The IBRP

263 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lurch
Offline
Joined: 15-10-05
Dec 15 2006 08:49

Hi Oliver. Some rather rambling thoughts on what you recently posted.

Sorry if I got your 'prick' approach wrong: I know it's not always easy to raise a serious discussion about so-called 'Leninist' political groups on a site which, in general, doesn't have much taste for that kind of fare - Revol's 'fuck 'em both' pose perhaps illustrating that - and that a nod to your peers by making light of it maybe makes it more digestible for them. Personally, I find it hard to swallow but that's my problem.

You may find it 'understandable' to approach newly encountered political groups by trying to acertain whether they are comprised of 'pricks' or not: I tend to look at their political positions, see how they apply these to concrete situations, try to understand where they're coming from, what their history is and so on. In any case, most contact is through the press, net or writing. Sure I have my personal preferences - can't tolerate this kind of person, am drawn to that type, and so on, but I try not to let it get in the way of political dialogue though I'll admit it aint always easy. I'll make another assumption: I bet your approach isn't that disimilar, behind all the banter about pricks and so forth. Have I got it wrong again?

I still don't think you've really grasped the ICC's gripes vis-a-vis the IBRP, judging from your comments about the ICC's use of the term ('construct') the 'proletarian camp' or the proletarian political milieu. It's hardly an ICC invention - it's a tradition of the workers' movement and at its most simple is just a judgement based on certain criteria about which political organisations you can openly discuss and perhaps, at certain stages, work with, show solidarity towards, and which you can't. If you don't like the term, then use the IBRP's "serious elements" or "leading forces" or whatever. The point is, IMO, the IBRP has got it badly wrong on several occasions and it's legit to ask why that's the case, especially when they're at pains not to work with the ICC.

It's a bit different concerning social movements (as opposed to political groups). I suppose its a question of how you judge "authentic class movements" as you describe it in the section of your post addressed to Leo. Here, questions tend to be asked about 'where is the working class' in all this? Is it or has it the possibility of fighting 'on its own terrain' for demands which can stregnthen it as a class, its sense of identity, its solidarity against capital, holding back attacks on its living standards, or is it being drowned in an amorphous mass of 'the people', being dragged behind one capitalist faction against another, for the protection of the national economy, etc. Perhaps both tendencies exist: so what is the dynamic of the struggle? In any event, it's never a question of 'dismissing' such social movements but of attacking the wretched conditions of capital that give rise to them, and of calling on the workers to take up their own, distinct struggle, thereby giving a perspective for society or this or that movement.

Here, I'm not talking specifically about the situation in Mexico: genuinely, I've not yet assimilated all that's gone on nor absorbed what the milieu has to say about it (my ignorance). But to imply, as I think you do, that the ICC doesn't encourage genuine movements of the working class, in whatever way you define that, is simply not true, IMO.

And in any case, while organisations can and do have different appreciations of this or that movement, others are more clear cut. Wars and mass strikes for example. Here, the most basic, and in some ways the most important social convulsions, I really think it ammounts to dereliction of duty not to unify forces when both major groups in the present 'left communist' camp are saying exactly the same thing.

We're not talking marriage or mergers here: just the most elemental work when (IMO) the proletariat needs it most. But as mic of the IBRP blithely says 'our work must go on. Without the ICC'. Now someone please explain to me again, exactly, why that is?

There's much else in your post - the historical stuff (GCF and PcInt etc) to talk about but.... And I don't understand the last para of your post to me, but I never said I was bright.

mic
Offline
Joined: 11-12-06
Dec 15 2006 09:55

OliverTwister, I couldn't agree more. It's exactly the way we in the IBRP perceive the situation, and I'll only add these different positions on events and struggles are rooted into different analysis.

IBRP has produced documents (a lot of documents, I would say) about the Argentinian events in 2001. With all its limits, the piqueteros movement was a great hope and an example for the world working class.

I'm quoting from The Piqueteros Movement of Argentina:

Quote:
The great task facing class subjectivity and the mass of disinherited Argentinians is not so much to free themselves from their democratic illusions, since these have been exhausted by the experience of ten years of political struggle, but to unite their autonomous organisations and pave the way to their own dictatorship. Certainly, the masses have overthrown a government and imposed their organs' collective will through street fighting and strikes, but they have not destroyed the state or the bosses' organisation. Nor have they united their various partial struggles -- and the organs of power with which, at various levels, have replaced the apparatus of government -- into a general struggle for the installation of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The political struggle today fought within the piqueteros movement should decide if, faced with the disintegration of the capitalist regime and the crisis of power, the movement moves towards the revolutionary solution and acts as an independent factor of the working class and the masses gathered in the Popular Assemblies, or ends up tied to the institutional framework, through the co-opting of its leaders and the loss of any perspective of power for the working class. If the revolutionary strategy is not politically imposed on its activity, the piquetero movement will be limited to showing just how far the spontaneous movement of the masses, left to their own fate, can go. Given the absence of the previous work of revolutionary organisation and propagation of the communist programme within the class (which is explicable by the considerable weakness of the working class vanguard) there absolutely do not exist guarantees of final victory. The fact that the crisis has thrust different strata and sectors of the working class onto the same fighting terrain and pushes towards class forms of organisation shows the immense contribution that the current situation makes to revolutionary development, but on its own it is not enough to assure a successful outcome. Despite objectively preventing any role for the organisations of conciliation, mediation and agreement, the burning question arising from the current crisis is just how far will the masses go, left to their own fate and under the influence of programmes and strategies which distance them just as much from their own class interests, as from the way to power.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 15 2006 11:44

Oliver wrote: "On the other hand the IBRP appear to have an attitude of looking how to strengthen authentic class movements".

Why "on the other hand"? Any revolutionary organisation has to have an attitude of looking how to strengthen authentic class movements. That's not the issue. The issue is identifying authentic class movements and distinguishing them from movements which are not. In our view, the 2001 riots in Argentina, and the November 2005 riots in france, were not proletarian movements. On the other hand, the wave of strikes in Argentina in the summer of 2004, or the movement against the CPE in France in 2006, were, and we did all we could, given our small influence, to strengthen them. You can argue against our analysis of the former movements if you don't agree with us, but don't imply that our attitude is not to "strengthen authentic class movements".

The same applies to the various forms of organisation which appear in the class struggle. Revolutionaries have to be able to distinguish between forms which are authentic expressions of the class movement and forms which are set up by the left wing of the bourgeoisie to recuperate the movement. This is not always obvious - both may use the same names and look superficially similar. Trade unionist-type organs can appear very radical, while genuine class organs are never 100% clear about their goals and methods and are inevitably subjected to the influence of bourgeois ideoloy. In our view, for example, the assemblies created during the anti-CPE movement were genuine class organs, despite all their weaknesses; the Popular Assembly of Oaxaca is not. On the latter point, we seem to disagree with the CWO's analysis in the current Revolutionary Perspectives: while we see a genuine class movement in the teacher's strike and a real solidarity from the local population, we think the 'Popular Assembly' is precisely one of the types of organs set up by the left to recuperate the movement, whereas the CWO sees it as "an organisation built around the needs of the struggle from the bottom up...the very opposite of the sort of mobilisations organised by Chavez Bolivarian Movement in Venezuela...". Likewise we disagree about the piquetero movement and agree with the position adopted by the Argentinian group the NCI. (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/119_piqueteros.html).

These are important judgments to make as they will determine the way we intervene towards such movements. They are not easy to make because two forms of organisation which may at one moment seem very close can in reality be going in quite opposite directions. The whole question is complicated by the fact that some organs (for example the base committees which have appeared in Italy in various struggles) can begin their life as genuine class organs and then, at a certain point, be transformed into new trade unions, new obstacles to the struggle. Determining the point of transformation is also a difficult task.

This question also links to the existence of a proletarian political milieu. I agree with the various points that Demogorgon and Lurch have made about this in reply to your previous posts. It is absolutely vital to be able to distinguish the proletarian political camp from the organisations of the left of capital. It is by no means an easy task, and neither does it preclude making very severe criticisms of the various components of the proletarian movement when they are infected with opportunism, sectarianism, sclerosis or other diseases. It is a task that requires a serious political and historical method, combined with a fundamental sense of solidarity towards those who are fighting on the same side of the barricades.

mic
Offline
Joined: 11-12-06
Dec 15 2006 12:04

The article cited by Alf and published in Revolutionary Perspectives # 40 is this one:

Latin America: Between Populism and Imperialism

Also there's an Italian article specifically on Oaxaca:

La “Comuna” di Oaxaca

What's wrong with them? We don't apologize struggles ignoring they're "contaminated" with bourgeois ideas. We're with the working class, when it moves against the capital, yet we stress the limits of movements, as you can read in all our leaflets and documents.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 15 2006 12:49

I agree entirely that we have to be with the working class and we will never find a class movement that is not in some way contaminated by bourgeois ideology.
But we have to take a clear position on the organisations which appear within the movement. The leftists are calling for support for the Popular Assembly on the grounds that it is a soviet type body. Our comrades in Mexico have argued strongly against this view, as in the extract that follows:

"APPO: a body alien to the proletariat
The social composition of the APPO (formed by ‘social’ organisations and unions) reveals that this organisation, and therefore the decisions it takes, is not in the workers’ hands. The fact that this structure leaves reflection and discussion in the hands of the unions demonstrates that it does not have a proletarian nature. This means that the potential strength of the participating workers is diluted. This force cannot express itself in a structure which, despite presenting itself as an organisation that was directed by so-called open assembles, shows in its practice its true nature an inter-classist front driven by the confusion and despair of the middle layers. This was clearly demonstrated by the appeal of 9 November for the APPO to be turned into a permanent structure (State Assembly of the People of Oaxaca). This was made even clearer by its definition of the Constitution created by the Mexican bourgeoisie in 1917 as a “historical document that endorses the emancipatory tradition of our people” and that therefore calling for its defence, also means defending “...the territory and its natural resources...”. Thus its radicalism is reduced to the defence of nationalist ideology, which is a real poison to the workers. Moreover the Appeal contains a false proletarian internationalism, when it insists on the necessity of “Establishing co-operative, solidarity and fraternal links with all the peoples of the world in order to construct a just, free and democratic society; a truly human society...” as the basis of the struggle for “the democratisation of the UN...”!

The constitution of the APPO was not an advance for the workers’ movement, on the contrary, its creation is linked to the subjugation of workers’ genuine discontent. The APPO emerged as a straight jacket for confining proletarian militancy. The Stalinist, Maoist, Trotskyist and union groupings that formed this body know full well how to undermine the working class’s courage and expressions of solidarity, through imposing a leadership and activity alien to workers and the rest of the interests of the exploited. Therefore the comparisons between the APPO and the structure of the Soviets or “embryonic workers’ power”, is nothing but a devious attack against the real traditions of the workers' movement" http://en.internationalism.org/wr/300/oaxaca

Our criticism of the article in RP is that, on this specific point, it gives credence to this leftist propaganda. Of course, we may be wrong: perhaps the APPO really is an expression of the working class, perhaps we are making a serious mistake and should be calling on workers to work within it and strengthen it, as we did with the assemblies in the anti-CPE movement. But this type of dilemma is going to appear over and over again in the class movements that lie ahead and we need a serious debate about how to approach the problem.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 15 2006 16:56

oh, Revol, give over

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Dec 15 2006 17:00

Revol tells us that he "criticised the leadership" of the CNT and parades this like a badge of honour. What particular insight was this criticism based on I wonder: the obvious fact that the CNT was propping up the capitalist state; it being instrumental in implementing draconian attacks on the working class; leading the class into imperialist war?
Any old leftist can "criticise the leadership" of this or that faction of the bourgeoisie. After all, that's one of the main roles that leftism performs for the state. In 1936 in Spain, the whole structure of the CNT, like that of the trade unions today, was rotten.
"Criticising the leadership" is a useful way for leftism to maintain and reinforce worker's illusions and is not a badge of honour to be worn by anyone that has the slighest interest in communism, libertarian or otherwise.

Leo's picture
Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 15 2006 17:58
Quote:
oh lets be honest left communism is just anarcho communism for slow learners, infact it's not even able to keep up with council communism...

Haha, bullocks!

Quote:
can't you loony leninists gobshites take your Hollyoaks bollox to your own websites, last time i checked this was a libertarian communist board.

What a suitable for the altitude for a "libertarian".

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Dec 15 2006 18:15
Leo Uilleann wrote:
suitable for the altitude for a "libertarian".

libertarians can get pretty high.

smile)

sorry.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Dec 19 2006 01:11

I'll have to come back to this topic.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 21 2006 09:59

Several posts have expressed their concern that the ICC and the IBRP should be able to carry out common work, despite our differences. Leo has also expressed the concern that he does not want to get caught up in polemics between the two organisations. Leo's concern is understandable and it is not a question of 'taking sides'. This thread is and has been important because it has enabled those who had heard of the IBRP to understand who they are. It has also allowed those reading it to understand the common ground between the IBRP and the ICC; defense of internationalism, the proletarian nature of the Russian revolution, the rejection of national liberation etc. However, there is still some lack of clarity on why the IBRP feel it is not possible to carry out common work with the ICC. In one of his posts Mic says

Quote:
Thu, 14/12/2006 - 19:44
Leo, I understand your aspirations. They were also ours for a lot of time. The document I linked is a synthesis of tens of years of debates.
Without grudge, our political work, which we strongly believe in, must go on. Unfortunately, without the ICC

.
This does not explain anything. To try and make the reasons for this refusal to carry out any common work with the ICC clear for those reading the this thread it would be helpful if IBRP could if it was valid then, why is it no longer valid to hold such joint meetings with the ICC? what has changed in the positions of the ICC that would merit such a change of attitude on the IBRP's part?

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 21 2006 12:16

Well I think I had better do this message again, there is an important part missing. I have not been on the sherry I can assure you, simply I was in too much of a rush. The added part is highlighted for clarity

Several posts have expressed their concern that the ICC and the IBRP should be able to carry out common work, despite our differences. Leo has also expressed the concern that he does not want to get caught up in polemics between the two organisations. Leo's concern is understandable and it is not a question of 'taking sides'. This thread is and has been important because it has enabled those who had heard of the IBRP to understand who they are. It has also allowed those reading it to understand the common ground between the IBRP and the ICC; defense of internationalism, the proletarian nature of the Russian revolution, the rejection of national liberation etc. However, there is still some lack of clarity on why the IBRP feel it is not possible to carry out common work with the ICC. In one of his posts Mic says
Quote:

Thu, 14/12/2006 - 19:44
Leo, I understand your aspirations. They were also ours for a lot of time. The document I linked is a synthesis of tens of years of debates.
Without grudge, our political work, which we strongly believe in, must go on. Unfortunately, without the ICC

.
This does not explain anything. To try and make the reasons for this refusal to carry out any common work with the ICC clear for those reading the this thread it would be helpful if IBRP could explain why they thought it was possible to hold a joint public meeting with the ICC to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Russian revolution in 1997 , but now think that it is no longer valid to hold such joint meetings with the ICC? what has changed in the positions of the ICC that would merit such a change of attitude on the IBRP's part?

mic
Offline
Joined: 11-12-06
Dec 21 2006 18:38

Hi Ernie,

the only way I can understand your message is that there were events about which we were in agreement, and could have worked together...

The point is: which events? The war in Afghanistan? The war in Iraq? Argentina 2001? Oaxaca?
If I put your writings on these events side by side with ours, I cannot draw the same conclusion. And I think you agree.

Do you want me to point you to some documents of ours about these issues? Ok.

The Economic Role of War in Capitalism's Decadent Phase
Imperialism’s new world order

There are a lot of questions to be answered by ICC, above all about decomposition and chaos. Please, ground your ideas in reality, as reality is what we want to talk about.

What changed, you're asking. You say nothing on your side. Exactly.

Ciao. Mic

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 21 2006 20:02

I can understand what the ICC are saying about decompisition. From the Middle east in does seem to be very real, and their is a very serious threat of the whole region sinking into war.
Devrim

Leo's picture
Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 21 2006 21:17
Quote:
The point is: which events? The war in Afghanistan? The war in Iraq? Argentina 2001? Oaxaca?
If I put your writings on these events side by side with ours, I cannot draw the same conclusion. And I think you agree.

I disagree. The ICC would not be trying to talk with the IBRP if they thought IBRP drew different conclusions on the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq, the same thing applies of the IBRP. The difference in conclusion would be taking sides. The most important practical function of theory is concluding accordingly to communist principles. I haven't seen either the ICC nor the IBRP support any "national liberation" movement.

As you said, it is important to ground our ideas in reality, as reality is what we want to talk about. The reality is a world of capitalism, a world of nationalism, a world of war... Can we really afford to have sectarian splits over vague theoretical concepts or historical analysis? When the cat is away, the mice will play...

mic
Offline
Joined: 11-12-06
Dec 22 2006 09:55

Devrim, in my opinion saying Middle East is going to chaos doesn't mean explaining the reasons why it's happening. It's just giving an arbitrary name to a phenomenon.

Leo, I agree till a certain point... but being against war is not enough. Our duty as communists and marxists, I believe, is to explain the structural basis which lead capitalism to war. ICC not only has been unable to provide this explanations, grounding them into the laws of capitalistic accumulation. No, they openly refuse to do it:

Quote:
Economic logic more and more gives way to the simple search for strategic positions in order to make war. The logic is war for war.

There are a lot of sentences like this one, which in our opinion put ICC outside of marxism. From a materialistic perspective, chaos is not what moves reality, it is the status of ideas of ICC. I'm serious. The problem is very serious.

Reality is a world of capitalism, as you say. It is to this world of exploitation, profits and accumulation that ICC should come back to.

Ciao. Mic

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Dec 22 2006 10:21

But Mic, surely there is a difference between the fundamental class positions that unite revolutionaries against the class enemy, based on the historic experience of the working class, and the analysis we make of particular phenomena? Between, for example, the internationalist position on the wars in the Middle East, and whether we think the motivations of the main protagonists are primarily economic or strategic? The former are a basis for common activity by revolutionaries, the second a basis for debate and clarification. This is why we have on a number of occasions also proposed common interventions with the IBRP and other proletarian groups in response to imperialist wars.

In any case: in 1997, the ICC's framework of analysis of war was not fundamentally different from what it is today, even if we have clarified certain aspects. The notion that in the period of decadence war becomes increaingly irrational from the strict point of view of capitalist economics was developed by our political ancestors, the Gauche Communiste de France in the 1940s. It didn't prevent Battalgia Comunista from inviting us to its cycle of international conferences in the 1970s, nor did it prevent the CWO from agreeing to the joint meeting mentioned earlier.

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Dec 22 2006 10:36

Mic

To sum up, what you seem to be saying is because the ICC don't agree with the specifics of your analysis of war that means you can't work with them. The logic of this seems to say that you won't work with anyone who doesn't agree with your analyses on this question (and presumably others). This actually reinforces a point I made to Oliver a little while ago that, without a conception of the proletarian milieu you either ending up working with anyone or only people who agree exactly with your politics. Sorry to call a spade a spade, but these practices have names: opportunism and sectarianism. I presume you conclude that Luxemburg and Lenin couldn't possible have worked together because of differing analyses of imperialism?

On decomposition and chaos, I think the IBRP is the one misunderstanding Marxism here. Like any aspect of capitalist society, the "chaos" of the current period is the combined product of many different actors. A capitalist cuts wages and lays off workers in a recession to save his own neck but by doing so he also destroys potential consumers, thus making the recession worse. Imperialist powers behave in the same way. Each acts in pursuit of very definite interests, which obliges others to act to defend their contradictory ones. But the collective result of these competing actions is indeed more and more chaos. Each power confronts the totality of the wider system just as each bourgeois confronts the totality of the wider economy, each acts according to the situation imposed upon in and, independently of their will, their own actions contribute to the dynamic of society as a whole.

The specifics of imperialist decomposition spring from definite material, historical factors in the imperialist arena. The collapse of the USSR created a situation where the Western powers were no longer united by a common enemy. As a result, tensions that had been suppressed by the old bloc system began to come out into the open with each beginning to assert their own specific interests against the others. The "chaos" you dismiss is the result of all those competing interests which, although rational (from a bourgeois point of view) in their own terms, lead to a profoundly irrational dynamic for the whole system.

Finally, you dismiss the ICC's assertion that strategic rationales have taken the place of economic ones. No-one disputes that it's capitalism's economic situation that drives war: competition for markets, resources, etc. But winning any war is a matter of achieving specific strategic goals. World War II sprang from immediate economic needs - Germany's efforts to free itself from the restrictions of Versailles, get back its colonies, sieze the resources of Russia, etc. But during the war, its economy (and that of all the belligerents) became total war economy i.e. the economy in service to war. If war is now a permanent feature of capitalism, why is it so shocking to accept that this dynamic is also permanent?

Iraq, as some people have already mentioned, is a classic case in point. All the oil companies were against it. In Britain, they all tried to strong arm Blair into staying out of it and completely failed. It's now beginning to break the US bank. But the US - for all the talk - cannot leave and the US bourgeoisie knows it. To leave Iraq would be a disaster equivalent to the USSR's retreat from Afghanistan an action which only increased the challenge to its authority and its eventual demise. No matter what it costs, the US will stay (in one form or another) until it either triumphs (highly unlikely) or until it is so weakened that it becomes a paper tiger. This is the inherent contradiction of imperialism today - that despite the economic destruction wreaked by imperialism, all powers have no choice (as dictated by their specific interests) to puruse those policies regardless.

mic
Offline
Joined: 11-12-06
Dec 22 2006 11:27

Well, this is quite a big distortion of my words and our praxis. We're open to collaborations and our history is a clear sign of it. You pointed to a number of examples.

I think it's a sane praxis to evaluate them in each single case, and certainly their impact and fruitfullness is function of the common basis shared among collaborating partners.

I was simply showing that differences exist, because it seemed to me they were being neglected and it was our pleasure, or yours, to have separate organizations.

It is the importance of these differences that makes collaboration more or less useful in different occasions. We are in contact, and we both know the right channels to propose these things seriously.

Ciao. Mic

Leo's picture
Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 22 2006 11:29
Quote:
Our duty as communists and marxists, I believe, is to explain the structural basis which lead capitalism to war.

Theoretical clarification, including explaining the structural basis which lead capitalism to war, is very important - yes. But it's not more important than internationalism. If everyone has the same "theories", the whole concept would be meaningless - theory will become dogma; without different theoretical explanations, there would be no discussion and without discussion theory can't develop.

Quote:
ICC not only has been unable to provide this explanations, grounding them into the laws of capitalistic accumulation. No, they openly refuse to do it:
Quote:
Economic logic more and more gives way to the simple search for strategic positions in order to make war. The logic is war for war.

There are a lot of sentences like this one, which in our opinion put ICC outside of marxism. From a materialistic perspective, chaos is not what moves reality, it is the status of ideas of ICC. I'm serious. The problem is very serious.

Reality is a world of capitalism, as you say. It is to this world of exploitation, profits and accumulation that ICC should come back to.

Then discuss it with them! It would be a much better solution than simply condemning the ICC and being done with it.

Hürmetler...

alibadani
Offline
Joined: 12-09-05
Dec 22 2006 12:22

Why does the IBRP insist oncalling the thoery of decomposition "decomposition and chaos." What is up with the "AND CHAOS" part. I don't see the thoery referred to as such by the ICC. THe IBRP should call the theory what the ICC calls it. BY adding the words "and chaos" THe IBRP wants to discredit the theory in the eyes revolutionaries IMO

mic
Offline
Joined: 11-12-06
Dec 22 2006 12:58

Hey... I'm not inventing anything. Please, read ICC documents and you'll find plenty of uses and abuses of that word.

I said, I want to clarify the positions of IBRP. That's all. I think this is the topic, here. It's not me who's trying to detour the discussion.

We discussed with ICC for many years, and we're discussing now, again. No problem with this, but I'm not sure this forum is the appropriate place to add anything new to what has been said, already.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 22 2006 13:10

Hi Mic

I think alf's post, and the one I did to correct the error in the origin, cleared up what events we meant. I apologise for any confusion caused.
On the question of war and accumulation and the position of the IBRP, we have begun a series of articles in the IR taking up exactly this question with the theoretical and political depth it deserves.
In International Review 127 there is an introduction
[url=http://en.internationalism.org/ir/127/war-introduction]
and the first article
[url=http://en.internationalism.org/ir/127/war]

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 22 2006 13:16

Revol68

This is what is called a discussion, where different positions are posed, challenged and discussed with the aim of clarifying a question, and not simply to preen one's own ego.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 22 2006 13:24

Mic

No one is try to detour this discussion. Far from it, there appears to be a process of clarification going on about the positions of the IBRP and also its attitude towards other Left Communist groups. You may not agree with all the points that are being made but it is important to have confidence about the intentions of those who are criticising you.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 22 2006 13:57
revol68 wrote:
Youse are all mad.

There are problems, and there is sectarianism between left communist groups. For a definition of 'sanity', I think we should look to the threads on the IWA.
Devrim

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 22 2006 14:25

Revol68

First of all, I need to apologise to you, I let my personal irritation get the better of me: personal sarcasm is not a political method of discussion.
That said, there is nothing wrong with having the bright eyed optimism and energy of the young.
As for dreaming it is a vital part of being a revolutionary:

Quote:
“We should dream!” I wrote these words and became alarmed. I imagined myself sitting at a “unity conference” and opposite me were the Rabocheye Dyelo editors and contributors. Comrade Martynov rises and, turning to me, says sternly: “Permit me to ask you, has an autonomous editorial board the right to dream without first soliciting the opinion of the Party committees?” He is followed by Comrade Krichevsky; who (philosophically deepening Comrade Martynov, who long ago rendered Comrade Plekhanov more profound) continues even more sternly: “I go further. I ask, has a Marxist any right at all to dream, knowing that according to Marx, mankind always sets itself the tasks it can solve and that tactics is a process of the growth of Party tasks which grow together with the Party?”

The very thought of these stern questions sends a cold shiver down my spine and makes me wish for nothing but a place to hide in. I shall try to hide behind the back of Pisarev.

“There are rifts and rifts,” wrote Pisarev of the rift between dreams and reality. "My dream may run ahead of the natural march of events or may fly off at a tangent in a direction in which no natural march of events will ever proceed. In the first case my dream will not cause any harm; it may even support and augment the energy of the working men.... There is nothing in such dreams that would distort or paralyse labour-power. On the contrary, if man were completely deprived of the ability to dream in this way, if he could not from time to time run ahead and mentally conceive, in an entire and completed picture, the product to which his hands are only just beginning to lend shape, then I cannot at all imagine what stimulus there would be to induce man to undertake and complete extensive and strenuous work in the sphere of art, science, and practical endeavour.... The rift between dreams and reality causes no harm if only the person dreaming believes seriously in his dream, if he attentively observes life, compares his observations with his castles in the air, and if, generally speaking, he works conscientiously for the achievement of his fantasies. If there is some connection between dreams and life then all is well.”[17]

Of this kind of dreaming there is unfortunately too little in our movement. And the people most responsible for this are those who boast of their sober views, their “closeness” to the “concrete”, the representatives of legal criticism and of illegal “tail-ism”.

(Lenin, What is to be Done, Chapter: Plan for an All_Russian newspaper,at the end of sub-section B) [url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/v.htm#v05fl61h-492-GUESS

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Dec 22 2006 14:35

You're still a kid aren't you revol? You sound like it. You're not interested in discussion and clarification, just showing how clever you are, how abusive you can be, interspersed with your Woganesque "Oirish" affectations. Come back on the other thread and let us know what aspect of the CNT leadership you are "critical" of.
Mic, in your posts in relation to the ICC you talk about "reality", "reality"... Go back and read your post of the 22nd, it has nothing to do with reality. Could you try to explain what you are saying on this post because I can't make any sense or reality out of it.
It's obvious that sparse left communist forces united by the traditions of the working class need joint discussions, position taking and intervention. It's equally obvious that opportunism is keeping the IBRP away from the ICC, to the point where the former consigns the latter to the dustbin of history, while, at the same time, it is happy to entertain such dangerous elements as the Argentine "circulo".

Where's the economic rationale in the war between Palenstinian factions? Or might that look a little like chaos brought about by wider imperialist players in a decomposing world?
Official figures published by the US administration a couple of days ago put the cost of the war in Iraq at coming up to half a trillion dollars. As we know from the bourgeoisie's bookkeeping, these figures are a massive underestimation. And they are set to continue and rise. There are credible reports that Saddam came crawling to the US 3 times during 2000 desperate for a deal. Whatever, what is clear is that for a tiny fraction of what this war has cost so far the USA could have secured its oil supplies for years to come. The IBRP is too fixated in seeing "profits" in war and thus completely misses the underlying factors of inter-imperialist warfare in the period of decomposition. Your grasp of "reality" in this sense is unreal.

Leo's picture
Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Dec 22 2006 18:28
Revol68 wrote:
I reckon youse should just get football shirts with 17 Lenin or 21 Trotsky
Quote:
even when Lenin is trying to be romantic he's still a dull fuck.

Oh Jesus Christ Revol! How dare you say the name of the devil, "Lenin"? This is a disgusting sin and you have to pray very hard to be forgiven for this sin.

alibadani wrote:
Why does the IBRP insist oncalling the thoery of decomposition "decomposition and chaos." What is up with the "AND CHAOS" part. I don't see the thoery referred to as such by the ICC. THe IBRP should call the theory what the ICC calls it. BY adding the words "and chaos" THe IBRP wants to discredit the theory in the eyes revolutionaries IMO

Alibadani, I really don't think the IBRP is trying to discredit the ICC with this point. ICC's decomposition theory is commonly referred as "decomposition and chaos" and the logic behind it is quite clear - I don't think this is an insult or anything.

Mic wrote:
We discussed with ICC for many years, and we're discussing now, again. No problem with this

I think there is a distinction between "discussion" and "polemic". Perhaps it would be worth a try to make a more "constructive discussion?

Mic wrote:
I'm not sure this forum is the appropriate place to add anything new to what has been said, already.

Why not? This is a discussion forum, after all.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Dec 22 2006 20:08

To clarify the question of decomposition and chaos. Our analysis is that the collapse of the Eastern bloc, which was the product of the decomposition of capitalism, opened up a period of imperialist chaos. The reason for this is that the discipline that the old bloc leaders where able to impose was no longer present. Thus, in the last 18 years we have seen the First Gulf War, the decent of the former Yugoslavia into bloody chaos, the numerous bloodbaths in Africa, the Second Gulf War and the throwing of Iraq into chaos. This is not to say that the previous 70 years years of decadence had not been marked by military barbarism, but from the period 1945 to 1968 there had been a certain discipline imposed by the US and USSR. In this period 140 million were slaughtered so it was no period of peace. Now though it is everyman for himself.
Those reading this thread can get a deeper understanding of our analysis of decomposition by reading;
our Theses on Decomposition [url=http://en.internationalism.org/ir/107_decomposition)
The fundamental point that we are trying to make is that it is vital to see that with 1989 a new period was opened up in the unfolding of imperialist tensions in decadence. Iraq's decent into chaos is a terrible manifestation of this.