Last November, a public meeting was held in Paris organized by the Internationalist Communist Tendency (ICT) group in France. Readers wishing to gain a fuller picture of the debates that took place can refer to the GRI’s report [1], which provides an excellent summary of the discussions. And if they wish to verify or add to their knowledge, they can also read the article [2] dedicated to the subject by the ICC, which, in turn, gives an accurate – albeit obviously from its own point of view – account of the discussion. We won’t dwell here on the content of the discussions, but rather on the political significance and lessons of this meeting for the proletarian camp in France and its sympathizers, who were relatively numerous.

Unlike previous public meetings organized by the GRI-ICT, the ICC delegation had not come to sabotage the meeting. A 180-degree turnaround that we, for our part, emphasized and welcomed at the end of the meeting. As a result, as the GRI writes, “the discussion took place in a fraternal atmosphere, allowing everyone to defend their positions and to distinguish points of agreement and divergence between the different organizations”, i.e. the ICT, the ICC, the PCI-Le Prolétaire [Bordiguist] and ourselves the IGCL. For us, the political balance-sheet of this meeting lies in its holding and in its implications: by not giving in to the ICC’s earlier sabotages, and by continuing to ensure a political presence in Paris, the ICT is in fact opening up an inclusive proletarian political space to which any revolutionary element in search can come. And where the main organizations of the proletarian camp can confront, and thus clarify, their respective positions. This is the essential point we wish to emphasize.

Secondly, the discussion of the national question – support for the Palestinian nationalism or proletarian internationalism – clearly demarcated two camps: the PCI on one side, the ICT, the ICC and the IGCL on the other. On the other hand, the Marxist position on the march to generalized imperialist war today, or on the historical alternative of revolution or war, pitted the PCI, the ICT and the IGCL on one side against the opportunist position of the ICC, according to which the alternative no longer exists and generalized war is impossible today due to decomposition. It is worth noting in passing that we had to insist for the ICC defend its position on the subject, even though its interventions sought, to say the least, to “drown out the fish” and avoid political confrontation, with grand, abstract declamations on proletarian internationalism, and on its “agreement” with the ICT.

The final point concerns the strengths and weaknesses of the proletarian camp and their respective dynamics as revealed by this meeting. The desire for political research and coherence on the part of a number of “young” comrades, the willingness and ability of the ICT to hold public meetings, the support and help provided by the IGCL, and the active presence of the PCI, all force the ICC to submit to political debate and confrontation. In so doing, it is exposing itself to sharpening political contradictions between its position on the current historical situation – denying any risk of generalized imperialist war – and the reality of the very course of events; and between its theory on parasitism – linked to decomposition – and its participation in these meetings.

Indeed, on this last point, and insofar as the IGCL is among the most convinced of the current dynamic towards generalized imperialist war, the ICC was indeed obliged to respond and “debate” with the so-called parasitism. The result is an impasse illustrated, oh so well, by the last part of its article on the meeting.

“The individual J. [our delegate to the meeting] took part in the debate in a clear and dynamic way, and he made some very good interventions that enabled the collective reflection to move forward. It’s true that J. was eloquent, that his speeches were even brilliant… But appearances are often deceptive.” [3] And as proof of the deception, a new and unprecedented accusation: “J. started laughing at a comrade because he knew that the latter had just nearly died of a heart attack, rejoicing in his misfortune.” Pathetic or hallucinating? Both, sir!

Let us summarize. Here is someone, along with all the members of the former ICC Internal Fraction, denounced by the ICC for 24 years now as a cop, agent provocateur, gangster, thief, lumpen, Nazi, Stalinist, etc., etc., actively participating, “in a clear and dynamic way”, eloquently and brilliantly, and enabling “the collective reflection to move forward”. And now the ICC is deepening the theoretical question of parasitism: it can even have a positive effect on the proletariat! It is easy to understand why the ICC forbids us access to its public meetings, and why it tried to discourage the ICT from holding any in Paris. Open political confrontation precipitates it into a situation that is becoming inextricable for it.