Platformism

69 posts / 0 new
Last post
rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Jul 6 2010 17:33
Devrim wrote:
The ICC doesn't claim to be libertarian in anyway.

Yes, that was sort of a point, as this site is called LibCom which, I guess, stands for Libertarian Communism.

Devrim wrote:
I presume you are talking about the piece of the period of transition:
ICC wrote:
[O]ne cannot talk about a “socialist state”, a “workers’ state” nor a “proletarian state” during the period of transition.

I was more thinking of this segment of that text:

ICC wrote:
For these reasons, while the proletariat will have to use the state during the transition period, it must retain a complete independence from it.
Devrim wrote:
Obviously not every anarcho-syndicalist feels like this or one of the IWA sections wouldn't have just organised a series of meetings with us.

Obviously not, but that is the thing with us anarcho-syndicalists, we are not a sect, and therefore our opinions on non-basic issues vary.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Jul 6 2010 17:38
Mike Harman wrote:
@rata: if you mean accepted as in 'not banned', then we don't ban Leninists, Maoists or Stalinists either - or at least not just because of their politics. I reckon we've banned far more 'anarchists' over the years than we have people from any of those groups, because generally what happens is Trots and Maoists leave of their own accord (as have 99% of platformist posters, and nearly all individualist anarchists).

I didn't know that. That's quite cool than.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jul 6 2010 17:45
Devrim wrote:
Ret Marut wrote:

We can assume the forthcoming article will conclude that left communism is superior to anarchism, as shown by 'platformist degeneration', and that anarchists will only be truly redeemed by recognizing that 'fact'. Non-pl@tformists will also be 'flattered' in the sub-text by being reminded just how close to the ICC's 'superior' dogma they are. Just one more step 'left' if you want be redeemed(recruited)!

That is quite cynical.

If so, not as cynical as what it describes.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jul 6 2010 23:12

Devrim and Mike Harman may well be correct that it is difficult to establish any historical continuity between the original platform and modern platformism. But I don't understand syndicalist's argument that the way I posed the question was dishonest. I am simply admitting to ignorance and asking for an input from people who know more than me on this question. Perhaps the way I first posed the question wasn't well put, but I then tried to explain what it was I was trying to understand.

It's unlikely that the result of an inquiry into platformism (or any other branch of anarchism) would be to conclude that it is 'superior' to left communism. But that isn't the point. We are in the process of reassessing mistakes we have made in defining other anarchist currents, and it would be a further mistake to come to a hasty conclusion about the nature even of the contemporary platformist groups. For us, analysing the historical trajectory of a political current is always central to understanding its class nature, hence the interest in the history of platformism.

Neither is the aim of the whole process of reflection the 'flattering' or 'recruitment' of anarchists. In fact one of the mistakes we have made in the past is thinking more or less implicitly that the best anarchists can only really continue to defend revolutionary positions by breaking from anarchism. In our opinion the current period is showing that left communists and internationalist anarchists can indeed work together without necessarily moving towards any kind of regroupment. The most recent examples of this are the series of meetings we held in Germany addressed by a worker who had been involved in the Tekel strike in Turkey, which we (ICC in Germany and Turkey) organised along with the FAU; and a meeting of the CNT-AIT in Toulouse at which the ICC was invited to speak. These are, in our view, signs of a significant change on the part of both ourselves and (some) anarchists and are to be welcomed.

At any rate, the next WR will contain an article on this general question. I will post it up when it's ready and it may be a better starting point for a discussion. For those who read French, it can be read here: http://fr.internationalism.org/ri414/gauche_communiste_et_anarchisme_internationaliste_ce_que_nous_avons_en_commun.html

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 7 2010 08:18
Alf wrote:
We are in the process of reassessing mistakes we have made in defining other anarchist currents, and it would be a further mistake to come to a hasty conclusion about the nature even of the contemporary platformist groups. For us, analysing the historical trajectory of a political current is always central to understanding its class nature, hence the interest in the history of platformism.

I think it would be a mistake to put too much on this historical aspect, and I don't think that it is that relevant, particularly in this case.

I don't have the sort of knowledge that BattleScared has about it, but I doubt that many people do including many of the 'platformists' themselves. I consider that I have a fair knowledge of it though, and probably a little more than many in the ICC.

If we take the example of the UK ''platformist' group, the AWG, I am 99% certain that they weren't even aware of the French influences that BS cited in post 19. I think that something that would be more fruitful to look at would be how the 'fusion' between platformism in mainly English speaking countries and the South American current of 'Especisimo' came about, which would probably say more about what these groups are today.

Also, in many ways these groups aren't as rigid as groups like the ICC, or ICT. The Czech platformist froup for example transformed itself into the3 left communist KPK.

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 7 2010 08:27
Ret Marut wrote:
If so, not as cynical as what it describes.

I think you make a mistake here. Even considering your opinion of the ICC, it is quite a big leap from saying that people are sincerely mistaken to that they are just devious manipulators trying to advance their own sect.

If we look at groups like the SWP for example, I believe that most of them are genuine people, who consider themselves to be genuine socialists although I don't rule the possibility of some cynicism at the top.

It is the same with trade union struggles. Shop stewards don't end up 'selling out' struggles because they are against the working class. Very often they are amongst those who will be screwed by the new terms and conditions. It happens, on many occasions, despite them subjectively trying to further the struggle. I think that the ICC has made many mistakes in how its put this across in the past.

From what you say though the ICC comes across as some sort of exception, just being cynical and manipulative through and through.

Devrim

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jul 7 2010 08:44
Devrim wrote:
Also, in many ways these groups aren't as rigid as groups like the ICC, or ICT. The Czech platformist froup for example transformed itself into the3 left communist KPK.

Did it? Interesting, I hadn't heard that.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jul 9 2010 21:51

Devrim; I was correct that there was a forthcoming article - and Alf confirms that my description of the ICC's historical assessment of anarchists is more or less accurate as to their potential;

Quote:
one of the mistakes we have made in the past is thinking more or less implicitly that the best anarchists can only really continue to defend revolutionary positions by breaking from anarchism.

It should hardly be a surprise that there is some cynicism that a group that spent 3 decades contempuously consigning anarchists (amongst others) to a hopeless political "swamp" have, since discovering libcom, reversed their view for a ch@rm offensive. I think what has happened is that a declining and ageing core membership has realised that the Net, and in particular libcom, apparently offer greatly increased publicity and recruiting potential for a small group - and that the libertarian scene is liberal enough to tolerate a semi-Bolshevik group 'intervening' as a group on its forums.

It may be that the ICC has become genuinely grateful and well-disposed to libcom & co for offering this lifeline to a fading group - that doesn't in itself overcome the inherent problems of such a group, nor mean all its old faults have disappeared. I wasn't describing an exception earlier - some generalities do apply; but I was also being quite specific. The ICC probably now has minimal ability/resources for "being cynical and manipulative" though it's a common tendency of groups built around defending and evangelising an ideology and a claimed historical territory/ancestry.

Quote:
Shop stewards don't end up 'selling out' struggles because they are against the working class

Being cynical or dishonest to 'the masses' can be rationalised as being in working class interests - particularly if one thinks you/your group has a monopoly (by possession of a certain perceived 'consciousness') on determining and defending class interests (and the organisational separation from 'the masses/class' that makes such manipulation possible tends to make it likely). It's true that lower functionaries such as stewards/cadres often only deliver the consequences of the cynicism of those above them; but they do sometimes collaborate in deceptions - by allowing themselves to believe flimsy justifications, by being flattered that their 'position' and trustworthiness privileges them to being privy to 'confidential info' denied the masses - info that rationalises that the masses' consciousness doesn't allow them to fully grasp the necessity of sacrificing short-term gains for long-term goals of union/party/class etc. So it's rationalised that a smaller lie defends a greater 'truth'.

In the case of political groups, the brand image of the organisation is often the first line of defense. We've had on threads here ICC members loyally defending past behaviours that are even indefensible to you, eg, such as the freemasonry infiltration nonsense. Even though it was finally admitted that the person smeared as a freemason wasn't actually one, that article still stands on the ICC site, with no explanatory note attached, as you had recommended. An article that makes the ICC look ridiculous - but is embedded that deeply as a part of its identity and approach to dealing with political challenges, that it must continue to stand proud as historical justification. If it won't let go of such embarrassing madness, how deep is its claimed reassessment and change? Just a small example (though perhaps not to those involved) - but indicative.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jul 10 2010 22:24

It's difficult to have a discussion with Ret because whatever we say, there is a sinister project behind it. And I certainly don't want to have another discussion about parasitism and what we said about a case of freemason-type ideology in the past, not here at any rate. But there are a couple of things which indicate how narrow-minded Ret's conception is. One is the focus on Britain: it's true that inter-acting with libcom has been a factor in leading us to reassess much of what we have said about anarchism, but this isn't only a British phenomenon - it's also based on our relations with internationalist anarchists in Russia, Mexico, France, etc. And if the phenomenon is global, maybe it's also historical: in past periods of emerging class consciousness, such as 1917 and 1968, we have also seen tendencies towards rapprochment between revolutionary marxists and anarchists. In other words, perhaps the question we are posing here goes well beyond the specific question of the ICC.
There is indeed a 'generational' aspect to this. We think that there is a new generation of people heading towards communist politics and for various reasons many of them are attracted towards anarchism. This is more true in some countries than others - in Latin America, for example, we are finding more younger comrades who are directly attracted by left communist positions. In any case it would be stupid not to engage with this new generation. One result of this will no doubt mean that some comrades will move from anarchism towards left communism and the ICC, but, whether Ret believes it or not, this is not our only concern. The creation of a whole series of points of reference - local, national, regional, where internationalists from different tendencies can discuss together and act together - is a more important aim.
The translation of the article on the communist left and internationalist anarchism will be online soon and I will start a new thread about it, because it is not about the specific question of platformism.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jul 10 2010 19:46

I think it's a bit daft to say the ICC are no better than Trots and Maoists. Sure, they're not libertarians, but their positions on the unions, national liberation are much closer to anarchism than run of the mill leftism. As for them being irrelevant, newsflash, the same is true of anarchists. Maybe it's hard to tell when you're in the IWA secretariat, but it's true nonetheless.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Jul 11 2010 12:04
Vlad336 wrote:
I think it's a bit daft to say the ICC are no better than Trots and Maoists.

And who said that? What does "better" even mean when comparing ideologies? I never said I don't think ICC is better than Trots or Maoists, what I said is that I would prefer to spend time discussing with them as they have more interesting ideology and relevant practice in RL, than the ICC.

Vlad336 wrote:
Sure, they're not libertarians, but their positions on the unions, national liberation are much closer to anarchism than run of the mill leftism.

Maybe that is true in some segments, but I don't think that value of certain ideology can be measured only by closeness to our political positions. For example I don't think ICC or any of the left commies has ever produced theory of ideology that in it's quality and scientific approach can be compared with the one of Althusser, a pro-Maoist philosopher. I also don't think that any of the ideological tools that ICC's ideology is giving us is as nearly useful for the cause of revolutionary transformations of society as mentioned Althusser's one is, or Gramsci's theories or ... In that context, I find it's much more useful to discuss with Trots or Maoists than left communists...

Vlad336 wrote:
As for them being irrelevant, newsflash, the same is true of anarchists.

It seams you didn't read my post in details, so I need to repeat myself. I never said that anarchists are not irrelevant (even if comparing to ICC we are giants), what I said is that I am more interested in discussing with somebody who has influence in RL - this is because their positions are influenced by material circumstances of their struggles, and are thus much more valuable and interesting to me, than positions of the ones who are just speculatively arriving to some very revolutionary conclusions.

Vlad336 wrote:
Maybe it's hard to tell when you're in the IWA secretariat, but it's true nonetheless.

Maybe it is, but I wouldn't know since I am not in IWA Secretariat since September 2009...

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Jul 11 2010 12:23

Rata;

I am just asking out of curiosity; What do you think is the usefulness of Althusser and Gramsci' theories for the revolutionary transformation of society?

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jul 11 2010 12:29
Alf wrote:
...whatever we say, there is a sinister project behind it.

Your exaggerated words, not mine - and a parody of what was said. The ICC is far too mundane to attribute anything "sinister" to it. As I already said, you don't seem very capable of "being cynical and manipulative" at present and your present tactics make it largely unnecessary (or at least it remains a latent second nature, embedded in the group logic rather than necessarily a conscious decision); if the libertarian left want to "rehabilitate" the ICC, that's quite amusing and revealing.

Quote:
...a couple of things which indicate how narrow-minded Ret's conception is. One is the focus on Britain:

To be specific in a particular comment about what one has experience of is not "narrow" - though to pretend so perhaps is. Unlike some, I try not to act as if I possess universal truths.

Quote:
such as 1917 and 1968, we have also seen tendencies towards rapprochment between revolutionary marxists and anarchists.

Whoops - only Bolsheviks (or masochistic anarchists who like gulags) could estimate the "rapprochment" between anarchists and marxists in 1917 as a positive model. But maybe this reveals how you envisage the balance of any present "rapprochment".

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jul 11 2010 13:06

But the ICC do claim the heritage of the Bolshies, don't they?

Anyway, the labour camps weren't set up until 1918, surely.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Jul 11 2010 13:44
mikail firtinaci wrote:
I am just asking out of curiosity; What do you think is the usefulness of Althusser and Gramsci' theories for the revolutionary transformation of society?

As I said, Althusser's works on Ideology are very interesting to me. His works on Ideological state apparatuses and others do contribute to understanding of the ways the system is functioning and thus to understanding the ways of overcoming it. Same goes for Gramsci's works on hegemony, civil society, politics, philosophy and ideology.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Jul 11 2010 13:53

I know that is not the best place to discuss it, but if you can explain how althusser's work on ideology contribute to the effort of overcoming this society I will be more than happy.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Jul 11 2010 14:17
mikail firtinaci wrote:
I know that is not the best place to discuss it, but if you can explain how althusser's work on ideology contribute to the effort of overcoming this society I will be more than happy.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ideology#Louis_Althusser.27s_Ideological_State_Apparatuses

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Louis_Althusser#Ideological_state_apparatuses

I think understanding the role of ideological state apparatuses and material basis of ideology helps understanding how the system is functioning. I think that anything that helps understanding the world we are living in is helpful for the task of overcoming it.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jul 11 2010 14:21

Althusser and Gramsci are both dead, and whatever interesting things they had to say (I agree about Gramsci at least), they are not observably influential on current struggles. And neither are any Trots or Maoists, all of whom are completely divorced from the reality that the working class faces daily (as is the Left in general). There is absolutely no argument to be made for the ICC being worse or better/efficient than the wider Left (although as an organization the ICC do sometimes seem more ridiculous than even the Trots; see the recent "scandal" on Masonic infiltration, the dossier with the pink cover, typewriter abduction and so on). Fact is Alf, Devrim, baboon, mikail et al, have been on this board since pretty much anyone can remember, and most of them are very knowledgeable and amicable people (which is more than I can say about any Trot I've met), so demanding that they be thrown out because they're not libertarians seems like an unjustified excess.
But this thread is not about the ICC. IT is about platformism.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Jul 11 2010 15:05
Vlad336 wrote:
And neither are any Trots or Maoists, all of whom are completely divorced from the reality that the working class faces daily (as is the Left in general). There is absolutely no argument to be made for the ICC being worse or better/efficient than the wider Left

That is just a bizarre thing to say. So, you are comparing influence of ICC to the influence of Indian, Nepal or Philippines Maoists? What? You are saying that what this people are doing has nothing to do with the reality?

Even if you took only eurocentric point of view you can not say that SWP and other trot clones have influence compared to ICC, fucking Marxism shit is a thing talked about in mainstream TV and newspapers in my region. I am not saying that their influences are good, I am saying that they have influence, incomparable larger, than the ICC.

Vlad336 wrote:
(although as an organization the ICC do sometimes seem more ridiculous than even the Trots; see the recent "scandal" on Masonic infiltration, the dossier with the pink cover, typewriter abduction and so on).

Of course I find it idiotic to pursue somebody for being a Freemason, but I have to say that I don't find it that scandalous for an organization to fight by any means necessary for it's property.

Vlad336 wrote:
Fact is Alf, Devrim, baboon, mikail et al, have been on this board since pretty much anyone can remember, and most of them are very knowledgeable and amicable people (which is more than I can say about any Trot I've met), so demanding that they be thrown out because they're not libertarians seems like an unjustified excess.

I never demanded them to be thrown out of libcom. I was asking about why are they accepted on the board, when not being libertarian. Than, comrade explained that libcom is open for all, regardless of ideology, which I didn't know, and than I concluded that that politics is ok. I know, even personally, some of the people you mentioned, I had good and interesting meetings and discussions with them, as I also know several very knowledgeable Maoists and Trotskysts, with whom I also maintain good personal relations. Again, I find opinions of the second ones, taking into the account that their ideology is more developed and that they belong to n times more influential international organizations that have proclaimed communist goals than the ICC, much more relevant.

Vlad336 wrote:
But this thread is not about the ICC. IT is about platformism.

Obviously. ;>

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Jul 11 2010 15:09
Quote:
I think understanding the role of ideological state apparatuses and material basis of ideology helps understanding how the system is functioning. I think that anything that helps understanding the world we are living in is helpful for the task of overcoming it.

well my question was what althusser has to say positive -in a few sentences- on for instance ideology, that has not been said or better said than previously by people like lukacs...

same goes with Gramsci too...

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
Jul 11 2010 17:02
Alf wrote:
One is the focus on Britain: it's true that inter-acting with libcom has been a factor in leading us to reassess much of what we have said about anarchism, but this isn't only a British phenomenon - it's also based on our relations with internationalist anarchists in Russia, Mexico, France, etc. And if the phenomenon is global, maybe it's also historical: in past periods of emerging class consciousness, such as 1917 and 1968, we have also seen tendencies towards rapprochment between revolutionary marxists and anarchists.

This point seems a wee bit mad. Anarchists being nice to the ICC on the internet =/= 1968.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jul 11 2010 17:06
Farce wrote:
Alf wrote:
One is the focus on Britain: it's true that inter-acting with libcom has been a factor in leading us to reassess much of what we have said about anarchism, but this isn't only a British phenomenon - it's also based on our relations with internationalist anarchists in Russia, Mexico, France, etc. And if the phenomenon is global, maybe it's also historical: in past periods of emerging class consciousness, such as 1917 and 1968, we have also seen tendencies towards rapprochment between revolutionary marxists and anarchists.

This point seems a wee bit mad. Anarchists being nice to the ICC on the internet =/= 1968.

Also, weren't the marxists of the 1968 "rapprochement" councilists and SouB types, neither of which has very much to do with the ICC?

rata wrote:
I never demanded them to be thrown out of libcom. I was asking about why are they accepted on the board, when not being libertarian. Than, comrade explained that libcom is open for all, regardless of ideology, which I didn't know, and than I concluded that that politics is ok. I know, even personally, some of the people you mentioned, I had good and interesting meetings and discussions with them, as I also know several very knowledgeable Maoists and Trotskysts, with whom I also maintain good personal relations. Again, I find opinions of the second ones, taking into the account that their ideology is more developed and that they belong to n times more influential international organizations that have proclaimed communist goals than the ICC, much more relevant.

Ok fair enough; maybe your question wasn't as denunciatory as I interpreted it to be. However, I disagree that there is something to be learned from Trots and Maoists as organizations "that have proclaimed communist goals." This is not the thread to go into it, but the Naxalites's working class support is vastly exaggerated, and I think you will agree that whatever they call communism is anything but. As for Trots, show me one example of them having a relevant active role in working class struggles.
Yes the ICC are vastly outnumbered by other, bigger Left sects, but in essence they are not that different from what the SWP or RCG in terms of practice. What exactly do you find of use in the tactics of Trots and Maoists by the way? Is it their utter contempt for a genuine critique of the state and its apparatuses, their utter contempt for the working class, or is it their blind insistence on bolshevik tactics? Seriously, I don't get it.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Jul 12 2010 00:27
mikail firtinaci wrote:
well my question was what althusser has to say positive -in a few sentences- on for instance ideology, that has not been said or better said than previously by people like lukacs...

same goes with Gramsci too...

And as a reply to your question I posted the links on wikipedia which are giving comprehensive overview of some of his main ideas on ideology, which would be enough if you have bothered to read it. Among other things he was writing about his concept of State ideological apparatuses - and explaining how ideology is being produced and reproduce through such apparatuses (family, education system, churches, political parties, trade unions etc), and what is it importance in maintaining the system as well as why and when they are not enough and something he called "state repressive apparatuses" (courts, police, military etc) come into the game.

Funny that you mention Lukacs, as I was just recently reading some short description of Althusser on the net, which was mentioning the relation two of them had towards concept of ideology - "Ideology is not, as Lukács suggests, a reified consciousness so much as it is the manner in which the subject lives with the reification of belief." Lukacs and Althusser come from two different traditions of Marxism, Lukacs being humanist, and Althusser being notable anti-humanist, among other things criticizing historicism of Lukacs and others. Of course all this is simplified much to fit the forum format of discussion.

As for Gramsci I would also recommend wikipedia, which is giving nice overview of topics he was dealing with - starting with development of the hegemony concept, questions of intellectuals in the movement, relation between State and civil society etc. I also find his thesis which are, basically, seeing philosophy, ideology and politics as a same thing quite true and important.

Vlad336 wrote:
However, I disagree that there is something to be learned from Trots and Maoists as organizations "that have proclaimed communist goals." This is not the thread to go into it, but the Naxalites's working class support is vastly exaggerated, and I think you will agree that whatever they call communism is anything but.

I think you can learn something from everybody, even if you totally disagree with positions and actions of the other person. Even if it means learning how not to deal with some issues. Of course, what Maoists are creating is no communism, but neither is ICC with their usage of the state while maintaining "independence" from it. But, Maoists are obviously much more successful than ICC in their wrong ways, and that is an interesting thing that should be taken into account, and something that should be analyzed and used for creating of one's own conclusions.

Vlad336 wrote:
As for Trots, show me one example of them having a relevant active role in working class struggles.

I am not sure if you are just not informed well, or if this is ideological blindness, but different Trot organizations/internationals have their members quite involved in workers class struggles in many countries. Spain or Italy, to name few in Europe, or even several thousands strong organizations in Pakistan etc. I am not saying the way of their acting is revolutionary from our point of view, I am saying they do exist and they do participate actively in (mainly) reformist workers movement.

Vlad336 wrote:
What exactly do you find of use in the tactics of Trots and Maoists by the way? Is it their utter contempt for a genuine critique of the state and its apparatuses, their utter contempt for the working class, or is it their blind insistence on bolshevik tactics? Seriously, I don't get it.

All of that can be said for ICC, so I don't see what's the discussion about exactly.

For the end, just to keep this discussion light, and to bring some more distortion of the topic, here is some great Stalinist Anatolian rock. I guess anarchists should learn from them how to make some good music. wink

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jul 12 2010 00:11
rata wrote:
I am not sure if you are just not informed well, or if this is just ideological blindness, but different Trot organizations/internationals have their members quite involved in workers class struggles in many countries. Spain or Italy, to name few in Europe, or even several thousands strong organizations in Pakistan etc. I am not saying the way of their acting is revolutionary from our point of view, I am saying they do exist and they do participate actively in (mainly) reformist workers movement.

What I meant by "involved" was obviously "involved constructively" not the sort of fiasco the SWP pulled a few weeks back during the height of the RA strikes.
By this standard, social democrat trade unionists are even more "involved" and thus we should learn from them. But again, learn what? How to be good leftists? I'd rather learn how to knit to be honest.

Quote:
But, Maoists are obviously much more successful than ICC in their wrong ways, and that is an interesting thing that should be taken into account,

Here's the rub. I don't think there's anything to be learned from the failure of people who aren't even doing the right thing. Sure, in a really broad and vague manner of speaking you can learn from everything and everyone, but in the context of furthering our interests as a class, Trots and other assorted leftists have nothing interesting to say (and it's truer today than it was 30-40 years ago when the "radical left" still had some sort of marginal credibility).
Have a look at the coverage of Marxism 2010 (a couple of threads about it on this board) for a glimpse into what Trotism actually is today (at least in Britain).

My only point about the ICC was that it's not better or worse than other Party-building leftists; indeed ideologically speaking, I'd rather hear what an ICCer has to say about national liberations and the unions, than a fuckwitted "anti-imperialist" trot.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jul 12 2010 00:12
Ret wrote:
Whoops - only Bolsheviks (or masochistic anarchists who like gulags) could estimate the "rapprochment" between anarchists and marxists in 1917 as a positive model. But maybe this reveals how you envisage the balance of any present "rapprochment".
BigLittleJ wrote:
But the ICC do claim the heritage of the Bolshies, don't they?

Yes, that's why I made that comment.

BLJ wrote:
Anyway, the labour camps weren't set up until 1918, surely.

Anarchist responses to bolsheviks in 1917 and bolshevik responses to anarchists in 1918 - closely linked as a historical process, obviously.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Jul 12 2010 00:28
mateofthebloke wrote:
My only point about the ICC was that it's not better or worse than other Party-building leftists;

That's strange, since you said several posts ago:

mateofthebloke wrote:
I think it's a bit daft to say the ICC are no better than Trots and Maoists.

which is how this tentacle of discussion has started. But, if now this is your position, than we don't have reason to argue any more as we agree.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jul 12 2010 00:30
rata wrote:
mateofthebloke wrote:
My only point about the ICC was that it's not better or worse than other Party-building leftists;

That's strange, since you said several post ago:

mateofthebloke wrote:
I think it's a bit daft to say the ICC are no better than Trots and Maoists.

which is how this tentacle of discussion has started. But, if now this is your position, than we don't have reason to argue any more as we agree.

Ok it's a fair cop, and I'm not even going to bother with a "what I really meant to say" comeback, but what I really meant to say was that the ICC are in practice pretty much the same as anyone on the Partyist left; ideologically however, they have slightly more interesting things to say than any Trots, Maoists or Raelians that I know of. That if nothing else, warrants their presence here. And this time, I really mean to wrap up this entirely off-topic "argument". That Turkish "stalinist rock" is really really dreadful btw.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Jul 12 2010 00:53
mateofthebloke wrote:
That Turkish "stalinist rock" is really really dreadful btw.

This is what hundreds years of Ottoman occupation does to you - I genuinely like it. I guess next time you will be more careful when talking against anti-imperialism. :>

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jul 12 2010 01:00

rata post 51 July 11 2010

Quote:
Of course I find it idiotic to pursue somebody for being a Freemason, but I have to say that I don't find it that scandalous for an organization to fight by any means necessary for it's property.

No, not by 'any means necessary'. You speak like a racketeer.

You have been around these posts since 2006. You have no excuse therefore for supporting the actions of the ICC, as you should have read the Ingram posts. 'Pursuing' is a vague and even tender word, when what happened to ex ICC member JJ was a sadistic and relentless persecution and harassment. JJ was not only falsely accused of being a 'freemason' but of other crimes, above all of as 'probable agent provocateur' (read the cretinous La prétendue paranoïa du CCI, II, sur les comportements du citoyen JJ, 1995). As in the case of Chénier, the 'dossier' on JJ was nothing but a pack of lies and calumnies, the sort of sewer material peddled by shysters of Alf's ilk. Of course the 'policing' actions of the ICC racket may be of no concern to potential or actual apparatchiks, but at least base yourself on facts. Gangster actions and defamations lasting for nearly 30 years aren't 'idiotic' or 'ridiculous', but terminal expressions of a Lenino-Stalinist racket.

This thread isn't about rackets, however, next time inform yourself better about their antics by checking out:

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

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/question-parasitism-letter-edited-ingram-march-1996-recalling-icc-1981-burglaries-

http://libcom.org/forums/history-culture/iccs-jury-honour-zeta-reticuli-16062010

There are many other ICC posts dealing with the 'Chénier affair' and 'parasites' here, some dating from 2007 or before, which I've just discovered. All the same slanders and lies, dressed up as 'historic vignettes' and paranoid non-sequiturs, defending the indefensible. They have influenced the feeble-minded, especially those who advocate using 'any means necessary'.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Jul 12 2010 01:09

dear rata;

thanks for pointing out the difference between Lukacs and Althusser. Thanks for your wikipedia suggestions too. The problem is; I am a sociology grad., I have taken at least three courses related with the theories which included that of Althusser's and from which I got high grades. Unfortunately my conclusion was that he was only a stalinist obscurantist who wanted to legitimise state capitalism. It might be that 3rd world education system is fucked up or perhaps I am wrong.

Anyway what I really wonder is how his theories can contribute to revolutionary perspective. Unfortunately I do not think that the relationship between family, etc and ideology is a new discovery. So what is new in Althusser?

But I do not want you think that I want to press on you. I really want to learn and re-read if there is something interesting in Althusser. I would like to be convinced that this will be a fruitful effort.

ps: I am not in the ICC