I have left the ICC (Devrim)

82 posts / 0 new
Last post
jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Jan 3 2012 09:51

Interesting smile.

Leutha's picture
Leutha
Offline
Joined: 26-03-06
Jan 4 2012 19:26

I thought it was going to be some reason like: you were cross because they do not take Jan Appel's Fundamental Principals of Communist Production and Distribution seriously, but like to flatter themselves because he attended their founding conference.

Actually I think you are right about the clubs - except, of course, people in clubs have more fun. It is like Live Action Role Playing, where the participants have forgotten how to turn off the suspension of disbelief.

RedEd's picture
RedEd
Offline
Joined: 27-11-10
Jan 5 2012 01:00

That would make an amazing commedy-horror film: A group of LARPers have lost grip on reality and believe their imagined characters more than their actual selves, resulting in the heroic, bloodstained, conquest of the local mall.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Jan 5 2012 05:00

to be honest. that is the first time i have read the so called 'thesis on parasitism'. eek . fucking insane. i am surprised you didn't leave sooner. there is something to be said against organizations that refuse to engage in debate. but. what the fuck was that

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 5 2012 08:56

Devrim joined after the Theses on Parasitism had been published.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 5 2012 09:20

Can someone sum it up for me, very briefly?

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 5 2012 11:15

Non-mentalist left communists tell left communist organisations if you don't stop being mentalists we'll never build the world communist party.

morven
Offline
Joined: 21-05-07
Jan 5 2012 17:30

A 'mentalist' writes: for once Nasty Ned's brevity makes sense! grin

Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jan 5 2012 23:43

I'm willing to re-start the debate on the theses on parasitism (which goes back mainly to the Bakunin-Marx conflict in the IWA), but will keep that for another thread, because the main issue here seems to be the political analysis of the Tunisia, Egypt and Libya uprisings on the part of the ICC. If I remember well, initially it was postulated that the French and British student protests (remember those?) were an important catalyst.
There was the hope that these 'protests' would inspire workers in the West. The truth is that the revolts were driven by high food prices/corruption, not the inspiration from students in Europe, and that though protests in some countries in the West gladly jumped on the bandwagon of the 'winning' Arab protesters, this happened more to hide their own weakness than because of clarity about their own objectives.

About last year protests themselves, as a justification for the 'enthusiasm' a lot was made of the working class element in this, so for instance the number of strikes and their supposedly key role were highlighted. Devrim then pointed to the factual numbers of workers on strike, which was less high than perhaps asserted. Furthermore he pointed out how similar 'revolutions' in the recent past (Kirgizia and Thailand) had had been analyzed by the ICC much better. The fact that workers take part in protests doesn't say much, as they are usually the battering ram to advance the goals of other classes. This was then sometimes interpreted as a kind of put down of workers.

The question is not about foresight vs. rose-spectacles either. When after the initial phase it became more clear (for instance in Libya) that not only there was the 'regular' nationalism, but also Islamism, this was interpreted as recuperation of a basically good revolt. The creation of an opposition movement consisting of former regime politicians and army people was seen also as recuperation. So in this way the illusion was saved of an original good revolt vs. recuperation by the bourgeoisie afterwards. So it was a fraction of the Libyan bourgeoisie which called for foreign involvement, and the Libyan workers here, according to this story, were only manipulated like dummies into not uniting with all workers of the world (which they intended to do, you see).

Now, you can be laid back on internet forums for leftist crap, but when it surfaces in real life it's pretty hopeless.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Jan 6 2012 01:48

Noa,

If I remember correctly ICC differentiated between the civil war in Libya on the one hand and the revolts in Egypt-Tunisia on the other. According to that the situation is far more complex. While in Egypt and Tunisia working class and its fight for its own class interests was much more clear in Libya working class was even numerically a weaker force. So I think it is unfair to criticize ICC on the basis of something it did not defend. Contrary perhaps it just argued the same thing on Libya...

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jan 6 2012 09:01

For those who study the decomposition of gangs, Devrim's RevLeft link is a grim eye-opener. But nothing like the startling revelations by another ex-ICC clot, the Fraction de la Gauche Communiste Internationale (FGCI). On its site, the Historique du Secrétariat International du CCI (1996-2001), 1e et 2e parties reads like a clinical report in a psychiatric institution for the criminally insane, around two leading patients, Peter & Louise (a bit like the Ubus in Jarry's play). Unfortunately, not in English: http://fractioncommuniste.org/index.php?SEC=b17. If such rabid antics went on more than 10 years ago, who knows where the asylum is at now. Maybe Devrim will reveal. At least he's out.

(Incidentally, the FGCI gyrates around the other 'pole of regroupment', the ICT. This racket deliriously supports a Marxism based on a mixture of Kautsky and a 19C Scientist delusion. The specialists interpreting Marxism as Science are themselves of course, materialist druids with Bolshevik wands).

By the way, I sidestepped this, narrowly missing it. One finds them on sidewalks, or on trolls, like in:

Quote:
Jesus, I forgot about McIver - I guess at this point my brain just treats his posts as so much white noise.

(Jolasmo, post 57)

Forgot? Brain loss is a worrying sign for a proletarian organizer. Could it be caused by excessive gossipy rubbernecking? It must be that, as you joined Libcom on 25.12.11, and scarcely three days later you were a fully-formed little troll, whining about 'white noise'. Your posts don't express any discomfort at left communism's 'white noise', whilst McIver's critical posts compress your hippocampus. I assume that, in spite of your anarchist claims, you're a dormant left-com fan. But next time, stay on thread or limit your rubbernecking to climate-change.

Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jan 6 2012 22:35
Quote:
ICC differentiated between the civil war in Libya on the one hand and the revolts in Egypt-Tunisia on the other. According to that the situation is far more complex. While in Egypt and Tunisia working class and its fight for its own class interests was much more clear
[..]
Contrary perhaps it just argued the same thing on Libya...

Of course it argues the same social revolt line for Libya. The civil war is merely explained as recuperation (due to objective factors), while it should have shown the true face of Egypt-Tunisia protests, i.e. total lack of a fight of the working class for its own class interests.

Quote:
in Libya working class was even numerically a weaker force

Relatively, the labor force is higher in Libya and it also more employed in industry (2% in agriculture), from a glance at world factbook.

slothjabber
Offline
Joined: 1-08-06
Jan 7 2012 00:17

I think the argument about the working class in Libya was that out of a couple of million, 1.5million were actually foreign workers who had zero interest in a nationalist revolt and fled the country, variously pursued by mobs who were lynching black workers thinking they were 'Ghaddafi's mercenaries'.

But the triggers, if one can use such a term about what became a shooting war very quickly, were the same as in Tunisia and Egypt, weren't they? My understanding is that a demonstration of unemployed youth against rising prices and joblessness in Benghazi in ...maybe February... was fired on by the police. That looks to me like brutal state repression of the working class raising its own demands for the defence of its material conditions.

I also think it's got to be true (but I can't prove it) that events in Libya, at least to start with, were inspired by events the month before in Tunisia and Egypt, and that those events were much more directly tied to protesting about material conditions - they became 'democracy movements' but they started off as protests about wages, employment, precarity, austerity - in short, the economic crisis.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jan 7 2012 08:02
Noa Rodman wrote:
but will keep that for another thread, because the main issue here seems to be the political analysis of the Tunisia, Egypt and Libya uprisings on the part of the ICC.

It is one of the things that was discussed on that thread, but I did point out that it wasn't why I left, and the reason I left was more to do with internal structure, not that what I considered to be bad analysis were adopted, but how they were adopted.

mikail firtinaci wrote:
If I remember correctly ICC differentiated between the civil war in Libya on the one hand and the revolts in Egypt-Tunisia on the other. According to that the situation is far more complex. While in Egypt and Tunisia working class and its fight for its own class interests was much more clear in Libya working class was even numerically a weaker force. So I think it is unfair to criticize ICC on the basis of something it did not defend. Contrary perhaps it just argued the same thing on Libya...

I think you are misremembering this. I remember people in the ICC comparing it to Spain in 1936, and supporters of the ICC comparing me to pro-Gaddafi Trotskyists.

slothjabber wrote:
My understanding is that a demonstration of unemployed youth against rising prices and joblessness in Benghazi in ...maybe February... was fired on by the police. That looks to me like brutal state repression of the working class raising its own demands for the defence of its material conditions.

The original demonstration was not over prices but over the arrest of an Islamicist lawyer.

Devrim

slothjabber
Offline
Joined: 1-08-06
Jan 7 2012 12:51
Devrim wrote:
...

The original demonstration was not over prices but over the arrest of an Islamicist lawyer.

Well, that puts quite a different spin on things. So, not really the working class raising its own demands, instead the unemployed and the police lining up behind different factions in the bourgeoisie. In which case it does sound much more similar to Thailand - democratist protests (here with an Islamist twist) against the corrupt and brutal government.

Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jan 7 2012 13:11
Slothjabber wrote:
the working class in Libya was that out of a couple of million, 1.5million were actually foreign workers

yeah fair enough

posi
Offline
Joined: 24-09-05
Jan 7 2012 13:24
slothjabber wrote:
Devrim wrote:
...

The original demonstration was not over prices but over the arrest of an Islamicist lawyer.

Well, that puts quite a different spin on things. So, not really the working class raising its own demands, instead the unemployed and the police lining up behind different factions in the bourgeoisie.

OK - without stepping into the wider debate, that's a really crude way to understand it. The lawyer in question was the lawyer for the families of those killed in the Abu Salim prison massacre, in which perhaps more than 1,000 people were killed in 1996. Yes, alot of the victims were Islamists (this was at the height of the Islamic Fighting Group's activity in the East), but it was also one of the most symbolically potent examples of Gaddafi's authoritarianism. And I don't think civil freedoms, including the absence of mass killings of political prisoners, are a priori necessarily less of a class issue than bread, simply because the former is 'political' and the latter 'economic'.

I don't think people responded to the issue because they wanted to defend Islamism, and there were already protests scheduled for two days later (I think) in solidarity with Tunisia. Furthermore, it's often the case that unrest over an individual outrage is really about underlying issues - e.g. you wouldn't say the August riots in the UK were just about the killing of Mark Duggan, or the Greek events a few years ago were just about Grigoropoulos. The point is that the victimisation acted as a lightning rod for broad and deep discontent in the political and economic spheres.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Jan 7 2012 13:30
slothjabber wrote:
Devrim wrote:
...

The original demonstration was not over prices but over the arrest of an Islamicist lawyer.

Well, that puts quite a different spin on things. So, not really the working class raising its own demands, instead the unemployed and the police lining up behind different factions in the bourgeoisie. In which case it does sound much more similar to Thailand - democratist protests (here with an Islamist twist) against the corrupt and brutal government.

Sorry but I think this is a really big logical jump here which implies an intensely mechanistic understanding of the nature of popular uprisings/mobilisations. Surely we can agree that the revolt went/has gone way beyond the so called 'reasons' for a relatively small demo in Bengazi.

Also, I'm confused by your 2 million comment. Are you stating that the working class in Libya was only 2 million, of which 1.5m were foreign?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 7 2012 19:45
posi wrote:
I don't think people responded to the issue because they wanted to defend Islamism, and there were already protests scheduled for two days later (I think) in solidarity with Tunisia.

Yeah, protests had been planned for some time before the particular the event of the lawyer. That was likely just the catalyst.

Quote:
Also, I'm confused by your 2 million comment. Are you stating that the working class in Libya was only 2 million, of which 1.5m were foreign?

According to the CIA World Factbook, the labour force is about 1.7 million. It doesn't say anything about foreign workers, but there were large numbers of Egyptians working there and quite a few from souther Africa as well.

slothjabber
Offline
Joined: 1-08-06
Jan 7 2012 20:12

@ Caiman: I said 'a couple of million' which wasn't strictly intended to mean '2 million'. It was intended to mean 'a small number of millions, probably 2-3, certainly not as many as several million, which might be taken to mean 3-6 million'.

But yes, my understanding is that before February 2011, the working class in Libya numbered about 2-3 million, of which around half were foreign workers.

Also @ Caiman, but also @ Posi, I've already said that I think events in Egypt and Tunisia were a direct inspiration behind some of what happened in Libya; but on the reasons for the demonstration I was referring to, I thought it was a demonstration against austerity but Devrim says it was a demonstration against the jailing of a lawyer. Those are quite different things, even if any given quantity of anger may have more than one cause.

GerryK's picture
GerryK
Offline
Joined: 14-04-10
Mar 23 2012 14:00

It is now well over 6 months since you left the ICC, Devrim, and, as far as I understand, you have not publicly explained this decision.
I was wondering:
1. What your resons for leaving were.
2. How this leaving has effected your relations with your fellow comrades in the ICC (have you remained friends with any of them, what reactions did they have towards your decision and how have you dealt with these reactions?)
3. How have you developed your political activities since (obviously I mean this fairly generally; I imagine giving any specific details might be a little bit dangerous in the political climate of your country).

I hope you still feel motivated to respond to these questions.

PS If I am late in responding to your response, that will be because I am very rarely on the internet and do not have daily access to it.