EKS dissolved itself and joined the ICC

164 posts / 0 new
Last post
Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 13 2009 19:39
Leo wrote:
Quote:
Well, well, now there's a surprise. I take it libcom will be deleting the EKS forum now.

i'd say turning it into some sort of a turkish subforum of the middle east forum would be a better idea.

I think really that you may as well close it. It isn't something that really worked for us unfortunately.

Devrim

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Feb 13 2009 20:03

I'd be happy to move the existing threads into the Middle East forum and close it after that. Generally I think organisation-specific forums aren't too much use - threads in the general forum get more attention anyway.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Feb 13 2009 21:25

yep that's something like what i had in mind.

john
Offline
Joined: 9-07-06
Feb 13 2009 22:19

why is it better to have this single organization?

do you seriously think that having a single voice is going to make the proletariat listen more?

I really do think that it's likely to have the opposite effect

this kind of vanguardism just seems so stuck in some kind of pre-1914 time-loop.

seriously, any kind of desirable revolutionary movement is going to be diverse and have open debates - and people are listening ever decreasingly to small, group-think-practicing, sectuscules.

long live the EKS - liberate Devrim from the clutches of ICC mono-brainia!

yoshomon
Offline
Joined: 19-06-07
Feb 13 2009 23:39
Leo wrote:
i would have expected a similar fraternal response as well from comrades like yoshomon, mikus and other comrades to have done the same regardless of disagreements. almost all of the comrades who posted in this thread do defend the same internationalist positions that we do as far as i am aware of after all and i think our organization does deserve the solidarity of other internationalist comrades, just like these comrades deserve our solidarity. anyway, whatever...

What am I supposed to say? Congratulations for following in the grand tradition of putting all of your eggs in one basket?

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Feb 14 2009 03:14
Leo wrote:
i would have expected a similar fraternal response as well from comrades like yoshomon, mikus and other comrades to have done the same regardless of disagreements.

What are you looking for? You are probably aware that I disagree with the ICC on just about everything (except that I'm a communist), and EKS only slightly less. I'm not a left communist. I'm pretty indifferent to this move. Best of luck to you all but I'm not going to lie and act like I'm excited by it. (I also won't say I think it's a bad move either.)

Do you guys congratulate every anarchist group you disagree with when they join forces? I don't think so, and for the good reason that you don't agree with them.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Feb 14 2009 05:29

Mikus, the whole quote from Leo is

Quote:
i would have expected a similar fraternal response as well from comrades like yoshomon, mikus and other comrades to have done the same regardless of disagreements. almost all of the comrades who posted in this thread do defend the same internationalist positions that we do as far as i am aware of after all and i think our organization does deserve the solidarity of other internationalist comrades, just like these comrades deserve our solidarity

So are we to take it you are not an internationalist? As Leo points out internationalism is what unites nearly all of us on these forums. Ah well if it sticks in your craw that much to even accept that is what what represent some common ground with the ICC, and the Communist Left, it's sad.

What sort of communist are you then, if you are not an internationalist or a Left Communist?

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Feb 14 2009 05:58

What is this, like what kind of punk are you, a crust punk or a street punk?

And I'm an internationalist, of course, although I'm not sure I mean the exact same thing by it as you guys (I think even a lot of Trotskyists call themselves internationalists). Of course there's some common ground in that sense. I don't see why that common ground should make me praise two groups joining together, one of which I think is completely loony.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 14 2009 06:31
mikus wrote:
What is this, like what kind of punk are you, a crust punk or a street punk?

And I'm an internationalist, of course, although I'm not sure I mean the exact same thing by it as you guys (I think even a lot of Trotskyists call themselves internationalists). Of course there's some common ground in that sense.

Yes, I understand exactly where you are coming from. Lots of Maoists and Stalinist call themselves internationalists too. Should we be in solidarity with them.

For the communist left internationalism is the key question. To us this means the rejection of national defence firstly, but also of national liberation struggles. I am sure that you know what we are talking about.

However not everybody shares the same political analysis as us. Many anarchists for example see the key question as being one of authoritarianism and libertarianism.

Thus it would be possible for us to think that an anarchist current was in the see general tendency as us, i.e. internationalists and for them to think that we are in an opposed tendency to them, i.e. authoritarians.

Our people should be able to realise this:

mikus wrote:
Best of luck to you all but I'm not going to lie and act like I'm excited by it. (I also won't say I think it's a bad move either.)

Do you guys congratulate every anarchist group you disagree with when they join forces? I don't think so, and for the good reason that you don't agree with them.

This sounds pretty reasonable to me. I wouldn't expect anybody outside the ICC or its immediate orbit to be excited by it.

Devrim

capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
Feb 14 2009 07:22
mikail firtinaci wrote:
Quote:
mikail firtinaci wrote:

we are not democrats, are we?

Yes, some of us are.

I mean in the sense that bordiga/italian-left description of democracy. Anyway the left communists are not democrats neutral

If you (as opposed to other left communists such as Anton Pannekoek, Otto Rühle, etc or do you mean "left bolsheviks"?) are "not democrats", what are you? How is the ICC organised internally? Is the ICC democratically controlled by its members? Or is there a leadership that just emerges as the brain of the organisation, as Bordiga envisaged? Bordiga and Mussolini (who both came from the leftwing of the Italian Socialist Party) shared a common view of democracy: that the "counting of noses" was not the way to make decisions. Are you saying this is your view too? That's why I'm asking how does the ICC organise its internal decision-making process.
As we are being asked to join in the self-congratulatory huggings, back slappings and high fives we have a right to know.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 14 2009 08:09
capricorn wrote:
How is the ICC organised internally? Is the ICC democratically controlled by its members? Or is there a leadership that just emerges as the brain of the organisation, as Bordiga envisaged? Bordiga and Mussolini (who both came from the leftwing of the Italian Socialist Party) shared a common view of democracy: that the "counting of noses" was not the way to make decisions. Are you saying this is your view too? That's why I'm asking how does the ICC organise its internal decision-making process.

There is an ICC text on this: http://en.internationalism.org/specialtexts/IR033_functioning.htm

It says that the ICC is democratically controlled by its members:

ICC wrote:
6. This concern for the greatest possible unity within the organisation also applies to the definition of the mechanisms which allow for the taking up of positions and the nomination of central organs. There is no ideal mechanism that will guarantee that the best choice will be made when it comes to taking positions, adopting orientations, and nominating militants for the central organs. However, voting and elections are the best way of ensuring both the unity of the organisation and the widest participation of the whole organisation in its own life.

It also expresses similar worries to you on the Bordigist conceptions:

ICC wrote:
However the fact that the Bordigist current has used this term to justify a mode of functioning which prevents the organisation as a whole exerting any control over its central organs and over its own life, disqualifies the term and makes it necessary for us to reject it also. For Bordigism, the fact - correct in itself - that a majority is in favour of a position doesn't guarantee that it Is correct, or that the election of central organs is not a perfect device which prevents it from any kind of degeneration, is used to defend a conception of organisation where votes and elections are banned. In this conception the correct positions and the leaders arise 'by themselves' through a so-called organic process, which in practice means giving the 'centre' the job of deciding everything and settling every debate, and leads this 'centre' to align itself behind the positions of a 'historic leader' who has a sort of divine infallibility. Since they are opposed to any kind of religious or mystical spirit, revolutionaries have no intention of replacing the pontiff of Rome with one from Naples or Milan.

Of course you can't know what an organisation is like without experiencing it. Rest assured though if it is not a democratic organisation, we will tell you.

capricorn wrote:
As we are being asked to join in the self-congratulatory huggings, back slappings and high fives we have a right to know.

I think that you are exaggerating it a little here. I said in the previous post that I didn't expect anyone outside to be excited. Leo is a little excited, but then he is young and excitable. That's hardly a crime is it.

Devrim

Beltov
Offline
Joined: 10-05-05
Feb 14 2009 08:20

Well, I'm quite a bit older than Leo but I can't deny being a little excited when I raised my hand to vote in favour of the creation of our two new sections. Welcome to the ICC comrades!

smile

B.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 14 2009 08:24
Beltov wrote:
Well, I'm quite a bit older than Leo but I can't deny being a little excited when I raised my hand to vote in favour of the creation of our two new sections. Welcome to the ICC comrades!

Well yes, but as I said earlier I wouldn't expect anybody outside the ICC or its immediate orbit to be excited by it.You are in the ICC.

Of course, nobody else is excited.

Devrim

capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
Feb 14 2009 08:33

Thanks, Devrim, glad to have confirmation that you don't share Bordiga's complete rejection of democratic procedures. But you'd better explain to Mikail that he's wrong about you not being democrats.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Feb 14 2009 09:06
Quote:
why is it better to have this single organization?

it is about having an international organization as opposed to having numerous local / localist ones. we are not anarchists after all.

Quote:
do you seriously think that having a single voice is going to make the proletariat listen more?

why on earth do you think the ICC is for a "single voice"? ICC has always said it has been against monolithism after all. on the other hand, while, let's say a group of ten is preparing a leaflet or something and they all have slightly diverse opinions on the question, would you have them do ten leaflets and distribute each individually? certainly having a more united voice when it matters is going to make our voice louder at least - this is what being an organization means.

Quote:
seriously, any kind of desirable revolutionary movement is going to be diverse and have open debates

hopefully, and of course hopefully within the ICC as well.

Quote:
What am I supposed to say? Congratulations for following in the grand tradition of putting all of your eggs in one basket?

whatever man.

Quote:
What are you looking for? You are probably aware that I disagree with the ICC on just about everything (except that I'm a communist), and EKS only slightly less. I'm not a left communist. I'm pretty indifferent to this move. Best of luck to you all but I'm not going to lie and act like I'm excited by it. (I also won't say I think it's a bad move either.)

fair enough.

Quote:
And I'm an internationalist, of course, although I'm not sure I mean the exact same thing by it as you guys (I think even a lot of Trotskyists call themselves internationalists). Of course there's some common ground in that sense. I don't see why that common ground should make me praise two groups joining together.

you should get out of libcom more often then.

Quote:
As we are being asked to join in the self-congratulatory huggings, back slappings and high fives we have a right to know.

you don't get the point. i don't care personally about being congratulated. as i said we don't need to be padded in the back. it is simply the natural, polite, expected behavior between those who actually are internationalists. people who know what putting forward this position in the real world constantly, or at least remember doing it understand the importance of things like this.

there is a small anarchist group in my university who we are in solidarity with and who can be considered internationalists. their positions in general, on the other hand, are much more apart from us than most posters in libcom. they did know on the other hand that this was a natural and positive move for us, they were very happy for that reason and did congratulate us for finishing what we started successfully. it's not a big or important thing in itself but it does show an important thing. we both try to put our message forward in an environment dominated by stalinists and we both try to do political work in an environment where soldiers are waiting at the doors and can enter the school in order to attack the students whenever they are called by the private security, who is on our backs all the time. conditions like this force fraternal relations between our organization and their group.

even the more clear anarchists on revleft (the ones who doesn't have che guevara quotes in their sigs and who don't support nationalism etc) and councilists know this. while they didn't realize the change that took place (in that website everyone thought we were the ICC for some reason regardless of us telling numerous times in the past that we weren't - we finally gave up on trying to get people to understand that situation thus no congratulations), the attitude of internationalist anarchists and councilsts who deal with stalinist, maoist and trotskyist arguements more regularly was naturally more fraternal to EKS and ICC militants writing there.

and here on this website where most people are internationalists, there is hostility really rather than any fraternal approach at the moment. and having a place that is like this seems to have affected some comrades' mentalities to the extent that they don't care whether there is a common ground due to internationalism, because they are more interested in denouncing the 'loons'. i wonder whether people are under the impression that this internationalism thingy is such an unimportant thing and that most of the world are internationalists, because most people on libcom are.

this has got nothing to do with being excited or wanting to be congratulated or anything. all this matters not because i personally care whether mikus or capricorn or whoever say something nice but because it would be an expression of fraternal relations between internationalists, which is no matter what anyone says is absolutely necessary.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 14 2009 09:42
Leo wrote:
you don't get the point. i don't care personally about being congratulated. as i said we don't need to be padded in the back. it is simply the natural, polite, expected behavior between those who actually are internationalists. people who know what putting forward this position in the real world constantly, or at least remember doing it understand the importance of things like this.

I don't think there is really any point at all here. The Turkish culture and language are extremely formal and people congratulate each other in instances that English speakers wouldn't even consider doing so*.

It is understandable that EKS members would expect to be congratulated. As Leo says it is simply the 'natural, polite, expected behaviour' in the culture he lives in. It is also understandable that Capricorn wouldn't consider doing it and wouldn't understand why they thought he should do so.

This is, as the English would say, 'a storm in a tea cup'. We, however, don't drink tea in cups. Very simple expressions and idioms can come across as slightly strange in other cultures.

Devrim

*To give an absurd example there is even a salutation in Turkish that is given to somebody who has just had a shower. It isn't something that we rarely use. It is something that I say to my wife everyday. Except it is not absurd to us.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 14 2009 09:44
capricorn wrote:
Thanks, Devrim, glad to have confirmation that you don't share Bordiga's complete rejection of democratic procedures. But you'd better explain to Mikail that he's wrong about you not being democrats.

Mikail is well aware of what the ICC's position is and doesn't need it explaining to him. Maybe you should try to understand what he was saying, or even ask him to clarify it, before implying that he is following some quasi Bordigist model.

Devrim

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Feb 14 2009 10:24

Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 14 2009 12:15
mikus wrote:
And I'm an internationalist, of course, although I'm not sure I mean the exact same thing by it as you guys (I think even a lot of Trotskyists call themselves internationalists).

Yeah just to emphasise this point, this week I've heard a leading SWP light depict a pro-Palestinian position ("anti-Zionism") as "internationalism".

I thought all you oddjobs believed in isolating yourselves in ubermenschist sects of clean politics and clean minds? Is that a confession of the EKS' sense of irrelevance due to its small size? Don't answer that, you obviously won't see it so...

miles's picture
miles
Offline
Joined: 21-09-08
Feb 14 2009 13:37
Quote:
I thought all you oddjobs believed in isolating yourselves in ubermenschist sects of clean politics and clean minds?

Given the fragmentation with revolutionary milieus (particularly Bordigist groups, all of whom claim to be the "sole" party of a future revolution) that's a fair enough question to pose - although a more serious, and pertinent, one would be "On what basis do people join forces?"

Actually, this question has already been posed in the way several posters immediately jumped on the question of decadence bandwagon (I sometimes feel you're more 'obsessed' with the concept than we are.. wink).

Quote:
Is that a confession of the EKS' sense of irrelevance due to its small size? Don't answer that, you obviously won't see it so...

If size is so important to you - why not join the Labour party? After all, thay still have about 180,000 members according to this (slightly outdated) figure.
The fact is that all revolutionaries today are an 'irrelevance' to the vast majority of our own class. We hope it won't always be so.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 14 2009 15:36
Devrim wrote:
*To give an absurd example there is even a salutation in Turkish that is given to somebody who has just had a shower.

that really is pretty funny

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Feb 14 2009 17:19

I've always thought of Devrim as one of the voices of reason among the communist-left milieu. He is a great addition to your ranks, ICCers. Use him wisely. As in, let him do the talking. wink

posi
Offline
Joined: 24-09-05
Feb 14 2009 17:30
petey wrote:
Devrim wrote:
*To give an absurd example there is even a salutation in Turkish that is given to somebody who has just had a shower.

that really is pretty funny

Same in Arabic. Na'iman, or something like that. I think it literally means 'heavenly'.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Feb 14 2009 17:33

!

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Feb 14 2009 19:22
internasyonalista wrote:
The establishment of new ICC sections in the Philippines and Turkey is a clear indication of the resurgence of class struggle around the world and the increasing numbers of new elements searching for real revolutionary alternative against the decadent and dying capitalism.

laugh out loud laugh out loud laugh out loud wall

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Feb 14 2009 22:33

I would congratulate the EKS members.

Lately, the ICC seemed to do a good job of trying to organize itself as an open, democratic organization of left communists fostering authentic debate. The presentation that an ICC comrade gave at the Neibyl Proctor library last summer impressed me more than any other presentation I've seen there (including presentations by personal friends).

I agree that having multiple organizations just for the sake of some formal "diversity" is a concession to a bourgeois democratic fetish. I generally have not been a member of communist organizations having more than four members in the last twenty but I am still in favor of collective organization if possible.

I agree that some discussion of how capitalism has changed since 1848 is crucial if communist theory is going to be relevant to 2009. A theory of decadence is thus necessary whether one accepts the ICC's theory or not. The way the ICC's decadence theory is described in the platform quoted by Devrim seems too "Luxemburgist" to me so I can't say I agree with their particular "periodization" but I do think that the "periodization" of capitalism is necessary for communist theory.

I think that some unfortunate acts by ICCers during the splits of twenty years ago are well documented. I've met a number of folks who still have bad feels towards the ICC from those days. They may have a point - the "parasitism" debates seem unfortunate. But these events did happen twenty years ago so it would be nice if the ICC could divest itself of that heritage somehow.

There are a number of folks on libcom who seem to do their best to bait the ICC and cast them as Stalinist-party-style card-board-cutouts. I don't particularly appreciate that approach and I don't think it leads us towards a more coherent communist perspective.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Feb 15 2009 07:50

That' s a very welcome approach, Red.

This morning I woke up thinking about Vanilla Ice's post. Since he models himself on a world famous and profound wordmaster and lyricist, perhaps he could explain in words (especially to the comrades in the Philippines) what he objects to in the phrase he quotes from internasyonalista. Does he see no significance in the fact that internationalist organisations are appearing in places, like the Philippines, where most 'communist' groups have hitherto been just nationalist gangs? Does this have no relation to a development of class consciousness?

Back to Red's points. I think you are right to criticise the opposition to or suspicion of forming unified organisations as an expression of bourgeois democratic ideology. Leaving to one side the specific case of the ICC, communists have always tried to organise themselves on an international scale - the Communist League being an obvious example. On the other hand, one of the reasons why the Second International failed the test in 1914 was precisely that it was already to a large extent based on a national vision of organisation and political action. Faced with international events like wars, revolutions and mass strikes, what advantage is there for communists being split up into a myriad of different groups putting forward the same basic politics?

Regarding our 'unfortunate acts' in the past, this isn't the place to take up that discussion, though we would be very interested in hearing your criticisms. On the specific concept of parasitism, I remain convinced it's a real question for the revolutionary movement, even if we have in my opinion made mistakes in applying the concept. But again that would be better discussed elsewhere, particularly in relation to the theses we wrote on the question (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/94_parasitism), which try to put the concept in a general historical context.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Feb 15 2009 08:30
Alf wrote:
Good old Jef, style always comes before substance in Costello World. However, I think you should meet our Mexicans before deciding on a cool ratio.

Honestly, show up to one bookfair in a suit and you get labelled for life smile
ps Mexico is no longer cool.

pandaigdig
Offline
Joined: 15-02-09
Feb 15 2009 09:53

In the present epoch that the permanent crisis of capitalism entered into its gravest on the international scale so far, it is a welcome knowledge that militant individuals and groups emerged and militate around left-communist positions - and also to integrate themselves organizationally within ICC.

This development is a strong validation of the bankruptcy of all strands of activist-leftist ideologies and their organizations or parties in finding their "revolutionary" relevance in the midst of present crisis. The emergence of these left-communist groups exposes more openly the activist-leftist true nature and their "relevance": as latter-day counter-revolutionaries and defenders of capital.

To EKS of Turkey and Internasyonalismo of the Philippines, a highest regards is in order!

]Pandaigdig

capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
Feb 15 2009 11:14
pandaigdig wrote:
This development is a strong validation of the bankruptcy of all strands of activist-leftist ideologies and their organizations or parties in finding their "revolutionary" relevance in the midst of present crisis. The emergence of these left-communist groups exposes more openly the activist-leftist true nature and their "relevance": as latter-day counter-revolutionaries and defenders of capital

That's more like the ICC we used to know.