Correspondence with Internationalist Voice

We publish below a correspondence with Internationalist Voice. (The English part of the text of Internationalist Voice is their translation from Persian)

Greetings comrades,

Like I said in a previous email, I'm back to engage in a discussion with you. I'm really enthusiastic to discuss with your group since we share about the same political positions. Now, I am a member of a Communist Left group named Klasbatalo which is based in Montreal, Canada.

We ... and recently we were in discussion with the IFCL (ex-Internal Fraction of the ICC), the group Controversies (which you probably know is a scission of the ICC), the Istituto Onorato Damen (which is a scission of the ICT) ; and on a new political level for us, we informally met the canadian IWG a few weeks ago.

So to start with a good method, I send you with this email our basic political position for you to examine it.

As you will see, we share the same legacy : the Communist Left one.

Would you give me a few feedbacks about them for us to begin a fraternal discussion?

Right now, we try our best to get engage the different groups - sharing the same programmatic Communist Left legacy - in a fraternal discussion to see them meet points: to help them to our best to get them converge and overcome the state of sectarianism which seems to become some kind of tendency since about the last decade.

So, I hope I'll have a few news from you so we can bring a discussion together,

Fraternally,

Alex for Klasbatalo

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Their reply

“Proletarian revolutions, ... constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever...”

Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

Comrade Alex

Thanks for your E-mail. We believe debate is vital, necessary and crucial to the internationalists. The revolutionary movement cannot take the effective steps unless the internationalists play a dynamic rule to development this movement. This is only possible through the discussion and confrontation of different view point within the Proletarian Political Milieu.

The aim of debate should be, contributing to clarity within the Proletarian Political Milieu, which in turn contributes to the preparation for the formation of the historic Internationalist Communist Party, the indispensable weapon for the victory of the Communist Revolution.

You wrote a list of groups that you have been in discussion without saying anything about the “discussions”. For us, your aim, in discussion with us is not clear. Do you want this list should be longer? What is your criterion for discussing with a circle, group or a political current?

For us your practice and actions have not been in the direction of contributing to the clarity within the Proletarian Political Milieu, but to more confusion. You have contributed to uncertainty about the most important currents within the PPM. But first let’s explain something.

When we talking about Rosa Luxemburg as a source of inspiration for the proletariat, this doesn’t mean that we disregard her lack of clarity in the mass party question and the process of developing of class-consciousness. Or when we talking about Lenin the greatest Marxist within the history of proletariat, once again, this doesn’t mean that we disregard his lack of clarity about the question of national or his 1902 apprehension about the process of developing of class consciousness.

And again when we talking about International Communist Current and Internationalist Communist Tendency the most important organizations that the proletariat has created after degenerating of the Communist International, this doesn’t mean that we disregard their possible lack of clarity in some questions. These currents are the most important currents that historically and organically rooted in the current that has defended of the communist positions during the blackest period of contra-revolution. These currents are still the most important avant-garde of the proletariat.

We urge all, the political criticism of these currents but a Chinese wall separates criticism from discrediting. We have declared that any attack to these groups, is an attack to the Internationalist Voice and their achievements are not only for them, but also for the working class, the Left Communist and all internationalists.

We choose the first from your list “IFCL (ex-Internal Fraction of the ICC)” that you have been in discussion. We don’t recognize neither external nor internal fraction of the ICC. Formation of a fraction means that the current (in this case, ICC) has completely gone to the bourgeoisies’ terrain. The actions of these people (“IFCL”) have been discrediting of the International Communist Current and they coded the name of their polluting companies creating of “fraction” and saving of the ICC. If the currents like “worker communism of Iran” pollute terms like Worker, Communism and etc these people pollute “Left Communism”, “Internationalism”, “Bilan” and etc.

These fugitives from “Left Communism” never fought within the ICC, because the precondition for such struggle was not, otherwise the story of their battle from Paris to the Marseille and from Marseille to the Mexico City should be a source of inspiration for a new generation of Internationalists.

For us Left Communism is not only some “Political Positions” but also the principles and values of the proletariat. To eliminate the influence of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologies, tireless duties of internationalists should be to strive to strengthen the proletarian values and principles which are a reflection of proletarian class consciousness.

The precondition for a political debate with you is that you put your practice on serious criticism and publicly reject the actions of groups like “IFCL” and contributing to the strengthening of the proletarian values and principles. We urge you.

Internationalist Greetings

Internationalist Voice

15th October 2011

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dear comrades of Internationalist Voice

Thanks again for taking time to reply to us. First, I want to let you know that I‘m contacting you not just on my own behalf but also on behalf of Klasbatalo, the organization to which I belong and that claims the same political legacy as Internationalist Voice.

Second, we want to apologize for the delay in our response. Actually, certain difficulties have hindered our work among the proletariat as well as our exchanges with other groups from the same political current as yours.

Okay, so let’s get to the heart of the matter. We share your understanding of how crucial it is to maintain dialogue amongst internationalists so as to learn from the hard lessons of the past, allowing for the enrichment of the proletarian political agenda. And in fact we believe that the different political views of the groups from what you call the proletarian political milieu – a term from the legacy of Marc Chirik – must be confronted through fraternal discussion in order to proceed toward the development and maintenance of a class party with programmatic homogeneity despite any divergences and fractions that will inevitably arise, but which might also serve to keep the dialectical process alive so that the party does not suffer the sclerotic diminution of its own program.

Also, you seem surprised that we’ve contacted you. However, we see it as our responsibility. To initiate discussion, it is necessary to make contact with an introduction, and a presentation. And in so doing, we open the door to dialogue. Of course, this is not discussion for discussions sake. One of the main tasks we set for ourselves in Klasbatalo is to provoke discussion within the groups from the PPM, so as to avoid sowing confusion or to squander the historic program of our class. Currently, it seems that this is not so easy, especially with the troika of ICC - Controversies - IFCL. For several years, the trend within our current has been that of sectarianism and denunciations of all kinds. Far from clarifying and enriching the program, this situation is paralyzing if not outright destroying us. It seems that the main political organizations of the communist left (primarily the ICC, the ICP and ICT) have suffered several setbacks and difficulties in recent years - even decades - that have caused them to turn inward: the ICC with its many spin-offs, departures, resignations, and fractions, the ICP with its rout in the 1980s has virtually disappeared, the ICT (formerly IBRP) with its difficulties dealing with LAWV, the Ukrainian fraud, the lack of dynamism in the French section, as well as the sudden disappearance of its section in Argentina. Are these the only causes of rampant sectarianism? Of course they play a major role, but these are not the only ones. As well, it is necessary to note the difficulty these organizations face in absorbing the PPM groups that revolve around them.

In this regard, we’d like to know why you haven’t joined any of these organizations (here we’re thinking of the ICT and ICC), as you seem to share most of their positions. In our case, we’re not too keen to join the ICC with its opportunistic new approach towards the anarchists, even if we agree with its platform and with most of its original positions. As for the ICT, we would join the Canadian section but it seems that for the moment this is not possible. For Klasbatalo, this is on a political level but, unfortunately, for the IWG (the canadian section of the ICT) we can’t join them for personal reasons.

Its with this in mind that we’ve made contact with you. In order to help break through the sectarian atmosphere, to break down the isolation that consumes us, to provoke discussion, leading to a policy of consolidation.

Now, you already seem to have an opinion about us. You write:

“For us your practice and actions have not been in the direction of contributing to the clarity within the Proletarian Political Milieu, but to more confusion…[that]KB You have contributed to about the most important currents within the PPM.”

We would like to know how our practice and our actions have caused confusion in the PPM simply by virtue of the fact that we have links with the IFCL. This is an extremely Manichean affirmation: that if one group from the CL heritage communicates with another group of the same legacy (which has had difficulties and even made serious mistakes), that the first can be accused of sowing confusion within the class simply by association? Isn’t this, comrades, one of the prevailing premises of sectarianism? For us, no group is infallible and no group is forever a prisoner of opportunistic positions it might take so long as it hasn’t fundamentally betrayed the class. Mind you, with no offense to the ICC, the IFCL is part of the same programmatic legacy as you, and ourselves, and enjoys relatively good contact with the ICT. By the same criteria, would you dare, accuse the ICT of sowing confusion within the class as well?

The whistle-blower policy that’s currently plaguing our current does not interest us. This is one reason why we distanced ourselves from the IFCL recently. This arose from its denunciation of the ICC’s supposed secret resolution, which as we now know was based on gossip and quotations taken out of context. We disagree completely with this "campaign of denunciations" and while we denounce the actions of IFCL this doesn’t mean that we condemn the IFCL to the bourgeois camp forever. For an organization to be considered bourgeois, it has to have fallen into the bourgeois camp, it has to have betrayed the working class. It has to have left the class terrain. The IFCL has not betrayed, and its positions aren’t foreign to our current; it continues to defend the interests of the proletariat. Of course, this latest outburst against the ICC is problematic, but an error does not place it in the bourgeois camp. Instead, our duty amongst other things is to respond to mistakes and common errors of the groups within our current, keeping them in the Marxist orbit or to indicate the programmatic direction of our class. Also, we mustn’t denounce the organizations in our current, but rather their mistakes or positions.We expect the same to be applied to Klasbattalo, as well. For Klasbatalo, the policies of exclusion play into the hands of the bourgeoisie. It’s really the politics of denunciation that lead to accusations of sectarianism, that maintains confusion within the class. Who is wrong and who is right, Lenin or Rosa? Here it’s not the individuals, groups, or organizations that are right or wrong ... but the positions they defend historically and conjuncturally.

So far as we’re concerned, the ICT-IOD belong to the same programmatic heritage, even though they’ve recently split. For us the IOD hasn’t slipped into middle class politics simply because it split with the ICT. It’s as a result of the same atmosphere of sectarianism out of which the split occurred. In not seeking political confrontation, the IOD instead resigned in order to produce their own texts. Sectarianism is our main enemy and the politics of denunciation only exacerbate the problem.

It’s worth noting that in Klasbatalo we recently clarified our policy for intervention in the PPM. Like you, we believe that an attack against the ICC and the ICT is an attack against the whole proletarian political milieu. These two organizations are the main inheritors and guarantors of the revolutionary program. So we want to defend these organizations while reminding them of their responsibility to the class, that is to say with fraternal debate, harsh if necessary, with the groups that gravitate around them, as well as between themselves. (even if it seems impossible for the moment). As well, we wish to initiate discussion in the PPM, within the class, while acting in a prudent manner in order to clarify our program – that of historic left communism, that of Marxism, and therefore that of the proletariat. And now, within these lines, Internationalist Voice and Klasbatalo are engaged in discussion. You’ve explained your policies concerning intervention in the PPM, we’re explaining ours. While there appears to be disagreement regarding the nature of certain groups, we have the same tasks and the same mandate.

We also disagree with you on the historic utility of fractions. For us, the presence of a fraction within an organization doesn’t mean that the organization has slipped or is slipping into the bourgeois camp. Rather, fractions are not only inevitable (since no organization will ever be perfectly homogenous), but can also prove to be beneficial. Fractions can help keep the proletariat’s political program intact, as in the case of the Italian fraction abroad, by maintaining a policy of debate in order to produce an important synthesis within the larger organization.

Finally, we would like to open discussions with you, possibly leading to a political rapprochement, but not at any price.

When you write:

“The precondition for a political debate with you is that you put your practice on serious criticism and publicly reject the actions of groups like “IFCL” and contributing to the strengthening of the proletarian values and principles. We urge you.”

We must object for the reasons mentioned above. Our critique of the IFCL’s false public denunciation of the ICC's ‘secret resolution’ will be published shortly. However, what you’ll find throughout this critique is not a denunciation of the FGCI, but rather its method and the very policy of denunciation.

We await your reply.

Our fraternal greetings,

Klasbatalo November 2011

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dear comrades of Klasbatalo

Thanks for your letter. Your enthusiasm for discussion appreciated despite its serious flaws. You have not attempted to explain the important questions or points that we had put to you. We asked you to explain, “What is your criterion for discussing with a circle, group or a political current?”

We described in our last letter to you, for us, your aim, in discussion with us was not clear. Therefore we put conditions. Our demands remain the same, and we repeat again:

“The precondition for a political debate with you is that you put your practice on serious criticism and publicly reject the actions of groups like “IFCL” and contributing to the strengthening of the proletarian values and principles.”

Until then, we give the following explanation:

We are not surprised that you have contacted us; you are not the first who contact us and will not be the last. You are Confusing of political tendency with political fraction. We don’t have monolithic conception of the organization.

We never asked you to “denounce” the “IFCL”. What we asked you, was, publicly rejection of the actions of groups like “IFCL”. Because these actions are common to all non-proletarian circles.

It looks like all practice of Klasbatalo has been only to have links with the “IFCL”! You wrote:

“We would like to know how our practice and our actions have caused confusion in the PPM simply by virtue of the fact that we have links with the IFCL.”

Once again because it looks like all practice of Klasbatalo has been only to have links with the “IFCL”, sectarianism became its main enemy! You wrote:”Sectarianism is our main enemy”. Sectarianism is the event not the cause; it is one of the problems of the Proletarian Political Milieu but not the main nemy of the Proletarian Political Milieu. Of course, your view of sectarianism has its roots.

We believe that influence of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologies is the main enemy not only to the working class but also to its political currents. We believe, tireless duties of internationalists should be to strive to strengthen the proletarian values and principles.

You never touching about these problems because it looks like you are not trying to strengthening of the proletarian values and principles. We believe a serious criticism of the practice of the Klasbatalo, will not weaken the Klasbatalo, but also will strengthen the Klasbatalo, will also contribute to the strengthening of the proletarian values and principles. We comradely urge you to such criticism.

Communist Greetings

Internationalist Voice

4th December 2011

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

IV response clarifying parasitism 19 01 2012

Dear Comrades

Thank you for your reply

Here we hope to answer some of your questions and criticisms, so we can have a better understanding of each others’ perspectives and see where we can go from here.

While we acknowledge the problem of the “weakening of proletarian values and principles” as of primary importance in the general sense, here, for example, we can cite the ICC’s sometimes opportunist adaptation to anarchist currents, contrasted with their lack of discussion and debate with other elements of the communist left – notably the ICT. On the other hand, we see a concerted effort by some to exacerbate differences and political behavior, to the detriment of moving toward a common orientation in response to the present attacks faced by the proletariat. -Note: the forum debate on “Our differences with the ICC” on Leftcom-. Under such circumstances, the “weakening of proletarian values and principles” is one very unfortunate result.

For us, the basic criteria “for discussing with a circle, group or a political current” are pretty basic – support for the revolutionary overthrow of world capitalism, the dictatorship of the proletariat (understood in its full sense), the need for the party, general adherence to the main points of communist program, and a serious approach to their elaboration and application.

On the question of FICL, parasitism and factionalism: We don’t confuse political tendency with political fraction. We understand that factions (or fractions) are different from political tendencies.

Where ‘tendencies’ form over particular points of difference, comrades don’t see themselves as contesting the fundamental positions and orientations of an organization. Whereas ‘fractions’ develop to challenge an organization’s main trajectory or orientation, either away from established praxis or fighting for a return to a core position(s) previously discarded. They’re defined often by the fact that they present a challenge for the leadership and direction of an organization.

From everything we’ve seen, this is the position that the FICL and originally IFFIC found themselves in. We’ve had extensive contact with FICL / IFFIC and nowhere did we find any evidence of “parasitism” as described by the ICC (the FICL is indeed a genuine fraction). For us, though, the ICC’s concept of parasitism has no roots within the Marxist corpus and has more in common with bourgeois notions of copyright and intellectual property, than with revolutionary critique. (-more on this below-) To wit, in the course of many hours of discussion and debate not once did the FICL comrades raise their divergences and disagreements with the ICC, much less use the opportunity of our meetings to denigrate and demonize the ICC. The main aspect of our exchanges has been on how to favourably advance the class struggle in the proletariats’ favour. To the extent that questions and criticisms of ICC and its politics came up, it was chiefly as a result of our inquiries. This accounted for but a minute part of our discussions. What we found was that whether we agreed on each and every point or not, FICL’s commitment regarding its relation to the ICC was that it saw as its mission to preserve what they understood to be its (ICC’s) defining positions and practice before the year 2000 (the period before the split). For us, these are hardly the actions or behavior of a group which - ‘may well repeat the same positions as the ICC, just as a showcase for their real purpose: to destroy the revolutionary organization to which they feel the deepest hatred.’

http://fr.internationalism.org/forum/312/internationalist-voice/4289/these-parasitism

Submitted by Tibo on July 24, 2010 - 20:01.

From what we can gather, in examining the use of the accusation of “parasitism”, we see that it only clouds the real nature of divergences, by seemingly characterizing every organizational split as an expression of vindictive, bruised egos. Though we can see this as possible in some cases, it seems that the use of the term ‘parasitism’ has become an all too convenient catchall. We sincerely hope that the ICC, as well as yourselves, will discard its use. For us, the parasitism concept is more like a veiled threat against fractions.

On the question of factions as such, we can only say that, as is frequently the case, a major rift or crises is often at the root of the formation of a faction within a communist organization.

It can be devastating under certain circumstances, leading to mistrust, false divisions (on top of preexisting ones), an atmosphere of recrimination, momentary or chronic fragmentation, and confusion amongst the comrades and contacts of the party or group. However, the necessity of factions is born out by the history of the communist workers movement, where the necessary rise of factions played an enormous role in the clarifications and the final emergence of revolutionary organizations such as the Bolsheviks, Spartacus bund, the Italian Communist left, etc. Don’t forget that the banning of factions in the Bolshevik party at the end of the civil war was one of the final blows against the proletarian revolution in Russia, as well as a major blow against the whole revolutionary wave of the twenties. As such, the right to form factions must be defended.

For ourselves, FICL is not the only organization we’ve had contact with – just the first we’ve had extensive contact with.

Finally, we in Klasbatalo maintain a rigorous practice of debate, critique, and analyses perhaps not necessarily with all the conclusions which you, the comrades of Internationalist Voice, would make. This is where we can be of assistance to each other, as well as other elements of the communist left.

None of us on the Communist left, not one group or organization, can develop a solid grasp of the necessary steps forward by ourselves alone, given our various levels of political cohesion, experience, history and practice, given the global enormity of the battles ahead for the working class in the present period. Coming from this general perspective, our purpose in contacting you is to develop the necessary debate and discussion that hopefully will eventually lead to a common revolutionary practice.

Communist greetings,

Klasbatalo

************************************************

Dear comrades!

Thanks for your letter. Your letter is not in line with a critical review that we hopped but so

far has been in order to justify the practice and acts of the «Klasbatalo», unfortunately, this

indicates that «Klasbatalo» because of its limitations is not capable to do a such critique. The

critique that could be in line with to progress of Internationalist positions not only in the

North America but also lead to strengthen of Internationalist positions in the other part of the

world. From our perspective the practice and acts of the «Klasbatalo» has not been in the

direction of contributing to the clarity within the Proletarian Political Milieu, but to more

confusion. Therefore we put conditions to begin discussion with you and we are also seriously

in our demands, and we repeat again:

“The precondition for a political debate with you is that you put your practice

on serious criticism and publicly reject the actions of groups like “IFCL” and

contributing to the strengthening of the proletarian values and principles.”

Since the content of this correspondence can serve to strengthen of the Internationalist

positions, therefore, we need to clarify the following explanations:

Criteria for a political debate

We asked you. What are your criteria for a political debate with a circle, group or a political

current? And you replied.

“For us, the basic criteria “for discussing with a circle, group or a political current” are pretty

basic – support for the revolutionary overthrow of world capitalism, the dictatorship of the

proletariat (understood in its full sense), the need for the party, general adherence to the main

points of communist program, and a serious approach to their elaboration and application.”

These criteria can be found in the radical phrase part of the left of capital (Stalinists, Maoists,

Trotskyists etc) and a concrete example can be Worker Communist Party of Iran. Even if you

have improved these positions in the correspondence with the IWG, but the most important

question is, how these positions are applied in reality? Which roles play the narrator of these

positions? How applying of these positions contribute to clarity within the Proletarian

Political Milieu?

You have been in discussion with a long list of groups without saying anything about the

“discussions”, or even worse you have no balance sheet of these “discussions”. Why you have

not been able to establish a long term relationship with these groups? Such balance sheet

would help others in the Political Milieu in their orienteering to avoid the same mistake and

also would show a serious methodology of you.

Religious or Communist confidence

You wrote:

“While we acknowledge the problem of the “weakening of proletarian values and principles”

as of primary importance in the general sense, here, for example, we can cite the ICC’s

sometimes opportunist adaptation to anarchist currents, contrasted with their lack of

discussion and debate with other elements of the communist left – notably the ICT”

First and foremost, we must point out that the development of the working class is not linear;

therefore working class gives to rise of different political revolutionary currents. Of course

attempt must be progress towards convergence, but this attempt must be very natural.

Our confidence to the revolutionary organizations is not a religious confidence but a

communist confidence. This means, we do not believe that what these organizations say is

hundred percent correct, but what we stress is that these organizations have a proletarian

nature and defense the proletarian positions.

Contrary to the impatient petty bourgeoisie attitude, we tried to learn from the historical

experience of the proletariat. After the first congress of the communist party of Iran in early

1920, in a coup attempt by Bolsheviks, 12 of the 15 member of the central committee elected

by the first congress of the party, including Avatis Soltanzadeh were dismissed from the

leadership of the party. The reason for this was, none progressive evaluation of the national

bourgeoisie in Iran by Avatis Soltanzadeh because he believed that directly communist

struggle and attempts in line with the World Revolution should be order to the day

[Soltanzadeh was a great internationalist, executed by communist killer, Stalin]. This opinion

was not confirmed by the Political Bureau of the Caucasus and Azerbaijani Bolshevik; they

had illusion about the progressive role of the national bourgeoisie. Soltanzadeh has never

been questioned the proletarian nature of Bolsheviks, he never tried to establish a fraction but

through the texts exposed the destructive consequences that this policy will be play in the

Iranian Political milieu and the class movement of the proletariat.

We believe internationalists in general and especially the International Communist Current in

the events of 2009 in Iran played a passive roles. The introduction of the ICC to our text

published in their site with title “Class struggle is the only alternative for working class” was

a mechanical analyze of events in Iran. Our text, “Two movements, two perspectives,

intensifying of the class struggle is the only alternative” was a critique to the introduction of

the ICC from an Internationalist perspective. More than two years of events in Iran proves the

correctness of our analysis. We have also criticized the ICC in the class consciousness, role of

revolutionary organizations, and lack of clarity about councilism and comrades promised to

reply us.

Formation of Fraction

First you describe a brief and correct history of the fraction that we are agreed, you wrote:

“However, the necessity of factions is born out by the history of the communist workers

movement, where the necessary rise of factions played an enormous role in the clarifications

and the final emergence of revolutionary organizations such as the Bolsheviks, Spartacus

bund, the Italian Communist left, etc. Don’t forget that the banning of factions in the

Bolshevik party at the end of the civil war was one of the final blows against the proletarian

revolution in Russia, as well as a major political blow against the whole revolutionary wave

of the twenties. As such, the right to form factions must be defended.”

And you continue:

“‘fractions’ develop to challenge an organization’s main trajectory or orientation, either away

from established praxis or fighting for a return to a core position(s) previously discarded.”

From the above correct description, suddenly you pulls completely wrong conclusion and this

is extremely dangerous act. You wrote as following:

“We’ve had extensive contact with FICL / IFFIC and…the FICL is indeed a genuine fraction”

Formation of a fraction means that the current (in this case, ICC) has completely gone to the

bourgeoisies’ terrain. What do you have to prove your claim? Either you will prove that the

ICC is a counter-revolutionary current then can be formed fraction or you must criticize your

past well, otherwise your claim will not be serious. We also wrote before these fugitives from

“Left Communism” never fought within the ICC.

The influences from the dominant class

“The class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same

time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of

those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. ... hence among other things

rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the

ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.”[The German Ideology -

Karl Marx]

For us Left Communism is not only some “Political Positions” but also the principles and

values of the proletariat. We have stressed that influence of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois

ideologies is the main enemy not only to the working class but also to its political currents.

You do not mention to the influence of the dominant class, which has created enormous

problems for the working class. Thanks to this influence working class provides concessions

of its class identity and considers the "immigrant" worker, its class brothers and sisters, in

Tehran, London and etc causes of its unemployment, misery, less salary and etc.

The majority of those who voted to the "Marine Le Pen" the leader of The French National

Front in the recent presidential elections in France were from the working class of French.

Why parts of working class choose the worst of the gangsters (the most anti foreign

gangster)? In which city of the country you live; worker, who was born outside Canada's

borders, was stabbed and his forehead has been paste "Go home!"

Parasitism

We stand on what we say, write or translate. We have translated the texts that we believe are

important for the Iranian Political Milieu. If a critique from an internationalist perspective

would be directed to what we have written, said or have translated, then we should take a

stand. But first, what you have said on this point:

“For us, though, the ICC’s concept of parasitism has no roots within the Marxist corpus and

has more in common with bourgeois notions of copyright and intellectual property, than with

revolutionary critique…We sincerely hope that the ICC, as well as yourselves, will discard its

use.”

We see only an allegation, not a serious political criticism. We have told before and we repeat

again, we believe a serious criticism of the practice of the Klasbatalo, will not weaken the

Klasbatalo, but also will strengthen the Klasbatalo and this in its turn will also contribute to

the strengthening of the proletarian values and principles. For the last time we urge you to

such criticism.

Internationalist Greetings

Internationalist Voice

29 April 2012

Capitalism is bankrupt! Unite to put an end to it! Struggle and International solidarity with the Greek Working class

We distributed this tract especially in French at several events.


Capitalism is in crisis, one that will be far deeper than that of 1929. That crisis was settled through the atrocity of a world war. Charest, McGuinty, Harper, and those preparing to replace them during the election spectacles, will continue to implement the same austerity measures as in other countries. The same attacks are taking place all over the world – hikes in energy prices, attacks on pensions, tuition increases, new taxes, cutbacks in the public sector and massive factory closures. MABE Canada, Merch, Johnson&Johnson, Electrolux, Rocktenn, Shell, White Birch Paper, Aveos and Caterpillar in Ontario are only part of the closures. We should note the infamous role of unions that sabotage any expansion of the general strike or fight against closures, instead looking for potential buyers, participating in reclassification committees with no prospect of employment, and asking for a donation of an hour’s wages in support. All the while, the repressive measures of the bourgeois state are mounting: Federal crime bill C-10 suspending the right of Air Canada to strike, the 'GAMMA' Political Police Squad in Montreal (Guet des Activités des Mouvements Marginaux et Anarchistes), a vicious attack on demonstrations by police, not to mention the ongoing repression against people on the fringes of society ranging from physical assault to murder.

Should we stand aside for organizations that want to extend the life of capitalism? Do they really expect us to trust them when they ask the bourgeois state to better distribute wealth? -As they really have no interest in seeing capitalism disappear, like the coalition opposing the pricing and privatization of unions and public services. Remember, it was the unions who supported the péquiste Bouchard with the zero deficit law that allowed both PQ and Liberal governments to justify their cuts. Should we let them organize one-day-only strikes that serve solely as a safety valve, leading nowhere?

The working class resists, but in an incredibly dispersed fashion, while the bourgeoisie works together. Workers’ struggles going on in Greece, Spain, Portugal, China, India, France and Réunion, in the US and around the world, force bourgeois factions to unite against the working class. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of demonstrators the world over are refusing austerity. The lying media globally censors these struggles in an attempt to limit international solidarity.

Workers, the unemployed, students, pensioners, we have to stop following fake friends such as our unions and politicians like those from Québec solidaire who intend merely to reform capitalism. We must wrest control of the struggle from them. Otherwise they will divert our struggle back to the parliamentary circus or through the negotiation of our exploitation. Demonstrations and especially a general strike are needed to expand the struggles as widely as possible, following the example of our brothers and sisters, the Greek working class. The workers of Greece serve as an example in uniting to broaden the struggle in spite of nationalism and union corporatism, by rejecting politicians and by attacking the whole machinery of the bourgeois state, as when they besieged parliament for approving the measures demanded by European capitalists. It’s the capitalists who are responsible for this crisis, shifting the blame, trying to make an example of Greece. It’s not for the working class to pay. One single watchword, join the Greek working class in general strike.

Either the bourgeoisie, their states and their politicians will succeed in making us pay through ever more exploitation, or we organize through meetings, struggle committees and strikes in solidarity with the workers of the world to end capitalism.

Internationalist Communists - Klasbatalo March 22nd, 2012

Response to IWG and ICT

What “atrocities”

For years, the GIO has been claiming that we've been spreading slander against their organization. More recently Cleishbotham of ICT wrote that these are “atrocities” spread by the CIK worldwide. We would like to know exactly what are these alleged slanders ?

See the comments below.

2012-04-07

Here is our reply to the IWG concerning their negative and sectarian response to our proposition for common political work. This had been written directly to the IWG. We now see the weakness of the initial proposition, a weakness not of a political order strictly speaking – we still be believe that the basis of the proposition is correct, but rather it’s the approach that’s at fault. We’d have been better off directing our proposition to the ICT as the international group. This political approach, namely addressing the IWG directly rather than the ICT, has two principle causes: First, we deferred to certain conceptions tending towards a localist perspective. Secondly, from past experience, when we called on the ICT for political questions concerning the IWG, they directed us to deal with the IWG, rejecting their responsibilities as an international and centralized organization. What’s done is done. However, with this reply, we now ask that the ICT intervene in the debate, since the debate has been completely blocked by the IWG, and since our proposition also concerned the ICT and all its territorial sections. Up to now, we haven’t received any feedback.

Comrades,

No, there’s no mistake. We have indeed put forth our proposal for common political work. Moreover, this would seem a bad joke on your part, or is it simply bad faith? How can you ask if we sent the right text, when this text consisted of the various points proposed to you during the joint meeting between IWG-Klasbatalo? Your attempt to depict our proposition as coming out of nowhere can’t be serious. Do we have to remind you that it was in fact your delegate who asked us to put our political proposals on paper? What’s worse, you imply that our political proposal would be delusional by drawing attention to a letter that one of our comrades sent to one of yours, which has nothing to do with Klasbatalo’s political proposal to the IWG and the ICT. You have to separate the personal from the political, comrades! In fact you say yourself:

“Camaraderie does not require friendship.” It remains to be seen just how you will apply this principle. We’ll leave it, then, to comrades in the militant political milieu to judge whether our proposal is “delusional”. For our part, this shows vividly that the IWG is currently unable to engage in serious debate on regroupment and political intervention with others from the Communist Left, preferring to say that the dog (referring to Klasbatalo) is rabid and should be put down (no debate or common work, in other words).

You then have the revelation in your ‘answer’ that the two Klasbatalo delegates who met with your delegate are most generous and sincere, but that their militancy has nothing to do with communist work. We would have appreciated your illumination on what constitutes communist intervention. Unfortunately, nothing. You speak of “revolutionary work”, but say nothing about what that is. Do we detect a whiff of leftism and unprincipled activism on your end? For our part, we briefly but clearly reviewed the nature and function of communist intervention in our proposal:

“The need for regroupment of revolutionaries and the function of the future class party:

These embryonic movements of struggle are universally obstructed by the bourgeoisie, its government, its police, and its unions. The bourgeoisie has a vested interest in keeping these movements docile and harmless, so long as their revolutionary and subversive potential exists - hence the need for the bourgeois left. This state of affairs poses two problems that are intrinsically linked: 1. The emergence of groups of the political vanguard brings the communist program to the very heart of the class struggles. 2. The involvement of 'historical' political organizations already existing within the proletariat, and the Communist Left. In other words, the development of these two aspects in the building of an international class party is sorely lacking in the current class struggle. The establishment of an organized and centralized vanguard to ensure a clear political direction for revolutionaries and communists advancing these struggles to victory leading to the revolution.”

You then ask what Communist Left we’re speaking of. Should we reply to this ridiculous question by saying that we’re referring to the Left Communists of Alpha Centauri? But seriously, let’s take a look at another excerpt from our proposal, which, though concise, is quite clear on this question:

“The basic political positions for a regroupment of revolutionaries into a party are the legacy of the Communist Left, namely the experience of different sections of the left that emerged within the Communist International in the '20s-'30s.”

Comrades, we claim the same political heritage, particularly that of the Italian communist left. You ask frankly about our position on trade unions, the party and nationalism. We invite you to look at our basic positions. You will see that we more or less have essentially the same political positions as you. Again, we were very clear in our proposal regarding this:

“The basic criteria are internationalism, the political recognition of the principle of dictatorship of the proletariat, rejection of bourgeois methods of control, such as unionism, parliamentarism and national liberation struggles, the recognition of the proletarian character of the October Revolution, the recognition of the need for an international communist party, as well as the rejection of bourgeois united front tactics. These are in fact, synthetically, class boundaries that distinguish proletarian organization from that of the bourgeois and the petty bourgeois.”

Then we gather from you that in order to be “practical and materialist”, we must debate with you on the nature of unions, the party and nationalism. A funny order of priorities when we are currently experiencing a massive attack from capital against the working class, which has opened enormous possibilities for communist intervention. Aside from the points on which we agree and on politically convergent positions between our two groups, we must unite particularly on the need for the party, on the rejection of unionism and nationalism, etc.

As well, you’re ordering us to remove alleged slander towards you from our blog. Evidently, you can’t specify what you mean, since such slander simply doesn’t exist… There are certainly some texts critical of positions or activities of the IWG on our blog. But these remain critical texts: frank and fraternal. You should know the difference between criticism and slander! Do comrades of the IWG have difficulty in dealing with criticism? This should be useful to you. In declaring that we are conducting alleged smear campaigns and spreading alleged anti-IWG slander, you fail to respond to our critiques and above all have not confronted us politically – moreover, you have never done so, and continue not to. Have you adopted the ICC’s theses on political parasitism toward us, a theory nonetheless rejected by the ICT?

The constitution of the CIM, if you recall, was indeed the result of the departure of IWG sympathizers (Among them was a women who stopped doing any political work), but this came about not through some crazy pretext, but importantly, among other things, through the IWG’s ambiguous involvement in activities commemorating the death of a Canadian Maoist leader! What would you think if the American IWG were involved in the organization of a commemoration of say Bob Avekian, a former leader of the American Maoists?

Then you make the following admission:

“We have no need of two communist groups in this part of the world, only one.”

This phrase, slipped in just after your final clearly written refusal to work with us – what are we to make of it, comrades? So our existence as a group is of no use? That only the IWG's current should exist in North America? Moreover, we should remind you that we’re not the only two communist groups in North America: there is a section of the ICC in the USA as well as a Bordigist PCI comrade in Canada.

In short, we made these proposals for political work as we have been very much motivated by and strongly support the editorial content of the Revolutionary Perspectives #59 from the CWO, British section of your organization, the ICT. Here’s an extract of an important text in the current struggle for revolutionary regroupment:

“At the moment there are many groups and individuals around the world who recognize this but we are either too scattered, or too divided to take a lead in forming such a united movement. Some object to it on principle, declaring that the spontaneous movement will take care of itself. We wish we could share their confidence. We think responsible revolutionaries should re-examine their differences, asking ourselves if the things that we thought divided us now do so in the light of this new period in working class struggle. We should emphasize not the little we disagree on, but the much that we agree on. We should seek to work together in common struggles, not simply to recruit this or that individual to our own organization, but to widen the consciousness of what a real working class struggle means. In the face of the obstacles we have outlined above, it would be suicidal not to. » (Editorial for Revolutionary Perspectives # 59)”

(RP 59, taken by Bilan et Perspectives 12, December 2011, the review of the TCI in France).

Sadly, we find that you seem not to agree with the sound principles issued by your British sister organization, but behave to the contrary. Your delegate, in a meeting with two of ours, made it understood that they would be welcome anytime in the IWG so long as the IWG could continue its sectarian code of omertà towards Klasbatalo. The IWG seeks therefore “just to recruit this or that individual for [its] own organization” rather than working “to broaden awareness of what the class struggle really means.” We see in this a clear enough expression of federalism on the part of the ICT: two territorial sections which have completely opposite political positions.

The CWO, for one, is for regroupment, while the IWG, on the other hand, is sectarian. Even more problematic, your delegate has long been spreading rumours that one of our militants is an infiltrator (Note). Obviously, your delegate provided no evidence, skillfully using innuendo. This is a dangerous game. We strongly urge you either to provide evidence or apologize for the wrong done to the reputation of our comrade.

We’ll conclude with this passage from GCF’s journal Internationalism concerning difficult debates between revolutionary groups:

“There have always been three methods used to overcome difficulties arising from these circumstances:

1. the honest and fair revolutionary method,

2. the opportunistic method,

3. the sectarian and bureaucratic method.

The revolutionary method consists of raising political debate throughout the organization and openly before the proletariat. Based on the differences between the two groups or trends, it tends to elevate the debate and create an atmosphere allowing for a higher awareness of the entire revolutionary movement and class.

The second method, that of opportunism, leaving certain things out, ‘letting bygones be bygones’, splitting hairs, obfuscating, and obscuring the essence of debates.

The third method is judgment from on high conducted by ‘superior’ elements of the organization, without allowing for verification by all of the organizations’ militants. Here we see resolutions published by a CC or CE, resolutions pronouncing ‘ad hoc’ organizational and disciplinary measures, and administrative exclusions. In short, separating the targeted group from the rest of the organization by any means available. This method was honored in the CI during the time of Zinoviev and Stalin.”

(Translated from French http://fr.internationalism.org/gcf/annexe2

or http://www.fractioncommuniste.org/ficci_fra/b13/b13_04.php)

We have attempted to remain as faithful as possible to the spirit and application of the first method, while the IWG nimbly juggles the last two. We strongly hope for another response from you, this time a serious and thoughtful one.

Bravo for your timely and valuable intervention in the Greek language!

Greetings,

The Internationalist Communists Klasbatalo

Note: A few weeks later, RS asserted that he had never said that.