AF Public Meeting in London

78 posts / 0 new
Last post
rat's picture
rat
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Apr 29 2009 08:30

Are the ICC Leninist / Bolsheviks / authoritarians?

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Apr 29 2009 09:15
yearzero wrote:
Are the ICC Leninist / Bolsheviks / authoritarians?

Of a sort, yes. They believe in the necessity of a centralised party of the working class and a "proletarian" state as an intermediary between capitalism and communism.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Apr 29 2009 09:17
madashell wrote:
Of a sort, yes. They believe in the necessity of a centralised party of the working class and a "proletarian" state as an intermediary between capitalism and communism.

Actually, this isn't true at all, but don't let that get in the way of your misconceptions.

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Apr 29 2009 09:22
yearzero wrote:
Are the ICC Leninist / Bolsheviks / authoritarians?

The ICC wouldn't define itself as 'Leninist', but neither does it reject everything that comes from Lenin.

I don't think there are really any Bolsheviks today. It is a term that applied to a particular group at a particular point in history.

The whole authoritarian/libertarian thing isn't really a part of the Marxist discourse. Personally, I don't really understand it. I don't think that any groups go round defining themselves as authoritarian (except perhaps a few Bordigists). It is an anarchist term so I will leave it to anarchists to decide.

Devrim

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Apr 29 2009 09:55
Devrim wrote:
Actually, this isn't true at all, but don't let that get in the way of your misconceptions.

Fair enough, my mistake.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Apr 29 2009 10:38

Devrim's being a bit coy:

mostly / yes / yes

posi
Offline
Joined: 24-09-05
Apr 29 2009 11:01

FWIW, members of the ICC have not been disruptive at Commune meetings. I would say that within the group there is the normal range of people between thos who listen to others, and are willing to engage properly, and people who don't listen and give down the lgroup line (focussing on the group's particular predilictions etc.). This applies to most groups, from what I've seen the ICC is not particularly different.

The ICC continue to be welcome at Commune metings, especially if they continue to be so effusively enthusiastic about the level of discussion wink

On the other hand, I can imagine that attempting to accomodate ICC perspectives at an organising meeting would be difficult, such that it might be impossible to reconcile continued discussion on the question at hand with also discussing the ICC's positions.

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
Apr 29 2009 15:45
miles wrote:
Who's more of a 'loony': someone who calls themselves a 'revolutionary' and then bangs on about reformism and inter-classist actions, or someone who calls themselves a 'revolutionary' and tries to keep to those principles?

Is it true that you actually don't go down the pub with non-ICCers after meetings? Cos if that's the case, then that definitely makes you more loony.

Quote:
Let me pose a question to all our detractors - have you ever, at work, in your organisation, in any kind of a political meeting - had to put forward a position you knew was not 'in tune' with the majority thinking? I personally get this more or less every day at my workplace - I'm pretty sure many of the other posters here do also. If that is the case, then fundamentally that's no different to what we do, albeit within a particular context.

Yes. You can put forward those positions in a polite and respectful way, or you can be an argumentative dick about it. There are no ICCers in my neck of the woods, so I don't really have any first-hand experience of them, but if you consistently do the latter then you getting banned is pretty explicable.

miles's picture
miles
Offline
Joined: 21-09-08
Apr 29 2009 16:24
Quote:
Is it true that you actually don't go down the pub with non-ICCers after meetings? Cos if that's the case, then that definitely makes you more loony.

No, that's not true, I guess you're new to these boards, otherwise you would know that we've been to several Libcom drinks sessions. I guess you haven't read this thread properly either, otherwise you may have noticed the comment of october lost above.

Quote:
Yes. You can put forward those positions in a polite and respectful way, or you can be an argumentative dick about it.

Yes, you should never try and put anything forward other than in a polite and respectful manner, not forgetting to bow and touch your forelock also. Along with not having read this thread, I guess you've never read about many of the discussions/polemics in the Social democratic parties either.

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
Apr 29 2009 16:49
miles wrote:
No, that's not true, I guess you're new to these boards, otherwise you would know that we've been to several Libcom drinks sessions.

Yep, I'm new to these boards. I stand corrected.

Quote:
Yes, you should never try and put anything forward other than in a polite and respectful manner, not forgetting to bow and touch your forelock also.

Yes, you should be polite when discussing with people who you consider to be your comrades. That doesn't really work as sarcasm.

Quote:
Along with not having read this thread, I guess you've never read about many of the discussions/polemics in the Social democratic parties either.

I'm aware of Lenin's polemics against Kautsky, will they do? I wasn't aware of the rule that said that we had to behave in exactly the same way as members of the late 19th/early 20th century Social Democratic parties, tho.

miles's picture
miles
Offline
Joined: 21-09-08
Apr 29 2009 18:05
Quote:
Yes, you should be polite when discussing with people who you consider to be your comrades. That doesn't really work as sarcasm.

The thing is Farce, that's not what we're talking about. The point here has been about what consitutes 'disruptive' behaviour, the thing that the ICC has been accused of so many times by some on here. The point I've been trying to make above is that, more often than not, it's not that we've been standing up in a meeting and shouting and screaming, but that people just react to the criticism or things that we say. My argument has been that it's not really about 'how' you say the things. I've heard the most reactionary crap from plenty of otherwise 'polite' people - does that make their comments any more acceptable?

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Apr 29 2009 18:41

The way the ICC are re-branding at the moment I wouldn't be surprised if they started calling themselves New ICC soon! wink

The certainly never used to come down the pub after meetings, that was the only thing I liked about them. At least once you were safely down the pub you knew some fucker wasn't going to stand up and drone on for twenty minutes about the decadence of capitalism.

As to miles continuing attempts to gloss over their past behaviour the ICC were banned from meetings by Subversion in Manchester, the AF in London and No war but the class war amongst others. All of these groups were familiar with the politics of left communism so it's just not credible to say that they were shocked so much by the politics of the ICC that they had to ban them. No, as has been said many times before it was because of their disruptive behaviour.

And I'm going to post a link by a text from an ex ICC member again just for good measure:

http://libcom.org/history/open-letter-international-communist-current

IrrationallyAngry
Offline
Joined: 23-06-05
Apr 29 2009 20:22
knightrose wrote:
I have sat through many meetings where ICC members have come en masse

This is a genuinely disturbing image. How do you gouge out your mind's eye?

On another note, I'm a bit baffled by the notion of the ICC doing anything, even something less perverse, "en masse". Don't you have to have a certain number of supporters before that becomes possible?

More seriously, I'm always amused at the predilection anarchists seem to share with the SWP for banning awkard little groups from their "public" meetings. As long as people keep their contributions to a specified length, don't heckle or try to shout down people, in my view they should be allowed to participate in public meetings.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Apr 29 2009 20:56

I'd like to back Miles up. He certainly did come for a drink after the Manchester meeting and as I recall managed to down a few with us lot.

miles's picture
miles
Offline
Joined: 21-09-08
Apr 29 2009 22:08

One tries ones best, but I'm afraid I'm not as good *cough* 'lightweight' *cough* as some of you guys tongue