Response to the shameful slanders of a small association of wreckers

 

On Bulletin 28 of the IFICC: Response to the shameful slanders of a small association of wreckers

 

In number 28 of the Bulletin of the so-called ‘Internal Fraction of the ICC’, published on its website, readers can discover the latest offerings of this parasitic grouplet: it has given its wholehearted support to the repugnant activities of an adventurer who presents himself under the name of the ‘Circulo de Comunistas Internacionalistas’ [1]. If we are now devoting an article to the IFICC Bulletin, it is because a group of the communist left, the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party (IBRP) has given its approval to the methods of this shady band: it has justified the latter’s theft of our political material (see our article ‘Lies and slander are no methods of the working class!). The article below has the aim of refuting some of the lies and slanders disseminated by the IFICC Bulletin, i.e. that:

- the Nucleo Comunista Internacional (NCI) in Argentina, with whom we have been holding discussions for some time and certain of whose texts we have published in our press, has “broken” with the ICC on account of its disagreements with the policies of our so-called ‘”liquidationist” leadership;

- this break has revealed the “failure” of the ICC’s policy of regroupment;

- we have used the methods of Stalin’s political police to sabotage the IBRP’s efforts at regroupment.

 

Since the IBRP is incapable of making the least statement of position on the IFICC’s Bulletin, we will give here our response to the shameful slanders of this little Parisian circle.

 

This Bulletin of the IFICC was put together a few days after we published on our Internet site the article ‘Imposture or reality?’, in which we exposed the manipulative activities of Mr B (alias “Circulo de Comunistas Internacionalistas”).

 

For the reader who has not followed this affair, we will briefly recall the facts.

 

As we have shown on our website and in WR 280, this so-called Circulo represents just one individual who was a member of the NCI and who:

 

- never expressed the slightest disagreement either with the positions of the ICC, or with the position adopted by the NCI in May 2004 condemning the anti-proletarian behaviour of the IFICC;

- began, at the end of last summer, to make links with the IFICC in the name of the NCI, without informing either the other members of the NCI nor the ICC (even though our delegation was still present in Buenos Aires);

- set up, behind the backs of the other comrades of the NCI, a “Circulo de Comunistas Internacionalistas” (the plural being quite false because it only had one member – himself) which he presented as the ‘successor’ to the NCI;

- wrote by himself and unbeknownst to the other members of the NCI the three “Declarations” published on the Circulo website, which are a tissue of lies and slanders against the ICC. He claimed that these “Declarations” had been discussed and adopted “by the collective decision” and “unanimously” by all the militants of the NCI.

 

When it learned of the existence of this Circulo, and following the IFICC’s distribution of its first Declaration of 2 October (which expressed solidarity with the IFICC and rejected the statement condemning it, adopted by the NCI on 22 May), the ICC made contact with several members of the NCI by telephone, in order to obtain information about the Circulo.

 

And it was thanks to these phone-calls that we learned that the other members of the NCI had not been informed of the existence of this Circulo which was supposed to be the continuation of the NCI, nor of the declaration sent by Mr B to the IFICC: the latter had produced this text on his own and behind the others’ back!

 

When a member of the NCI asked Mr B for an explanation of the information communicated by phone by the ICC, this sad knight avoided the question and immediately took aim at our organisation: on 12 October he produced a second “Declaration” (also written in the name of the NCI and behind its back). This second text denounced our “nauseating methods” of making phone calls to the militants of the NCI with the aim –according to Mr B – of “destroying this small circle” and of “sowing seeds of mistrust” within it!

 

Mr B even had the nerve to write “On their unanimous demand, the comrades whom the ICC has called by phone …propose to all the members of the Circulo de Comunistas Internacionalistas the total rejection of the political method of the ICC, which they consider to be typically Stalinist”!

 

It was through the ICC (which sent them the “Declarations” of Citizen B by post) that the comrades of the NCI were able to verify for themselves the putrid lies and manoeuvres of this impostor. And they decided unanimously to address a short Declaration (adopted at the NCI meeting of 27 October) to all the groups of the communist left denouncing the unworthy methods of this element with whom they have now broken (after Mr B refused to explain himself in front of the NCI and the ICC delegation which recently went to Buenos Aires).

 

In our article ‘Imposture or Reality?’, we also drew attention to the links that this manipulating mythomaniac has established with the Stalinist site ‘Argentina Roja’, which gathers together a whole series of agents of the left and extreme left of the bourgeois state (see the Circulo’s website) [2].

 

It was thus in full knowledge of the facts that, despite the warnings contained in our article, published 6 days before Bulletin no. 28, that the IFICC deliberately took the side of this adventurer. This is how the IFICC rabble addressed its little Argentine “comrade”: “Welcome comrades!” (We just want to point out a small typing error: there shouldn’t be an S in “comrades”!).

 

The fact that the IFICC should so quickly welcome such an adventurer who, having done his schooling in the parties of the counter-revolution, showed himself incapable of breaking with their revolting methods – this comes as no surprise: birds of a feather flock together.

 

We are only too well acquainted with these methods. They are the same methods as those of the elements of the IFICC when they were still members of our organisation: they also stabbed the organisation in the back, trying to get a maximum of comrades to break with the ICC and to join their confraternity: the little parasitic circle of Citizen Jonas (the so-called ‘Internal Fraction of the ICC’).

 

Citizen B thus went to a good school and it’s perfectly natural for him to solidarise with his accomplices and tutors of the IFICC.

 

However, Mr B is just an amateur, a petty provincial adventurer, alongside his Parisian friends.

 

 

The ‘Circulo de Comunistas Internacionalistas’: a little degenerated clone of the IFICC

 

With frenzied haste, the IFICC published, in no. 28 of its Bulletin, the two totally false declaration of this adventurer (the one of October 2 and the one of October 12) denouncing the “nauseating methods of the ICC”. This is quite simply because it recognised its own methods in them.

 

Thus, in the work of the IFICC, we can find a number of analogies between the methods of this little circle from Paris and the methods of Citizen B: just as the latter, in order to make advances towards the IBRP, has made two contributions disappear from the website of the NCI (texts which took up the ICC’s analyses of the decadence of capitalism and the events of December 2001 in Argentina), we note that the IFICC included a nauseating text entitled ‘Ignominy has no limits’, which presented the first declaration by the Circulo when the IFICC put it on line on October 4. In this text, this band of hooligans launched a call for a pogrom against our militants, now described as bastards (“salauds”) [3].

 

What is the reason for this strange disappearance?

 

In fact, there are several.

 

As we have already underlined (in our article ‘A new strange apparition’), the style and the terms used by the declaration of the Circulo of 12 October (published not only on the IFICC site but also in three languages on the IBRP site) are noticeably the same as used in this text by the IFICC. It’s almost a photocopy. One of the reasons that the IFICC made its text ‘Ignominy has no limits’ vanish was thus to prevent its complicity with the Circulo from being too obvious.

 

This ‘document’ of the IFICC was withdrawn following the publication by the IBRP of an article (‘Response to the stupid accusations of an organisation on the road to disintegration’), in which the latter criticises the alleged “extreme vulgarity” of our article ‘The IBRP taken hostage by thugs!’ published on our website.

 

And it was to avoid losing favour with the IBRP that the IFICC was obliged to do a little housecleaning by ‘discretely’ removing the proof of its “extreme vulgarity”.

 

Nevertheless, despite its quick bit of editing , the IFICC didn’t manage to regain its virginity. Thus, the IBRP might observe that these mighty persons have opened, in their Bulletin no. 28, a new ‘rubric’ of an “extreme vulgarity”: ‘The ignominies and bullshit (“saloperies”) of the liquidationist faction of the ICC’.

 

Pushed out the door, it comes back through the window! Here again, the IFICC uses the same procedure as the Circulo: it removes a text whose vocabulary, borrowed from the world of petty crime, might annoy the IBRP – but it forgets to erase the traces! [4]

 

There is still a third reason explaining why the IFICC has removed this text from its French pages: it’s because we have shown that it contains almost as many lies as words, lies so enormous that they can only discredit their authors (notably the affirmation that the declaration made by the NCI on 22 May 2004 was written “under the dictation of the ICC”, whereas there was no ICC delegation in Argentina on that date! (See our article ‘A new strange apparition’).

 

This no. 28 of the IFICC Bulletin is a distillation of the highly manipulative nature of this “little circle”, a circle even more vicious than its Argentine clone. In it, we can find another big lie.

 

This Bulletin contains an ‘anomaly’: the third ‘Declaration’ of the ‘Circulo’ (dated 21 October and entitled ‘Response to the supplement to Revolution Internationale in France’, contrary to the two previous ones, was not translated and published by the IFICC (which, like the cowboy in the comic, usually shoots faster than its own shadow when it comes to exploiting slanders against the ICC! [5].

 

Why is the IFICC hiding this declaration from its French and English readers?

 

This is the response the IFICC Bulletin gives us: this declaration by the ‘Circulo’ was not translated and published by the IFICC…due to “lack of space” on its Internet site: “The Circulo was obliged to publish a third declaration – available on its site – which we can’t reproduce here due to lack of space”!

 

This little extract shows that the IFICC projects its own faults on its readers: it really takes them for imbeciles! Unless the author of this text in Bulletin no. 28 is so ignorant about ICT that he doesn’t know that, on the Internet, you can have all the space you want?

 

Only the IBRP could still allow itself to be fascinated by the IFICC’s conjuring tricks and could believe in its good faith. In reality, these apprentice conjurors did not DARE translate and publish this third declaration by the Mr B. And this for a very simple reason: the content of this declaration shows that this individual’s mind is totally deranged [6].

 

In our article ‘A new strange apparition’, we remarked that “only those who (like the IBRP and the IFICC) have not a ‘small nucleus’ but a pea instead of a brain” could believe in the night-time tales of the Circulo about the telephone calls we made to the NCI in Argentina and whose “nauseating content” nobody, neither Mr B, nor his Parisian friends, nor the IBRP, have been able to reveal.

 

Thus, Bulletin no. 28 doesn’t just reveal the striking stupidity of the members of the IFICC (which is so great that we might ask whether, like the Dalton brothers in the comic strip, they are more stupid than they are wicked!) [7] It shows the same sick imagination as that of citizen B.

 

These impostors share the same megalomaniac logic: our Don Quixote of Argentina takes himself for a group of ‘Internationalist Communists’ all by himself; the “little circle” of Paris (whose members can be counted on the finger of one hand) presents itself to the whole world as…the ICC (ie an international organisation which exists in 13 countries and which publishes in 8 languages: “the Fraction IS the ICC…we, the Fraction, are the ICC”!

 

If the elements of the IFICC extend their welcome to the manipulating mythomaniac from Argentina, it’s because this band of degenerates inhabit the same universe of mental delirium! The little circle from Paris and the Circulo are Siamese twins: they make common cause in the same “firmament of political struggle” (to borrow an expression from the third “Declaration” of Mr B) to the single benefit of the bourgeois state.

 

We are tempted not to waste any more time in denouncing these impostors because they are very good at unmasking themselves. But once again, the reason we are devoting so much energy to showing up their sordid manipulations, it’s simply because they have managed to convince (incredible but true) a group of the proletarian camp, the IBRP, that they really are Jesus Christ and Napoleon. If we are forced to reply to their ignominies, it’s because the IBRP has given them its approval and reserved this “little circle” a place of honour at the table of the communist left.

 

The enthusiasm which with the IFFICists welcome adventurers like citizen B shows that these pure and valiant knights (as they like to present themselves) actually have no real political convictions and no principles: they are prepared to team up with anyone at all as long as they are part of the same “political line” of pouring lies and slanders on the ICC and bear witness to our so-called “nauseating methods”.

 

By extending so hearty a welcome to its Argentine “comrade”, the IFICC demonstrates once again that its methods are indeed, as we have said again and again to the IBRP, those of a woman of easy virtue: it has no qualms about sleeping with a crypto-Stalinist!

 

When reading this Bulletin, one is above all staggered by the disgusting hypocrisy of the IFICC who - in order to caress the IBRP’s fur – claim that they are in favour of introducing “the fresh air of fraternal political debate which has been tending to disappear in Paris”

 

Unfortunately, this Bulletin only gives out the fetid and nauseating effluvia of slanders and lies, now mixed with a “fraternal” salute to the new born in Argentina, which has all the characteristics of an abortion. This is further attested by the “embarrassed” silence of the Circulo, who has published nothing since we unmasked his imposture [8].

 

The “Circulo”: a false birth provoked by the IFICC

 

Despite the evidence of the facts, the IFICC has not abandoned the scene. This is why its Bulletin 28 still gives a lot of space to making loud publicity for the “Circulo de Comunistas Internacionalistas” which only exists in its, and Mr B’s, fevered imagination. It waxes lyrical about the dirty work of this impostor and encourages him to go further.

 

Thus in the “rubric” devoted to the “ignominies and bullshit of the liquidationist faction of the ICC”, Bulletin 28 purports to show that “the ignoble policy of the ICC, which has been waged from 2001 internally against any opposition, is now being systematically waged against comrades outside the ICC, against the ex-NCI, the Argentine Circulo…”

 

The IFICC believed that the “Circulo” was a gift from heaven, as could be seen from the feverish excitement with which its members distributed the first “Declaration” by Mr B at the public meeting of the IBRP and on its Internet site. For several weeks, these prospectus-peddlers lived in a kind of ecstasy: after three years of hard work shovelling manure on our organisation, they had at last found a new group which has taken up the same rotten accusations against us. What’s more, this group had, at first, moved towards the ICC (which had obviously been a real nightmare for the members of the IFICC), even going as far as to denounce the ignoble behaviour of the IFICC and its slanders against our organisation. And now, according to what Mr B would have us believe, this same group has rejected its 22 May denunciation of the IFICC and turned it on the ICC instead. And to cap it all, the NCI, re-baptised as the Circulo, presented itself as a sumptuous gift for the “wedding list” [9] in the idyll between the IFICC and the IBRP, since the Circulo now advertised its convergence with the positions of the latter. After such a long period of frustration, this truly was nirvana for the little gangsters of the IFICC.

 

And then, all at once, the ICC began to demonstrate that the Circulo was a fraud and that Mr B, this Prince Charming of the southern hemisphere, was no more than a vulgar crook, a mythomaniac and master liar. The members of the IFICC had to descend from their rosy cloud and it was all too much. They did not want to give up this marvellous make-believe world. They continued to believe in Father Christmas, even after we had proved his non-existence! [10]

 

This is why the IFICC is posing, with a legitimate “perplexity”, the following question: “What happened with the Argentine group? What happened with the Nucleo Comunista Internacionalista, today the Circulo de Comunistas Internacionalistas, to make it break with the ICC and its positions?”

 

It’s precisely to respond to these questions that, as the IFICC says itself, “we leave to these comrades the task of presenting their political experience with the ICC and the evolution of their position”. But this response is being made not by the Circulo, which has been dumb for several months, but the NCI itself.

 

Thus, our readers can refer to the “Declaration of the NCI” of 27 October, published on our website and in our territorial press (see WR 280 and Internationalism 13), in which the comrades of the NCI give an account of their recent “political experience”:

- they were not informed of the existence of this Circulo, which is supposed to be the “successor” of the NCI;

- it’s thanks to the ICC that they discovered the lying declarations which Mr B had written behind their back and in their name;

- they have not broken with the ICC: they gave a very warm welcome to the ICC delegation which went to Argentina recently and was able, thanks to their support, to hold an ICC public forum in Buenos Aires (see the article ‘the NCI has not broken with the ICC’ on our website);

- they want to “continue discussion with the ICC in order to clarify themselves”.

 

These comrades also give an account of the “evolution of their position”; in particular they affirm that the NCI “maintains its statement of May 2004 condemning the behaviour of the IFICC” (NCI declaration 27 October).

 

Our readers can thus recognise that the IFICC takes its dreams for reality by spreading the enormous lie fabricated by Mr B: its Bulletin claims that, when our delegation stayed in Argentina last August, “the Argentine comrades expressed serious disagreements with the political positions and militant practises of liquidationism…the ICC multiplied the publication of old positions with which the militants of the NCI are no longer in agreement with today”.

 

If they want to verify what really happened, our readers can always ask the question to the Circulo, which to this day has not published any denial of what we have said on our website and in our press. Instead, it has “unanimously”, and by the “collective decision of all its members” decided to play dead.

 

Unmasked, our impostor apparently doesn’t know what lie to invent next to regain his credibility. Perhaps the mythomaniac is waiting for his Parisian accomplices to suggest a fourth declaration in which new “revelations” will appear.

 

Bulletin 28 of the IFICC loudly denounces the “ignominies and bullshit of the liquidationist ICC” aimed at sabotaging the IBRP’s politics of regroupment. We are told that the ICC is trying to “get its dirty hands on the new elements” by keeping “other communist political groups outside the process of clarification and discussion” and by introducing “into the proletarian camp bourgeois methods of competition, of ‘clientism’, of ‘ownership’”. On this point we would like to make three small remarks:

1) Once again, these degenerated elements attribute their own approach to the ICC. Their real state of mind can be seen in the profound disdain they show towards the “new elements”. The latter are seen as objects which “you can get your dirty hands on”. Or is it because these petty thieves got their dirty hands on the money and material of the ICC that they think they can now get their dirty hands on the militants of the NCI?

 

2) The IBRP knows quite well that the ICC has never tried to keep other groups of the communist left “out of the process of discussion and clarification” as the IFICC claims (and in any case, it’s hard to see how we could have done so). Thus, very recently – and the IBRP can confirm this – in response to the emergence of new elements in Russia, we proposed to the IBRP that they should participate in the discussion forum which we have set up with a number of political groups in this country: the IBRP refused!

 

And as far as the NCI is concerned, we would like to point out that on 11 December 2003, the later addressed to all the groups of the communist left an “Appeal to the proletarian camp for the convocation of an international conference”. The ICC gave its support to this initiative by the NCI. On the other hand the IBRP again responded (in a letter to the NCI) with a refusal, arguing, among other things, that “the proletarian political camp no longer exists. That is to say it’s not true that the future international party of the proletariat will be born out of the regroupment or clarification between the groups that compose it” (the IBRP, the ICC, and the Bordigist groups).

 

Furthermore, it’s not the ICC but the IBRP which has tried to keep other groups of the communist left “out of the process of discussion and clarification” in its relations with the NCI. In the same letter, the IBRP, while rejecting the NCI’s proposal, wrote: “We are engaged in an international work and we remain open to any discussion with you and with all the vanguards that may appear in the world, precisely with the perspective of building the international party”.

 

Thus it is clear that the IFICC has knocked on the wrong door. It’s the IBRP and not the ICC it should be criticising. It’s the IBRP and not the ICC which, by seeking to keep out the other groups of the communist left (described in its letter to the NCI as “political cadavers”) which is introducing competition and ‘clientism’ into the proletarian camp.

 

3) Finally we would like to reassure our readers about our supposed “bourgeois methods of clientism”: if the IFICC or the IBRP want to regroup with the Circulo we are not going to compete with them and wish them much pleasure in it. The ICC is absolutely not interested in this mythomaniac chameleon and still less by his “nauseating methods” [11]

 

By proclaiming that “the NCI’s break marks the bankruptcy of the policy of regroupment being carried out today by the ICC” the IFICC is once again taking its desires for reality.

 

This little circle from Paris has, it claims, proof of its brilliant success. In less than a month, it has accomplished the tour de force of precipitating, by use of forceps, the birth of a fictitious group, constituted by a single individual, who makes publicity for the Stalinist agents of the Argentine state and who, today, seems to have sunk into a deep coma, as can be seen from the fact that his website hasn’t moved since 21st October. The encephalograph of the Circulo is quite flat.

 

The IBRP should give the IFICC a medal: it’s thanks to its success with the Circulo that the IBRP has experienced a false birth.

 

And the IFICC can promise it more successes of the same kind, since it tells us that “the dynamic today is taking place around the IBRP and is part of the process of regroupment and constitution of the world party of the proletariat” (sic). If we were in the IBRP’s shoes, we’d be worried: judging by the recent exploits of the IFICC, a lot more abortions are in store!

 

One of the reasons why the IFICC is today frothing with rage against the ICC is that the policy it has carried out hand in hand with Mr B to destroy the NCI has been a failure. The proof of its failure is that the NCI has not broken with the ICC.

 

At the same time the failure of IFICC’s “liquidationist” policy of regroupment is revealed in the fact that, since it was formed, this little parasitic group has not grown in the slightest.

 

Certainly, it has made a new recruit, but numerically this doesn’t make up for the defection of one of its members (who left the IFICC because of “disagreements”). And then, what a recruit! The participants at the IBRP’s public meeting in Paris could get some idea of his talents and political physiognomy: in response to our interventions, his contribution to defending the positions of the IFICC (which presents itself as the real ICC) was based on particularly incisive arguments: chortles (irrefutable!) and giggles (which really went to the root of the issues). [12]

 

Furthermore, among the members of the IFICC, there is one (the element Jonas) who, by all the evidence, prefers to stay by the fire in his slippers: while the other members of the IFICC expressed their unflagging solidarity with him, he didn’t make the effort to support his “comrades” at the IBRP public meeting.

 

As for the sympathisers this little circle has managed to group around it, they add up to two (and one of them is an ex-member of the IFICC).

 

In short, we can only be struck dumb with admiration for the remarkable success of the IFICC’s “policy of regroupment”!

 

Bulletin 28 is a real gold mine. It once again shows the real character of this small association of wreckers which, with all its dirty deeds, resembles the Pieds Nickeles gang more than the Bonnot gang. [13]

 

Manipulators under suspicion

 

Bulletin 28 contains another very “interesting” text: the account of the public meeting that the IBRP held in Paris on 2 October. You can see here that the ICC made a “takeover by force” to “show its muscles” when it sent to this public meeting a “massive delegation” of twenty militants, accompanying the “hired mob” (“claque”) of the ICC’s sympathisers which had come to “cram full” some “¾ of the room”! A “claque” so “imposing” that it is even compared to those of Trotskyist groups!

 

It is less strange that, in the publicity for this public meeting the IFICC forget to warn against the ICC “claque”: in fact they said the opposite; the ICC have no “claque” in Paris since (according to the IFICC) its public meetings are “deserted”.

 

This is a contradiction: either the Paris section of the ICC has no close sympathisers (and that’s why our public meetings are “deserted”), or the ICC in the French capital has a big enough number of sympathisers to “cram full rooms”!

 

Why is the IFICC obliged to expose its own lies (and admit that the public meetings of the ICC are not “deserted” as it wanted to make the IBRP think)? It is simply because the IBRP had published (before the IFICC) its own account of this public meeting in which it “corrected” the lies peddled in the advance publicity of the IFICC (see the Battaglia Comunista website)?

 

Our readers can still see, by reading the IFICC’s “thrilling” account, how the ICC came to this public meeting to “show its muscles”. We are told here that “an advance scout appeared surreptitiously without doubt to note and inform on those present (…) waiting in a ‘secondary’ meeting place (…)” and that “twenty or more militants and sympathisers arrived, almost as a demonstration, with a determined air (…) at its head the most strapping militants, with clenched jaws and with tense features. Real tough guys. A veritable commando unit.” [14].

 

This account (which caused the militants and sympathisers of the ICC who had been present to burst out laughing!) is closer to the scenario of a horror film, or rather a spy thriller (you can see here in full effect the detective reasoning characteristic of the Bulletins of the IFICC!) than a political report.

 

In this sense, it is necessary to recognise that the account published by the IBRP of the arrival of the ICC’s “massive delegation” is a little less eccentric and a little more close to reality.

 

If the IFICC had not wanted the militants of the ICC to come in such numbers, then why did it make such noisy publicity for this meeting (particularly with the advertisement that they put on their website)?

 

Why did it distribute a leaflet publicising this meeting to all our militants and sympathisers at the entrance to our own September meeting in Paris? Why did it send this letter by post to the private addresses of our militants and subscribers?

 

Why, finally, did it address a letter of invitation to the central organ of the ICC, that is to say to those that the IFICC calls the “liquidationist leadership”?

 

The indignant protests that they display today against our “demonstration of force” (trying to “sabotage” the IBRP’s public meeting) only reveals once again the duplicity of this small parasitic group: if the IFICC made such a noise about the IBRP’s public meeting, it was not because (as you might have thought from its propaganda campaign) that they wanted the militants and sympathisers of the ICC to come and participate in a debate. On the contrary! In pulling out all the stops the IFICC hoped to dissuade us from participating at the IBRP’s public meeting.

 

To the extent that we have banned the members of the IFICC from entering our own public meetings because of their thuggish behaviour (see WR 267), these parasites thought that we would not come to that of the IBRP because of their presence.

 

The IFICC itself reveals its real thinking when it deplores “the presence of more than twenty militants and sympathisers when the liquidationists know very well that our Fraction was going to be present at this meeting, reveals clearly that our prohibition from the public meetings of the ICC under the pretext that we are police thugs representing a danger is only a pretext that they don’t believe themselves”.

 

In trying to dissuade us from participating at this public meeting, these specialists in secret diplomacy hoped to create the conditions for the IBRP to bring to Paris “the fresh air of fraternal debate” behind the back of and against the ICC! They have nevertheless forgotten that you can’t teach your grandmother to suck eggs!

 

But, more fundamentally, this gang of good-for-nothings had not foreseen in its “plan of action” that the “current liquidationist ICC” is going to adopt the same policy as the “old ICC” consisting in participating (and encouraging our sympathisers to participate) in the meetings of other political groups.

 

This is the same so-called “shitty tactic” (according to the terms of the IFICC’s Bulletin no. 28) that the ICC used in participating in the IBRP public meetings in Berlin.

 

If the ICC came in numbers to the IBRP meeting in Paris, this was because it was an “historic event”, a “first” as the IFICC itself announced. And just because the IBRP accept the presence of thugs at its public meetings, that doesn’t mean we’re going to boycott them (even if, for our part, we continue to bar thugs from entering our own meetings).

 

Our crafty “little circle”, in a raging temper, was eager to inform its clone in Argentina and encourage him to denounce our “nauseating political behaviour”: in his third “Declaration” (that of 21 October), Mr B accuses the ICC of having “used all sorts of tricks” in the public meeting of the IBRP to sabotage its attempts at regroupment[15].

 

In reality it’s not the ICC but the IFICC, like the fox in the story by Jean de La Fontaine, that has used “all sorts of tricks” to dissuade us from coming to this public meeting. It is the IFICC that used “all sorts of tricks” to get the IBRP involved (with among other things the theft of our subscribers’ address list) even if the IBRP doesn’t want to recognise that it has been the biggest dupe in history!

 

The IFICC has always had the habit of attributing its own base acts to the ICC. It is because of this that, under the “heading” of the “big lies of the IFICC”, we are now going to examine the accusations of these professional manipulators who assert, in its Bulletin, that the ICC is infiltrated by elements belonging to all the agencies of the bourgeois state.

 

The IFICC perpetuates the methods of the GPU and the Okhrana

 

The whole history of the workers’ movement is marked by episodes when revolutionaries have been the object of campaigns of slander on the part of elements playing the game of the ruling class or directly working on its behalf.

 

So, in 1859, Marx devoted a year of his life to demolish with a scientific method the slanders of Herr Vogt (who was later shown to have been an agent in the pay of Napoléon III). He devoted an entire book, Herr Vogt, that Engels praised as Marx’s best polemical work (a work that he thought even surpassed The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoléon Bonaparte).

 

Lenin (and the Bolshevik party), particularly in July 1917, were also the target of repugnant calumnies: he was accused by the forces of the counter-revolution of being an agent of German imperialism (Trotsky, in his History of the Russian Revolution described July 1917 as “the month of the great slander” (Chapter 27)).

 

Rosa Luxemburg, before the First World War, was also denigrated and accused of being an agent of the tsarist police, the Okhrana, by members of the right wing of the SPD. It was members of the SPD right (and therefore old “comrades” of Rosa) who, following these denigrations, orchestrated a hysterical campaign of slanders and a real manhunt against the Spartakusbund: to decapitate the revolution in Germany they called for a pogrom and assassinated Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht in January 1919.

 

Trotsky, in the 1930s, was in his turn the object of the same type of slanders on the part of his old “comrade” Stalin: he was accused of being an agent of Hitler. This campaign of slanders, like that unleashed against Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartakusbund, ended in the assassination of Trotsky, commissioned by Stalin.

 

These tragic episodes in the history of the workers’ movement show that slander is the bourgeoisie’s weapon of choice to destroy the revolutionary movement. They reveal that the lie has always preceded and prepared the ground for the physical liquidation of communist militants. And this has always been denounced and fought publicly by revolutionaries as a weapon of the bourgeois state aiming to discredit communist organisations. [16]

 

It is also because of this that, faced with slander, revolutionaries have the duty and the responsibility to appeal to Juries of Honour [17] (as was the case with the “Dewey Commission”, constituted in 1937, in the face of the accusations brought against Trotsky by the Stalinists).

 

It is this tradition of the workers’ movement that the Gauche Communiste de France (from which the ICC traces its origins) continued when (faced with discreditable behaviour in its ranks) it adopted, at its Conference of July 1945, a resolution condemning theft and calumny in these terms:

 

“Approving the resolution of the general meeting of 16 June which recorded the break of these elements with the organisation, the conference renews its protest against the taking by these elements of the organisation’s material and demands the complete return of machines and material belonging to us, and denounce this way of acting without any reservation.

 

The whole conference stands particularly against the campaign of base calumny that has become the preferred weapon of these elements against the organisation and against individual militants.

 

In resorting to such methods, these elements, thoroughly demonstrating their so-called politics, create a poisoned atmosphere by introducing suspicion, the menace of pogroms (according to their own expression) and gangsterism, thus continuing the vile tradition which up till now was the prerogative of Stalinism.

 

Considering it urgent to put an end to this, and not to allow slander to have a place in political debates in the relations between revolutionary militants, the conference decides to address itself to other revolutionary groups, asking them to set up a tribunal of honour, pronouncing on the revolutionary morality of slandered militants, and to bar the right to slander or to slanderers in the ranks of the proletariat.”

 

And it is in the continuity of this tradition of the workers’ movement that the ICC has done everything to push for the establishment of a Jury of Honour, on this occasion to examine the various disgraceful slanders by the IFICC against the ICC and its individual militants.

 

It is this “vile tradition”, the “prerogative of Stalinism” that the IFICC still perpetuates in its Bulletin no 28.

 

We learn here that the “liquidationist faction” of the ICC, to “sabotage” the IBRP’s regroupment policy, has used the methods of Trotskyists, Lambertists, freemasonry, the GPU, the CIA and of all sorts of dubious elements, adventurers, mystics and the rest. Hang the expense! You have the right to the whole panoply. This bulletin is a veritable supermarket where you can choose from the shelves the product which offers the best value for money.

 

The prose of the IFICC is of the same vintage as the third “Declaration” of the “Circulo” (see our article ‘Imposture or reality?’). You find with these slanderers the same tonality, the same pathological frenzy that only shows one thing: the IFICC (just like its little clone in Argentina) wants to make us believe something that doesn’t exist. It has a “dossier of irrefutable charges” against our “liquidationist faction” which is only the fruit of its sick imagination!

 

This is why the IFICC doesn’t want to submit the “conclusions” of its “investigations” before a Jury of Honour: the “proofs” that our little Sherlock Holmes have gathered in the sewers and which they don’t stop alluding to (in Bulletin 28 as in the previous issues) only reveal the depraved mentality of these blackmailers. [18] They are above all an act of accusation against themselves and against their disgraceful methods.

 

Thus, in the section entitled “We accuse!” we learn (among other dreadful things!) that in order to destroy the IBRP’s attempts at regroupment, “against the new revolutionary elements which are appearing and against the existing communist groups”, the “liquidationist faction” of the ICC has used methods which “belong to those suffered by the Trotskyist opposition in the 1930s (…) gangrened (…) by adventurers and dubious elements, when they didn’t belong directly to the secret police of Stalin, the GPU.”

 

However, our slanderers have forgotten to try to convince readers by demonstrating what precisely the methods of the GPU consist of.

 

What obliges us to set the record straight is that it wasn’t the ICC but this band of thugs who, in trying to destroy the ICC, resorted to the methods of the Stalinist secret police. And the inflammatory accusations of Bulletin no 28 are of the same tone as the “lyrical” poetry of citizen B who has ended up by rejoining Stalin, Mao and Fidel Castro in the “firmament” of the “Argentina Roja” website. [19]

 

As well as the campaigns of slanders against Trotsky (accused by the Stalinists of being an agent of Hitler) and pogromist appeals, the GPU also tried to destroy the Trotskyist movement from the inside, circulating rumours to sow suspicion between militants.

 

Must we remind our white knights of the IFICC that this is exactly the same policy that Citizen Jonas, one of their number, undertook within the organisation? That is why the ICC excluded him from its ranks for “behaviour unworthy of a communist militant”: in circulating the rumour that a member of the organisation “is a cop” he tried to destroy the organisational tissue. [20] This behaviour worthy of agents provocateurs has been fully taken up by the other members of the IFICC (as the loathsome texts of its Bulletins reveal).

 

Furthermore, among the methods used by the agents of the GPU to destroy the Trotskyist movement, it is necessary to recall that they tried to set militants against each other.

 

Our readers can easily recognise these methods in a dubious text entitled “Weights and measures” (published in Bulletin 7 of the IFICC). This particularly nauseating “document” aims at sowing ill feeling between the militants of the ICC in using in a fraudulent fashion (as with the famous “History of the IS”) the minutes of minutes of meetings of the central organ stolen by a member of the IFICC (who also stole our subscription address list).

 

It is clear that it is not the ICC (and its “liquidationist faction”) but the elements of the IFICC who have taken up not only the methods of the GPU, but also that of the Okhrana [21] (by insidiously putting it about that such a comrade has said something malicious against another comrade, and spreading rumours that a militant “is a cop”).

 

On the other hand, faced with the failure of its policy aiming to “convince” the militants of the ICC to fight against the so called “liquidationist faction”, the IFICC has now fallen into a rage against the militants who didn’t want to rally to its banner. Let’s see how these elements, frustrated at not being “in command” (according to the expression employed by Citizen Jonas) and not having being able get their hands on our central organs, treat the militants of the ICC who did not want to “follow” them!

 

This Bulletin in particular unleashes disgusting slanders against militants recently integrated into the ICC insinuating that our young comrades “often linked by family relations” [22] are “adventurers”, “careerists” or “provocateurs”: “Without condemnation of the Fraction and without refusing to discuss and clarify the political positions that they defend, which are none other than those of the ICC, no integration. This says a lot about the political and militant ‘quality’ of these militants. The more this policy develops, the more the liquidation is going to lean on elements that are hardly reliable politically or as militants. Have we not learnt from the experience of the 1920s in the CI and the PC? Before the expulsion or departure of the oppositions and left fractions, the opportunists, the Bolshevisers and Stalinists, had increasing recourse to integrations that were not only hasty (quick, without a real profound political clarification) but also of people increasingly dubious, capable of accepting opportunist politics in exchange for a mess of potage… This policy is the equivalent to opening the doors to all sorts of adventurers, careerists and provocateurs.”

 

All the militants of the ICC denounce this disgusting attack which is a veritable stab in the back for the new generation of militant communists!

 

They angrily protest against the intolerable and disgraceful support that the IBRP has given to these slanderers who have no place in the proletarian camp!

 

Once more it is not by accident if the IFICC, in perpetuating the “vile tradition of Stalinism” and of the “base slander” (as the comrades of the Gauche Communiste de France put it), have warmly saluted the appearance and the base methods of the “Circulo” whose business with the Stalinist site of the Argentinean state “Argentina Roja” sticks out a mile!

 

Moreover, we note that in using the “nauseating methodology” of trying to sow ill-feeling between militants, the IFICC is not content to limit itself to the ICC. It has extended its sphere of activity to seeking to set the groups of the communist left against each other. It has tried to recruit the PCI (Le Proletaire) into its anti-ICC crusade [23]. But above all it has succeeded in sowing ill-feeling between the IBRP and the ICC.

 

Thus, the IFICC used its “postal service” to compromise the IBRP in the theft of our subscribers’ address list (see our article ‘The IBRP taken hostage by thugs!’); and the latter felt obliged to produce an absolutely shameful “political justification” for this act of robbery!

 

The IFICC has revealed all the perversity of its methods in drawing our attention to the minutes of its “conversations” with the IBRP. Thanks to the notes taken by the IFICC (published in its Bulletin no 9) we discovered the intention of the IBRP to “do everything to push for the disappearance” of the ICC [24] (see our article ‘Theft and slander are not methods of the working class!’) .

 

It is not therefore surprising that some of our readers have said, having read the IFICC’s Bulletin, that “these people are cops”. [25]

 

The members of the IFICC can be scandalised and protest against our so-called “bullshit”; they can play their violin and pour out fine “melodramatic” tirades: “What was the accusation brought by the ICC against comrade Jonas, who was condemned before all the proletariat and the international revolutionary camp, an accusation which, in other historic circumstances would have forced him into clandestinity, death, even public lynching?”

 

The IFICC’s Bulletin is not going to make our readers cry. Its grotesque theatrical style is rather more Grand Guignol (which had its heyday in the 19th Century) than Shakespeare.

 

In refusing to defend their honesty before a Jury of Honour, according to the tradition of the workers’ movement, these clowns can only reinforce readers’ convictions: they have no honour to defend and have provided the evidence of their “infamy”.

 

The response of the Bulletin to the letter of the ICC to members of the IFICC (published on our website) which proposes to them, once again, to appeal to a Jury of Honour to refute the “ignominies” and “bullshit” of which they claim to be victims is revealing: “Be clear once and for all: that they [the militants of the ICC] can go to hell with their commissions and other Juries”. QED!

 

So what are the motivations behind the actions of these miserable impostors (who pretend to defend the principles of the “real ICC”)? We reassert that the methods of the IFICC, like those of Mr B., are practices of the bourgeoisie and not the working class.

 

This more than vicious little circle has no right to be considered part of the proletarian camp.

 

Its nauseating methods reveal only one thing: this so-called “Fraction” is not an historic emanation of the proletariat. It is nothing other than a band of thugs, a vulgar little association of gangsters and a pure product of the decomposition of bourgeois society. [26]

 

In working hand in hand with citizen B and launching a pogromist appeal against our militants (the so-called “bastards” of the “liquidationist faction” of the ICC) these slanderers show what their trajectory is: they are taking the same route as the assassins of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht! You can be sure that they will not hesitate tomorrow in playing the same role as the “bloodhounds” of their predecessors Noske and Scheidemann. [27]

 

And the ICC denounces them as such today in front of the whole proletarian political milieu.

 

ICC (7 December 2004)

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] See the articles published on our website:

- “Circulo de Comunistas Internacionalistas: une étrange apparition” (Circulo de Comunistas Internacionalistas: a strange apparition”);

- “Une nouvelle étrange apparition” (A strange new apparition);

- “Imposture or reality?”;

- “Presentation of the NCI declaration concerning the Circulo de Comunistas Internacionalistas”.

[2] Mr B’s ‘diplomatic’ commerce with Stalinist groups in Argentina is so obvious that, alarmed by this ‘discovery’, a groups of comrades in Latin America with whom we are in contact immediately posed us the question: “Could the NCI (of which the ‘Circulo’ pretends to be the ‘continuator’) have hatched a Stalino-Maoist egg?”

[3] If this text is still displayed on the IFICC website in English and Spanish it is because their Bulletin no. 28 has not been translated into these two languages. So the IFICC could not (decently) remove the text announced by an enormous yellow box on its home pages in Spanish and English! [At the last minute, as we were putting this article on line in French, the Spanish version of Bulletin 28 had just come out: the delicate IFICC text mentioning the “bastards” of the ICC had also disappeared from this!]

[4] It is precisely because we have revealed the deception of the “Circulo” that the “little circle” from Paris is pouring all its venom against the ICC into Bulletin no 28. Short of “arguments”, it is more and more reduced to revealing its thuggish nature. There is still evidence of this in the “literary style” of the latest issue of their Bulletin: the politics of the ICC makes one “sick” (and no longer makes one “vomit”), the ICC uses “dirty tricks”, etc.

[5] We have been “fascinated” by the rapidity with which the IFICC has distributed Mr B’s first “Declaration”: this “declaration”, written in Buenos Aires on the 2nd October, was in the hands of the IFICC the same day at 2pm (that is 10am in Argentina) with many copies at the IBRP public meeting on 2nd October when we first saw it (the IFICC distributed it at the end of the meeting). So, in a few hours, Mr B had the time to write the text, to get it adopted “collectively” and “unanimously” by all the members of the NCI (who did not know of its existence!), to send it to Paris in order for it to be reproduced and distributed in the form of a leaflet by his Parisian accomplices. Two days later, on the 4th October, this “declaration” had been translated into two other languages by the IFICC and put on its website. The IFICC can now go to the Olympic Games: it has become a real record breaker, among the speediest of champions!

[6] For our part, we have translated this Declaration into French and we can send it to our readers in this language should they request it.

[7] Of all the members of the IFICC, Jonas is most like Joe, the least stupid of Dalton’s brothers, but with the worst temper. As for the IFICC’s latest recruit, who has immediately responded to his master’s voice, he takes more the role of Rantamplan, with one small difference: the dog in the gang of cartoon characters is a much more loyal and likeable mongrel!

[8] So, since the 21st October (the date of the third “Declaration”), its website has not changed at all (when our Webmaster, Mr B, had shown a febrile agitation during the first three weeks of October, with new texts appearing or disappearing every day). It seems from all the evidence that this impostor has great difficulty in confirming (and with good reason!) the “news” which he announced to the whole world (thanks to the IFICC and the IBRP who have served as his publicists) according to which the NCI of Argentina has “broken with the ICC” in order to form a new “group”: the “Circulo de Comunistas Internacionalistas”. Our impostor also seems to have the greatest difficulty in making public the content of our telephone appeals to the members of the NCI which, he says, are the confirmation of our “nauseating methods” aiming to destroy this little “nucleus” in Argentina! (See our articles on the website and in WR 280).

[9] We hope that the IBRP will not be shocked that we use such a “vulgar” term as “wedding presents” one more time (if one believes their ‘Response to the stupid accusations of a disintegrating organisation’)!

[10] So, more than three weeks after we put the NCI Declaration of 27th October on our website in all languages (as well as our article “The NCI has not broken with the ICC!”), the IFICC is still refusing to recognise reality. Its Bulletin no. 28 has just gone on line in Spanish (7th December). The IFICC reveals that it is suffering from delusions: the “Circulo de Comunistas Internacionalistas” only exists in its sick imagination (even he IBRP, which has started to remove Mr B’s “Declaration” from its website, has been forced to accept the evidence). In putting the texts of its Bulletin no. 28 on its website in Spanish today (and awaiting the English version), not only does the IFICC continue to hawk an ENORMOUS lie, but it is persisting in and marking its unshakeable support for the repugnant methods of an adventurer who the ICC and the NCI have denounced publicly. Bravo!

[11] If the IBRP wants to make itself ridiculous by taking charlatans for “serious” elements and if it wants to swallow all their twists and turns (in affirming that its links with the IFICC “exist and endure”!), no-one can stop them. However, we invite them to stop making the Left Communist current ridiculous by presenting itself as its only “serious pole of regroupment”.

[12] The particularly twisted state of mind of this new and only “recruit” to the IFICC is not a new discovery for the ICC. Already at the time of the preceding crisis, in 1993, this ex-militant of the ICC gave us a little insight into his propensity for warped moves and manipulation. And it is precisely because we had discovered his little schemes that he “resigned”. In reality he had gone to sleep until the constitution of the IFICC woke up his… “militant conviction” (as shown by the enthusiasm with which he distributed the first Declaration of his little Argentinean pal at the end of the public meeting of the IBRP!) It is worth noting that another “founder” member of the IFICC had also participated in activity behind the back of the organisation in 1993. And if the militants of the ICC gave her their confidence once again (to the point of putting her on the central organ), it is because she had (or seemed to have?) made an apology. Lastly, we must recall that these two members of the IFICC had been involved in little intrigues alongside the element Simon who we excluded in 1995 for, among other things, proselytising the ideology of Freemasonry within the ICC, going as far as to give the impression that Rosa Luxemburg was “probably a Freemason”. Today we find the same insinuations in the IFICC Bulletin: the ICC is probably infiltrated by Freemasons!

[13] The “Pieds Nickelés” were characters in a famous band of French cartoon characters at the beginning of the 20th Century who told the tale of the misadventures of three crooks (Cronquignol, Filochard and Ribouldingue) whose “backstabbing” regularly resulted in failure.

[14] Now that their “trickery” has been uncovered, these elements show that they have not outgrown the game of cowboys and Indians. Their infantile and completely distorted mental universe leads them to tell themselves terrifying tales to give themselves the shivers. Obviously, it is not something that has always been part of the IFICC: if the elements of this “little circle” take themselves for the heroes of the cartoon band, they don’t have to take the militants of the ICC for cartoon characters. The force of revolutionaries does not reside in their “muscles” but in the accuracy and the coherence of their arguments! And it is precisely this force, the strength of thought, that is cruelly lacking in the IFICC. That’s why when they saw the ICC delegation arrive, they believed they had seen Tarzan appear in person (and they wanted to compete with his “muscles” to impose the law of the jungle on the proletarian camp)! The IFICC uses the same magnifying glass to seek to “terrify” the readers of this Bulletin by relating how one of its members was brutalised at the entrance to our public meeting in September in Paris: a huge ICC “muscle man” (sic!) “the said Bruno, bravely hitting him on the back and repulsing him violently”. The reality is quite otherwise: the element Juan (who perhaps deserves a good spanking!) was very gently shown out by the collar when he tried to be smart and edge his way between our “anti-informer pickets”. The members of the IFICC can always go snivelling to the IBRP and ask to have their (purely imaginary!) “injuries” dressed: the ICC will continue to defend its principles with the greatest firmness.

[15] We are thus witnessing a comical phenomenon: the IFICC and the “Circulo” (Mr B in his false nose) are both fantasists and inveterate liars; this is also one of the reasons for their rapprochement and their cooperation when it is a question of slandering the ICC. The problem is that they have become so “addicted” to lies that they can no longer help lying even to their acolytes; the result: from the great distance of Argentina, Mr B has denounced the ICC “sabotage” of the IBRP meeting in Paris that no-one saw. He has even gone so far as to affirm (in his declaration of 21st October) that, before the adoption of the “Declaration” of 2nd October, “we consulted with our closest contacts [who] have rejected the ICC’s attitude and way of behaving in the [IBRP] public meeting in Paris” which is truly wonderful since this meeting took place AFTER the publication of this declaration. Here is a blunder that Mr B would have been able to avoid if the IFICC had not told him a lot of balderdash. Conversely, Mr B’s lies have literally sent the IFICC to Paradise, they will make the sad reality of the non-existence of the “Circulo” and the survival of the NCI, which is pursuing its combat linked to the ICC, seem like a veritable Hell.

[16] See our article “Revolutionary organisations struggle against provocation and slander” (WR 252).

[17] See our article “Le Jury d’Honneur: arme de défense des militants et des organisations revolutionaries” (The Jury of Honour: a weapon for the defence of militants and revolutionary organisations).

[18] These blackmailers once again revealed their petty crook’s methods by renewing their “threat” to publish their detective story called the “History of the IS” if the ICC bring out a pamphlet making public the proceedings of their secret meetings (which accidentally fell into our hands), held while they were members of the organisation (why does the IFICC dread the publication of these proceedings and why do they hide them from their readers?): “The publication of the concrete elements which led to our exclusion, and most particularly the production of the ‘History of the IS’ which traces the origin of the crisis of 2001 through the notes of its meetings, was blocked by the liquidationists. We have been “threatened”, when we were still in the ICC, with a pamphlet on the organisational crisis of 2001. We continue to await it. Manipulation and destructiveness always fear to be brought into the light”. We continue to point out that the ICC does not give in to blackmail. If we have not yet published this pamphlet, it is simply because we have other priorities. The IFICC, which takes itself for the centre of the world, has forgotten that in the last two years there have been important events internationally (such as the Iraq war, and the social movements in Spring 2003) which we had to devote our energies to, as well as to other tasks, in order to carry out our responsibilities. On the other hand, the publication of this pamphlet seems much less urgent as the “revelations” in the Bulletin of this small parasitic group have had no negative impact on our readers. On the contrary. The noticeable increase in the number of our new subscribers (as well as the loyalty of the old ones) has shown that the IFICC has not achieved its ends: its “literature” has not succeeded in creating a vacuum around the ICC. It has more had the tendency to “fill” the space around the ICC as shown by the increase in the number of our sympathisers (as well as those asking to join the ICC). As for this sword of Damocles that these blackmailers are brandishing to try and “block” us (the publication of its “History of the IS”), it has largely contributed to making its authors ridiculous. This “document” has been a repulsive force for some serious elements of the political milieu to whom these sneaks and blackmailers sent it: “this text is completely delirious!”, we were told. The IFICC will excuse the “lateness” of the promised pamphlet which, contrary to what they imagine, has nothing to do with the ICC being “blocked” by its attempts at intimidation or vile blackmail.

[19] In its vast and prolific megalomaniac delirium, this “little circle” from Paris is not content to just affirm that “the Fraction is the ICC”. It finds itself in the same “firmament” as its Argentinean clone in continuing to claim that the IFICC represents the “whole history of the workers’ movement”: “the whole history of the workers’ movement condemns the practices of the liquidationist faction and has pronounced the sentence.”

[20] In this Bulletin the IFICC publish two letters that the ICC sent to the ex-militant Michel who had participated actively in the secret meetings and manoeuvres of those who went on to form the IFICC. This publication shows once again the vileness of these little thugs. In denouncing their “comrade” Michel (with incredible hypocrisy!), their objective was to “whitewash” citizen Jonas: the letters “clearly exonerate – from the very hand of the liquidationists themselves – our comrade Jonas from the same accusations they were publicly making against him…” Several of our readers have given us their opinion: they found these two letters very good and can’t see how they are an “infamy” against Michel, as the IFICC pretend. On the contrary, what they see is the sordid methods of the members of the IFICC who publicly “throw out” one of their old “pals” who refused to join the IFICC and to follow their policy of slander.

[21] See George Vereeken’s book The GPU in the Trotskyist movement and Victor Serge’s What everyone should know about state repression.

[22] So, the IFICC consider the fact that several of our militants belong to the same family is a “defect” of the ICC. It should be noted that almost half the members of this “little circle” from Paris is made up of elements belonging to the same family (a couple). What should we think of the “family faction” if the IFICC? On the other hand, what do the IBRP militants think of this IFICC attack on our young comrades when several members of the IBRP are also sons of militants and belong to the organisation (the PCInt) formed by their own fathers? We recall that in the tradition of the workers’ movement revolutionary organisations often had fathers and sons as militants. This does not constitute a “defect” in any way; it is part of the transmission of militancy from one generation to another and so of the historic continuity of the workers’ movement. However, we think it would be better if the children of the members of the IFICC avoid following the bad example of their parents, if they want to preserve their “moral health”!

[23] See our article ‘The Parti Communiste International trails behind the ‘Internal Fraction’ of the ICC’.

[24] Thanks to its “little shrewdness” the IFICC has caught the IBRP in an adventure without any future. And if our Pieds Nickelés have won a “nice coup” this time, it is because they have found someone more stupid than they are: they have succeeded in pushing the IBRP to declare war on the ICC with the IFICC’s weapons. Today the IBRP looks like an organisation being dragged along by this “little circle” from Paris!

[25] We have just received a letter from a new sympathiser who wrote, before meeting us “from the polemic by the provocateur element B in Argentina, taken to heart by the poor little cops of the IFICC and sadly by the IBRP (proof of the mediocrity of the analysis of these comrades). I send you my full support and remain in solidarity with your communist positions, which are proletarian and revolutionary!” Yet one more time, some of our subscribers have reached such a judgement not on the basis of the ICC’s statements (which can only defend the principles of the workers’ movement in denouncing the method of slander), but from reading the IFICC Bulletins.

[26] Because the morals of the IFICC are those of the lumpen (which has always constitutes a mass for manoeuvre from which the counter-revolution draws its forces of repression) we have received an anonymous threatening letter signed “A lumpen”. With the same “literary style” as the IFICC this element expresses his “solidarity” with the “Circulo”, the IFICC and even the IBRP (see our “Reply to an anonymous letter”)! See what sort of “element searching for clarity” the IFICC is able to draw towards the IBRP. In continuing to sanction these methods, the IBRP risks ending its political career as the main “pole of regroupment” for all the scum which grows like a fungus on the dung heap of capitalist decomposition.

[27] The conditions for these brats to play the role of “bloodhounds”, like Noske and Scheidemann, do not yet exist. Their Bulletin no 28 shows that the members of the IFICC are more like nasty little lap-dogs: the smaller they are, the louder they bark!