it fully takes back one of the "democratic" themes, presently one of the favorites of the bourgeoisie, whose aim is to push back the proletariat from its class struggle and to divert it towards preoccupations of the "civil society" and of isolated individuals, particularly the one the so-called "human beings' responsibility to save the earth".
The Resolution on international situation of the 17th international congress of the ICC doesn't but hammer even more this new orientation of the "ecological apocalypse". Against all marxist theory (summarized in the position of the "old" ICC about the cycle crisis-war-reconstruction-new crisis that the previous international congress had openly rejected 1), against all the historical evolution of decadent capitalism (which already led to two world wars) and against all present evidences (growing armament, increasing militarism of society, imperialist conflicts and lining up, ideological campaigns preparing for war...), the present ICC comes back again affirming with audacity and ""innocence" - up to the point where the most bloodthirsty class history has known, the bourgeoisie, could thank it - that " the spectre of world war no longer haunts the planet" (International Review 130, Resolution on the international situation of the 17th congress, point 7).
But there, in its 17th congress, it goes even further. Now, it is not anymore the "each one for himself", the "irrational" imperialist struggles and the "military chaos" - corollaries to its new thesis about the impossibility of a new world war due to the "social decomposition" - which would be the most serious danger for humanity's survival as this ICC affirmed since already some years. Today, it has "discovered" - several decades after the bourgeois ecologist organization "Greenpeace" - an "even greater threat for human race" : the pollution of environment !
"The military chaos developing around the world (...) is not the only manifestation of the historic impasse reached by capitalism, nor even the most dangerous for the human species. Today it has become clear that the maintenance of the capitalist system brings with it the threat of the destruction of the environment which made the rise of humanity possible" (idem, pt. 10).
Thus - as we said in our previous bulletin - "When the process leading to a generalized imperialist war is practically taking place, when this process under way imposes to capitalism to unleash an economical, political and ideological offensive against the whole international proletariat, full of immediate consequences for the whole international proletariat - without mentioning the blood already spilled, the murders, the massacres and the massive sufferings it already provokes -, when the perspective of imperialist war not only determines the different imperialist lines up and their evolution, but also the historical relation of forces between the classes, between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in short when imperialist war begins to rise up as a direct and un-direct crucial question to which the proletariat and its revolutionary minorities are already confronted with, the new ICC, as the bourgeois propaganda, as the medias, as the ecologists of all countries, diverts the attention to "a “man- made” ecological meltdown that in the span of a few generations could make the earth as inhospitable to human life as Mars".2
Here is how the resolution of the 17th congress marks the degree that theoretical revisionism and political opportunism of this organisation has come up to. But moreover, the second document published - the report about the works of this congress , ICC's 17th congress : The proletarian camp reinforced worldwide (International Review 130) - brings us to another aspect of the tragic drift of the today ICC. To tell the truth, it's the first, the deepest and essential aspect : its organisational degeneracy.
The main reason of the appearance and the existence of the International Communist Current as a revolutionary organization centralised at international scale, has always been to serve as a mean, as cement, for the building of a new world communist party, indispensable organ for the proletariat's revolutionary struggle. For the true ICC, since always, "however intense the struggles carried on by the class, its emancipation can only come about if the proletariat is capable of providing itself with one of its most valuable weapons (a weapon whose absence has cost it so dearly in the past): its revolutionary party" (Manifesto of the 1st Congress of the ICC, 1976).
Throughout its history, the serie of debates and fights around the organizational questions in front of other organizations of the Communist Left as well as in its own ranks, has been the expression of the continuous efforts of the Current for laying the basis of this new party. These debates and fights have been, for one part, against the "substitutionist" tendencies (it means those which consider that the party can "substitute" itself to the whole working class for some aspects and some tasks) ; but, for another part and above all, these debates and fights have been between a tendency which persisted in the building of a collective and disciplined militant activity and of an organization which tends towards the setting up of the party, which develops the "party spirit" ; and anti-party tendencies, particularly "councilist tendencies" (which minimize, underestimate, indeed reject, the role of the party, only putting forwards the workers councils), existing outside as well as inside the ICC itself. In addition, this tendency favored a militantism whose kind was a "student circle", anarchist, individualist one, even eccentric ("red-thread" militants, "integral militantism", "gurus" or "genius chiefs" who are above the common of the militants, and specially above the organisational discipline and framework). Actually, the internal crisis of the ICC, opened up in 2001, has been the last struggle between these two tendencies, struggle which ended up by the censorship and the exclusion of the tendency, which defended - well or badly - the "party spirit", and the reification of the individualist and anti-party tendencies represented by what we've called the "liquidationist faction".
The report on the works of this 17th congress, despite its discretion about what really happened and above all despite the honeyed and evasive character - not to say hypocritical - of its general tone, reflects exactly the disastrous internal situation of the "official" ICC, the deepening of its organizational degeneracy. Let's see this closer.
Firstly, in none of the two large documents about the congress which we can read (Resolution of the international situation and report on the works of the congress), there is a single reference to the need for the construction of the revolutionary party 3. Here it isn't a matter of saying that the ICC should dogmatically repeat "we must build the party" ; it is only a matter of noticing that an international congress didn't even mentioned this fundamental question nor when it dealt with the workers struggles question, nor when it dealt with the appearance of revolutionary minorities or with the relationship with the other groups, nor when it drew perspectives of the class struggle, nor even when it spoke about revolutionaries' and ICC's responsibilities. It is a matter of building the party, fundamental aspect for the working class, for the development of its revolutionary movement, which remained fully outside the field of the present ICC concerns.
One could think that the course of this 17th congress refutes what we say since several political groups have been invited. This would prove the concern of the ICC for the revolutionaries' regroupment and thus for the building of the party. But, all the contrary, the character of these invitations precisely demonstrates that the present ICC is giving up this responsibility. The report of the congress dares compare this last invitation to various political groups with the ICC attitude in its first congresses and during the international conferences of the Left Communist groups of the second half of the years 1970. But what was the criterion the ICC put forwards for inviting other groups to its congresses, for participating to the international conferences, for debating and confronting the positions ? It was precisely the question of the construction of the future world revolutionary party :
"The organisation of revolutionaries is an essential organ of the proletariat's struggle before as well as after the insurrection and the seizure of power : without it, without the proletarian and because it would express an immaturity of its consciousness, the working class can't realize its historical task : destroying the capitalist system and setting up communism (...).
After the most profond counter-revolution of the workers movement history, one of the most important tasks of the revolutionaries is to actively contribute to the reconstitution of this essential organ of the revolutionary struggle : the proletarian party. (...) Its preparation needs today :
- the re-appropriation of the fundamental lessons of the past experiences of the class ;
- the updating of these lessons in regards to the new datas of capitalism's life and of class struggle ;
- the effort of discussion, of confrontation and clarification of their respective positions, between the different communist groups, as only conditions of the establishment of clear and coherent programmatical basis which necessarily must rule over the foundation of the proletarian world party" (Resolution on the revolutionaries' organisation presented by the ICC at the 2nd conference of the Left Communist groups, International Review 17, 1979, translated by us from the French version).
"The ICC therefore considers that these discussions are a very important element in the process of regroupment of revolutionary forces, which will lead to their unification in the world party of the proletariat, that essential weapon in the revolutionary struggle of the class" (Resolution on the process of regroupment presented by the ICC at this same 2nd Conference of the Left Communist groups, 1979, International Review 17, available on the internet ICC pages).
The re-appropriation of the historical experiences of the working class, the confrontation and the clarification of the political positions between groups in order to establish the program of the revolution and the revolutionaries' unification in a world party, essential tool of the proletariat's struggle, such was the main criterion, the fundamental organizational position of the "old" ICC, the true ICC.
Today, not only this central programmatical position is absent from the invitation that the present ICC has made to other groups for its 17th congress, but it's also obvious that it doesn't remain anything, nor even a residue, of its struggle against the councilist tendencies (which it considered, amongst the tendencies within the workers movement, as the one which jeopardizes the more the fate of the revolutionary movement). One can realize it with the behaviour which consists in the "fawning", it means in the fully condescending, cowardly and conciliatory attitude, towards groups as the OPOP (one of the "invited" to the 17th congress) whose positions are - the least we can say about - highly similar to councilism (if not anarchism). But we don't find any pinch of criticism by the ICC despite the fact that, according to this same report, these organizations have developed relations of "debate and collaboration" since already "several years" 4.
And here it matters to precise a question in order to avoid any false debate. We don't refer to the fact that an organization as the ICC can, or can't, have links, discussions, conferences, and indeed can invite to its congresses groups which claim councilism positions. Surely not. The "old" ICC itself had made efforts to maintain debates with the last historical expressions of councilism as the Spartacusbund. And even the Left Communist of France had, in its time, appealed councilist groups for common conferences 5. But both did it precisely in basing themselves on the principle of the confrontation and clarification of the political positions, particularly the question of the need and the function of the class party which is the weakest point of councilism. Now the present ICC does all the contrary : whether it omits to take up this fundamental subject with the OPOP because it knows well that this would lead to a "difficult" relationship ; whether, if this debates does exist, the ICC hides it to the whole class (the single reference of the report on the 17th congress to a concrete discussion between the ICC and the OPOP refers to a debate on... historical materialism !). In both cases, it is an expression of serious political opportunism.
On an other part, and in a symmetrical and complementary manner to the giving up of the party construction, the report on the 17th congress again brings to the fore an other aspect of the organizational degeneracy process of the ICC from 2001 : the imposition of methods taken back from stalinism as only means to maintain the internal cohesion of the organization. And these methods are every time farther from the proletariat's struggle even though they attempt to fake them with new "theories" as the one this congress make known and that it pompously called "the culture of debate".
According to the report published, the discussion on "the culture of debate" has been one of the main course of the congress. It's enough to examine the summary that this report gives us, to become aware that this new theoretical wild imaginings [in Spanish "engendro" can also mean "stunted specimen"] of the present ICC doesn't only liquidate precisely the principle of "confrontation and clarification of the positions aiming at the revolutionaries' unification in a world party" of the original ICC through its substitution by the one of "the tolerant discussion aiming at moving "from confusion to clarity" ; but also that it constitutes, in a more general manner, a weapon of annihilation of the positions and the method of marxist discussion and clarification that the ICC had inherited (and that it had transmitted).
Firstly, in relation to the organizational confrontation within the ICC itself :
"The presentation and the discussion of this question pointed out that in all the splits we have been through in the history of the ICC, a tendency towards monolithism played a fundamental role. (...) These splits were for the most part an extreme manifestation of the lack of a culture of debate and even of a monolithic vision " (ICC's 17th congress : The proletarian camp reinforced worldwide, International Review 130).
According to the new ICC "theory", the result is that "the splits (...) in the history of the ICC" hadn't finally been the product of deep organizational and political disagreements, in particular about the conception of the function and the functioning of the revolutionaries' organization, but that their cause has been... "the lack of culture of debate". Thus, very simply, like this, all history, all the lessons and the experience of the organizational struggle that the ICC itself had - correctly or not - led in its ranks during three decades, are scored out. What is notably erased, are the history, the lessons and the experience of the struggles against the recurrent expressions within the ICC of councilist, anarchist and individualist tendencies (which were as much the product of the organic break which resulted from the counter-revolution period as the one of the student origin of many of its first members) which, in their "majority", were the true cause of the splits which occurred. This erasing of history is fully convenient to the liquidationist faction which now leads the ICC since it, itself, has become the most caricatural expression of these same tendencies. It's thus that we can explain how, for instance, the same who, up to 1992, were qualifying one of these splits - in that case the EFCCI [External fraction of the ICC] which has since become the group Internationalist Perspectives - as "centrist towards councilism" don't have any objection to participate hands in hands with this same EFCCI in conferences and to make commom "internationalist declarations" 6. It isn't because the EFCCI has changed its positions. It is above all the present liquidationists who had taken a turn towards "centrism towards councilism".
Secondly, the ICC simply liquidates the marxist method of confrontation and clarification of the political positions :
"It is necessary to point to the persistence of a certain number of difficulties. The first of these is a tendency to pose each discussion in terms of a conflict between marxism and opportunism, between Bolshevism and Menshevism, and even between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Such an approach only makes sense if we have the idea of an immutable communist programme. (...) But if we accept that marxism is not a dogma, that truth is relative, that it is not fixed but constitutes a process, and thus that we will never stop learning because reality is permanently changing, then it is evident that the need to deepen, but also confusions and even errors are normal, even necessary steps towards arriving at class consciousness.(...)
Most of the discussions within the organisation, and many of the discussions we hold outside, are not confrontations between bourgeois and proletarian positions. They are discussions where, on the basis of shared positions and a common goal, we are aiming to deepen collectively, to move from confusion to clarity (idem).
In this quotation, every sentence is a pure sophism.
Fist sophism : it is a weakness "to pose each discussion in terms of conflict between marxism and opportunism...". That all discussions can't be posed in terms of marxism and opportunism or of struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie is correct. Nevertheless, some discussions must imperatively be posed in these terms. The genuine historical experience doesn't warn us against the danger of being "zealous" but does warn us against the danger of fear that revolutionaries have for posing the debates in clear-cut political terms, in class and classes struggle terms, as it happened in the case of the German social-democrat Party of the 2nd International.
Second sophism : "marxism is not a dogma [and] truth is relative" and changing from which the fact that "confusions and even errors are normal, even necessary". It is true that marxism is not a dogma, that the program is not invariant and that truth is relative. Nevertheless, it does exist principles, frontiers , class positions and class lessons, which are historically determined, whether from all along capitalism history, whether from only one of its phase, and whose abandon means to move away from the proletariat's struggle, if not to betray it. Moreover, the ICC "forgets" that it is precisely under the pretext "marxism is not a dogma" that the Berstein or Henri de Man's kind of revisionist tendencies had always developed.
Third sophism : "Most of the discussions within the organisation (...) are on the basis of shared positions and a common goal". Nevertheless, there are also discussions on the basis of positions which are apparently "shared" but which, in reality, are "divergent". For instance, the OPOP can believe that it shares with the ICC the goal of proletarian revolution. Yet a discussion on this question will show a deep disagreement between the idea that the OPOP have about revolution, idea according to which the revolution would consist "in the take over of the factories in order to make them function to the benefit of the workers", and the one the ICC have - if it still maintains its position of origin - according to which revolution can't come but from the destruction of the bourgeois State and the setting up of the proletariat's dictatorship, since the "taking over of the factories" without destruction of the capitalist State is not (was not ?) for the ICC but a dangerous mystification that history had already sanctioned by painful defeat for the working class (see Spain 1936 for instance).
Fourth sophism : "we are aiming to deepen collectively, to move from confusion to clarity". This last passage is really worthy of anthology. Let's aside all the history of the revolutionary organisations in degeneracy - included the ICC itself - for which the "deepening" took the contrary direction, "from clarity to confusion". What the sentence wants to affirm is that, again, the discussions can't be posed in "rough" terms, in terms of conflict, nor in terms of classes struggle, but rather in "cultivated" terms, in terms of "overcoming confusion and reaching clarity". Nevertheless, they forget that political "confusion" within the proletariat and amongst its own class political organisations is not so much, nor only, due to the lack of development of the events ("the changing reality") which prevents to "reach clarity", but rather to the domination of bourgeois ideology. For instance, that the ICC is presently diving into a dramatical confusion about the historical alternative is not so much due to the fact that exist concrete, historical and present elements in the evolution of the imperialist conflicts which would strengthen its new vision of a "third way" opposed to the "war or revolution" alternative, but rather to the fact that this organisation has been won over by the bourgeoisie's propaganda which hammers out, amongst other things, through all its medias the approach of the "ecological apocalypse". Thus, the process of discussion and reflection within the proletariat and its organisations which goes "from confusion to clarity" is also and above all a process which is part of the conflict between the classes, which does concretely exist as a fight against the penetration and the domination of bourgeois ideology.
Really, what use is all this stupid gossiping of the ICC liquidationists about the "culture of debate" which denies, insistently, the inescapable contradictory and classes struggle character of the process of clarification led by the revolutionary organisations, if not to justify their own opportunism, their own concessions to bourgeois politics and ideology ? And also, by the way, to mask their "methods" of "debate" that they use against their true opponents ?
This new "theory" of the present ICC gets all its true signification when we remind the "bolshevisation" methods 7 utilized from 2001 by the same who are today preaching the "culture of debate" in order to impose their politics within the organisation and, in particular, to rid themselves of the opposing militants (whose some has formed our fraction) : physical and psychological pressures, searches in the homes aiming at spiriting away the personal archives, inquisitorial proceedings at international scale, blackmails on the families, denouncement and institution of maoist style "self-criticisms", banning of publishing oppositional texts in the internal bulletins, banning and exclusion of political fractions, demoralization - up to provoke dismissals - and exclusion of the militants in opposition, formation of a permanent surveillance commission of the "ideological purity" (sic) out of any control of the organisation and militia of bruisers to silence the excluded militants... all this accompanied with the worst insults, slanders and threats against the opposing militants 8. All these pressures, insults, slanders were even "theoretically" justified by an internal text about "the revolutionary indignation". Thus, why now all these hypocritical - actually perverse - mea-culpas of the ICC liquidationists with the "culture of debate" and all these lessons they pretend to give when they talk of " to listen to others", of not"to annihilate debate" and not "to crush the opposition" ?
Obviously, this unfortunate "theory" of "culture of debate" does not address the members excluded by the ICC and who has formed our internal fraction ; nor even the serious groups of the proletarian camp, the groups which link themselves to the Communist Left and that - in passing and very shortly - the report of the 17th congress judges as having a "sectarian approach ". This new "theory" is addressing, firstly, the groups which enter in contact with the present ICC and which don't know its history : it is thus, besides a justification of its own opportunism, a folding screen to mask its bolshevisators and stalinist conducts.
Finally, we are convinced that this "theory" of "culture of debate" has a third function besides the two firsts : to serve as a supplementary tool of the liquidationist faction to crush any residue of "criticisms" or "opposition" which could still express itself within the organisation. May be do we suffer of some kind of subjectivity and "optimism" when we consider, 6 years after the 2001 organisational crisis, that it can have yet any resistance to the opportunist politics and to the theoretical revisionism of the liquidators. Nevertheless, it is the very report of the 17th congress itself which, despite the cryptographic language it uses, gives us some indications when it notes "that alongside important signs of progress made by our organisation, a certain number of sections still bore the "scars" [and "after-effects" in the French version] of past difficulties. This is the proof that the construction of an organisational tissue is never complete and demands a permanent effort on the part of the whole organisation and all its militants" (idem, part. The responsibility of revolutionaries).
Besides the acknowledgement that" a certain number of sections still bore the «scars» of past difficulties", as much worrying is the silence that the ICC press keeps about its internal debates. For instance, let's remind the "debate on morality". Even though it has been considered by the ICC itself as "crucial" for the working class and its minorities, and 3 years after having been initiated, the ICC maintains the most complete silence about the terms of this debate (and despite there have been several responses of the proletarian camp to the ICC "Orientation Text" which was supposed to serve as axis of this debate). Up to today, we don't know what discussions there have been, what positions were confronted, if there have been divergences or if the organisation has fully homogenized around the deplorable "Text of Orientation" about morality... despite the fact the last congress of Révolution internationale (the section of the ICC in France) was speaking of some "fragmentation" and of "some dispersion", and thus of the need for "carrying on the debate" (Révolution internationale 370, 2006). And now, the report of the 17th international congress has not produced any resolution, nor any declaration. On the contrary, it has carefully avoided any mention to what it considered a year ago as a "crucial debate". What has become the famous Text of Orientation about morality ? Why such a silence ? The reader of the ICC press have no idea. In any case, we have the proof that the "culture of debate" is a simple bluff destined to lure the outside innocents and to silence the malcontents inside the organisation 9.
Moreover, the report avoids too carefully to concretely say in what consist these "after-effects" and"«scars» of past difficulties" - existing in several sections. Nevertheless, they might be sufficiently serious to lead the liquidationists to take a measure that they didn't dare to take before, nor even at the strongest moment of their offensive : modifying the statutes of the ICC to "legalize" the existence of the famous "Commission of Investigation" which is the most concrete and the most tangible expression of the "purification" process the ICC has lived since 2001 :
"the congress, on the basis of this necessity and of the key role played by this commission in recent years, decided to give it a permanent character by inscribing it into the ICC's statutes. This is not at all an "innovation" by our organisation" (Idem).
Since the origin of our fraction, we have denounced the meaning of this "Commission of Inverstigation" 10. The today ICC persists in its affirmation according to which the existence of this kind of organisms is "traditional" in the working class's political organisations. We must, again, raise the question : why this had not been considered in the original statutes of the ICC itself ?
Just as we have also demonstrated that the appearance of such organisms, far from being a "tradition", expresses precisely the appearance of a process of organisational degeneracy, as it was precisely the case with the "Commission of Investigation" which had been set up in the ICC in 2001 and whose function was defined by the liquidationists themselves in the following manner :
"The organisation has to fight with the greatest determination for confidence and trust within its ranks. Investigation Commissions are tools to re-establish this trust. But if there is no class enemy at work and the organisation is confronted with expressions of an ideology alien to the proletariat, they also serve as the tool to detect these alien ideologies and behaviours. An Investigation Commission can only fulfil its task if it enjoys total independence" (Activities Report adopted at the International Bureau Plenum of September 2001, Internal Bulletin 287 of the ICC, underlinings in the original version, see also Bulletin 1 of our fraction).
Thus, we have the liquidationists who, for one side, natter about a so-called "culture of debate", which might not "pose each discussion in terms of a conflict between marxism and opportunism, between Bolshevism and Menshevism, and even between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie", which must favor the collective discussions "to move from confusion to clarity", etc., and who, on the other side, at the same time, set up and "legalize" within the organisation a "permanent commission of investigation" - independant and above all the other organisational authorities, such as the central organs which are mandated and thus aren't "independant" - whose goal is to "detect" and to fight "ideologies and behaviours [which are] alien to the proletariat".
These two aspects - "culture of debate" and "commission of investigation" -, apparently contradictory, are actually complementary. The "culture of debate" is used as a smokescreen by the liquidationists, since the fact that "most of the discussions (...) are not confrontations between bourgeois and proletarian positions", nor "between marxism and opportunism", they so avoid that their "new theories", always more inept and foreign to the proletariat, be criticized at their roots within the organisation and that they be characterized for what they are : opportunism, concessions to bourgeois ideology, giving up of marxist positions. In exchange, the commission of investigation serves them precisely to "detect" and to "purge" the organisation of those who still express their discontents, to those who still have "scars", it means those who still defend - even though shyly - the true positions of the real ICC.
According to the liquidationnists who leads today the ICC in its fall as political revolutionary organisation of the proletariat, this congress would have been the greatest, the most important of all ICC history :
"The first thing that has to be said about the one [the 17th congress of the ICC] we held in the spring is that it is even more important than the ones before it, because it marked a very significant step [the French version says "a step of first greatness" ] in over thirty years of existence" (ICC's 17th congress : The proletarian camp reinforced worldwide, International Review 130).
It's true that we can't accuse the liquidationists of "false modesty". And, no doubt, this ICC congress could be the "most important in its history". But not exactly in the sense that these citizens want to give it. It might be the "most important" rather by the gravity of the giving up of the marxist positions at the theoretical and political levels as well as the organisational one :
- giving up of the marxist theory on decadence and on the historical alternative of war or revolution and adoption of the thesis of "the ecological apocalypse" and thus of the bourgeois ideology of ecologism ;
- giving up of the essential organisational task of the building up the proletariat's world party to the benefit of an opening up to councilists conceptions ;
- giving up of political confrontation with the historical groups of the proletarian camp who claim the Communist Left and organisational and political bringing together with organisations similar to a new kind of councilism (when it's not with anarchism and "alter-mondialisme") ;
- "legalization" of the "ideological purification" processes within the organisation in the name of "the tradition of the proletariat's organisations" ;
- censorship of the after-effects of the debate and of the criticism towards the orientations put forwards by the liquidationnists...
No doubt, this 17th congress will remain in the memories for the "greatness"... of the steps taken by the present ICC towards precipice, in its organisational degeneracy and its opportunist drift.
Facing this sad and dramatical demonstration given by the "official" ICC, our fraction only feels the modesty and the limit of its own forces in front of the increased responsibilities which rely on it since it is up to the fraction, more than ever, to defend, to save, to deepen and to transmit the political, theoretical and organisational principles which gave birth to the ICC, as well as the legacy of its methods of organisational functioning, of debates, of collective internal life, of building up a proletarian political organisation, of true militant vanguard, in a word of all that had led it to become, in its time, the most influential Left Communist organisation at international scale, a true pole of regroupment of the revolutionary forces.
It's these principles and methods that the present ICC, the "formal" ICC, throws every day more into the dustbin.
In front of the "great" fiasco of the 17th congress of the ICC, the Internal Fraction again declares itself to be the continuation of the "historical" ICC. We will keep on calling all the groups of the proletarian camp, of the Left Communist, all the proletarian elements who look for clarification, coherence and political militant commitment, to pursue all the tasks essential to the confrontation, the clarification of the revolutionary programme of the proletariat, to support and contribute to any initiatives at organisational level which would contribute to the construction of the world proletarian party. In regards to the comrades who, within the ICC, have still kept a spark - as weak it can be - of consciousness, of force of willingness and courage to oppose that the process of degeneracy of the organisation gets to its final point, we tell them : rise up comrades, express publicly, resist openly, since time is not in favor of our organisation, the ICC ! You can count on the support of the groups of the proletarian camp, of the Left Communist ! You will count, fully, on the support of our fraction !
1. "In decadence, economic contradictions drive capitalism towards war, but war does not resolve these contradictions. On the contrary, it deepens them. In any case the cycle of crisis war and reconstruction is over and the crisis today, unable to debauch on world war, is the prime factor in accelerating the decomposition of the system. It thus continues to push the system towards its own self-destruction" (Résolution on International Situation of the 16th Congress of the ICC, International Review 122, we underline).
2. See our bulletin, Communist Bulletin 40, The present ICC carries on its giving up of its political basis !
3. This giving up of the question of the Party building up is notable also in the ICC press, especially in its debates with the different groups.
4. The positions of the OPOP, in particular, its "letter of principles", can be read - in Portuguese - on its own internet site : http://www.opopssa.info/histopop.html . We certainly have the occasion, in an other bulletin, to examine the positions of this group.
5. See the ICC pamphlet on the Left Communist of France which re-publishes the correspondance with the Communistendbond of Nederland for the conference of the Left Communist in 1947.
6. See the article What the "External Fraction of the ICC" is useful for ? From political irresponsibility to theoretical vacuum , signed FM (International Review 70, 1992). It is an unforgettable article since its author already contributed to the "culture of debate" by calling the EFCCI of "liars", of "stupids", of "parasites" and "useless" (this article isn't available in the English pages of the ICC web site). And on the present common activity between the EFCCI and the ICC, see : A revolutionary conference in Korea http://www.internationalist-perspective.org/IP/ip-texts/korea_rev-conference.html .
7. "Bolshevisation" refers to the initial period of degeneracy of the Third International which prepared the final rising of stalinism and which consisted in the "purification" (read : elimination) policy against the Left fractions which were surging in all the sections (in the Communist Parties) of the International precisely as reaction against the opportunist degeneracy process that the Communist International was beginning to live. In our first bulletins, we have showed how a similar process of "bolshevisation" - keeping in mind the political and historical proportions - has developed since 2001 within the ICC. It led to the rising of what we've called the liquidationist faction and to the process of organisational and political degeneracy in which the ICC actually dives in.
8. All this situation has been related in our bulletins. As simple example, let's take one at random, the 35 in which we denounced one of the physical agressions of the ICC militia against two members of the fraction who attempted to approach one of their "public" meetings (at the time, we didn't published it in the English version of our bulletin) : "Beyond the violent blows they "bravely" strike to two isolated communist militants, their "argumentation" is particularly significant of the real state of the ICC of today. It went from the very political "go kiss the IBRP's ass" to the very militant "shut up, clear off. (...) What a turn in regards with the original ICC conception of the relationship between the militants and the groups of the Proletarian Camp ! Finally, it's very significant of the manner with which the ICC judges the organisations of the Communist Left, and in particular the IBRP !" This says a lot about the true "culture of debate" of the liquidationists.
9. About our criticism of the "Text of Orientation" of the present ICC on morality (we've showed it was fully similar to Henri De Man's revisionism), see bulletins 38 and 39.
10. See, for instance, bulletin 1 of our fraction, October 2001.
Internal Fraction of ICC - Communist Bulletin (Nš 41)