The communist left and internationalist anarchism

254 posts / 0 new
Last post
Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Jul 29 2010 09:29

It really does take the cake that people who dare to disagree with the ICC are now , like McIver and Samotnaf, accused of psychological problems, and indeed insanity, ( at the very least accused of being "sad") from a sect that , in the past, has exhibited strong indications of instability.
not to mention the insinuation that Samotnaf will grass the ICC up to the police.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jul 29 2010 12:25

Leo

Quote:
seriously though, he seems like a really, really sad individual with deep mental issues (probably obsessive-compulsive personality disorder), and i am genuinely sorry for him although i'm sure people will understand i am not really that sympathetic given his rabid anti-communism.
Quote:
come on, the guy is seriously sick - this has got nothing to do with politics. pandering his vast ego is surely not going to help him, i mean medically.
Quote:
this being said, if the traumas of the past involving the icc even contributed slightest to such a sad case, something definately must have went wrong. that is not to say, of course, all the people who left the icc are like him - thankfully.
Quote:
how can regarding the entire communist left, along with of course the rest of the communist movement of the time (ie the communist international) as evil "rackets" whatever be remotely described as anything but anti-communist? i mean "lenin and trosky engineering genocidal famines in the Ukraine"? it reads exactly like out of the black book of communism, am i supposed to take this seriously?

You are not a psychoanalyst or therapist of any kind, so don't mouth the 'common sense' wits of repressive upbringing. You don't understand those words, don't use them as put downs. A practicing therapist would never use those terms anyway. Of course, you could have picked them up as a patient. If anything, you remind me of nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (not on your reading list). Something like her, or a sinister guard in a mental ward. Your choice of graphic suggests it, trying out a self-hypnotic trance, or wishing to mesmerise your readers?

Your posts only display the slavish defence of your cult, this is what has upset you, that your whole ego ideal, offered to Communist Left Forever, has been questioned. What an unbearable heresy!! So instead of engaging with the issues in detail, the expected ad hominems pour out, and you diagnose without a licence or having ever met me, tsk tsk. Relax Leo, have some self-control (won't come from self-hypnosis).

On the political level, your amalgams and distorted quotations also suggest a manipulative Stalinist past, something difficult to filter out in the 'left communist' tradition. Firtinaci reacted similarly, the amusing retort about Cold War academics. Same Party school? By the way, the essay by Nicolas Werth in the Black Book of Communism was quite informative and serious, if that's the same book. Of course Stalinists and many Bordiguists detested and dismissed the whole book, like you do.

But the truth is the truth, it's even revolutionary say some, and its source doesn't disqualify it.

As I say above, learn to discuss with facts, they are not the end all, but a good beginning, at least try. Just denouncing and insulting doesn't help, address the underlying issues. Question everything, starting with your iconic daddy figures. Then maybe you'll realise that all the trite generalities of your gurus fall apart, and that reality hides many more surprises. Including left communist Chekists or murderers, and state indifference to famines in the Ukraine. Not to mention possible complicity in the killing of Turkish communists in 1921 (something unclarified as yet). But of course, you'll swallow all Bolshevik crimes with your indulgences, by being 'critical' of dreadful 'mistakes' and 'errors'.

My denouncing of this apologetic vision is not political? But stay happy and sane.

Finally, if you don't take things 'seriously', will this be the end of the world? When critics write, do they tremble at the thought of not being taken seriously by Leo the First?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jul 29 2010 09:52

On the ICC vs. the Reaganites, I'm amazed that a militant of the ICC doesn't agree that the enemy within can't be more dangerous to the proletarian movement than the enemy without, you'd almost think this is what years of discussion about parasitism was supposed to explain.

Let's try it in the style of World Revolution and our very own Baboon to see if it makes a bit more sense that way:

"The refusal to confront the crimes of Bolshevism – and instead denounce the anarchists when the latter points these out, can only result in support for the Trotskyists, Stalinists, the bourgeoisie and its rotting system."

Leo wrote:
we would have of course bought this if... everyone who left the mentioned organization ended up like him.

To continue the pyschological excursions, some victims of abuse end up abusers, some with long term depression or suicidal tendencies, some go on to lead normal lives - varying responses to abuse do not change the nature of abuse itself.

If there was only mciver around claiming pathological behaviour within the ICC then you might have a point, but we all know that's far from the case, see Cassady's post just two days ago: http://libcom.org/forums/theory/racketeerism-parasitism-27072010#comment-389848

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Jul 29 2010 09:55
Quote:
It really does take the cake that people who dare to disagree with the ICC are now like McIver and Samotnaf, accused of psychological problems, and indeed insanity, ( at the very least accused of being "sad")

to be fair (which you are probably too biased against the icc to be), i never said samotnaf has psychological problems, i said he is obsessed about the icc, probably due to peer-pressure. the mentioned example, that is writing a long, long post in response to a poem, posted by someone in the icc, is not "disagreeing with the icc". calling the icc "future executioners", "worse than reaganites" and calling for the icc members to be banned is not disagreeing with the icc either.

and mciver is not disagreeing with the icc as well. saying that the icc will torture people and send people to gulags etc. because they thirty years ago pushed someone is not disagreeing with the icc. and as central as his point against the icc is, mcivers obsession is against communism itself as much as against the icc. the number of posts he's been writing, going on not only about the icc but also about the communist left, about communism itself, rumblings about how all organizations are rackets, harshest condemnations of everyone (including people who arent in the icc) who dare to disagree with even a minuscule detail of what he is saying... i'm sorry, this guys issue is not political. i am not accusing him of anything, he is clearly sick and anyone can see it. in fact i am sure i'm not even the first one who is saying this here since he first started posting here.

Quote:
not to mention the insinuation that Samotnaf will grass the ICC up to the police.

of course there is nothing wrong with Samotnaf calling us "wanna-be murderers", but when i mockingly say "whats next, you gonna root us to the police as a part of your anti-icc thing", thats the problem, sure wink

Quote:
And boy when they did, they did it in style. On one demo the then ACF attended and distributed literature ( we had taken the decision not to join the demo) we were denounced as the left wing of capitalism in WR for supporting the demonstration whilst the ICC were doing exactly the same thing in distributing their propaganda. Explain the logic of that. I still have the cutting somewhere.
And we took them up on this in a letter in WR . In their reply the ICC refused to recognise the wrongness of their original statement. Mental.

if something like this indeed did happen (i would like to hear the other side of the story as well, obviously), it is clearly a wrong-doing on our part.

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Jul 29 2010 10:01

"if something like this indeed did happen" No, I'm making it all up.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jul 29 2010 10:08

The pages of WR used to regularly contain lengthy denunciations of Subversion and the ACF. They did so because we advocated many of the same things that the ICC did - hence we were parasites. But honestly, don't worry, they never bothered us, just gave us a few chuckles.

McIver is not, imho, expressing an anti-communist politics. The whole groups as gangs/rackets view has been expressed by many others.

This whole thing could easily be wrapped up if the ICC came up with a wholehearted apology for their stupid behaviour 30 years ago.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Jul 29 2010 10:09
Quote:
On the ICC vs. the Reaganites, I'm amazed that a militant of the ICC doesn't agree that the enemy within can't be more dangerous to the proletarian movement than the enemy without

oh come on, he is comparing the icc with the reaganites, wtf am i supposed to say? am i supposed to take him seriously?

the icc is a very small organization, which at this point cant be compared to the reaganites, or to the social-democrats, or to the bolsheviks etc. etc.

Quote:
you'd almost think this is what years of discussion about parasitism was supposed to explain.

its not, evidently.

Quote:
Let's try it in the style of World Revolution and our very own Baboon to see if it makes a bit more sense that way:

"The refusal to confront the crimes of Bolshevism – and instead denounce the anarchists when the latter points these out, can only result in support for the Trotskyists, Stalinists, the bourgeoisie and its rotting system."

ok - does it follow from this bit that the icc is more dangerous than the reaganites?

Quote:
To continue the pyschological excursions, some victims of abuse end up abusers, some with long term depression or suicidal tendencies, some go on to lead normal lives - varying responses to abuse do not change the nature of abuse itself.

people abuse each other at times - i think it is a very one-sided view to see it as entirely icc's doing, although there certainly were mistakes.

Quote:
If there was only mciver around claiming pathological behaviour within the ICC then you might have a point, but we all know that's far from the case, see Cassady's post just two days ago

he is calmly, without abusing anyone, explaining his thoughts on the splits the icc had and their effects, i don't think there is anything wrong with him expressing that at all, in fact everyone in the icc accepts what cassady wrote over there to an extent, although not to the same extent.

mciver, on the other hand, is an anti-communist nutjob - it would be really unfair to cassady to compare the two.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 29 2010 10:12
Battlescarred wrote:
And boy when they did, they did it in style. On one demo the then ACF attended and distributed literature ( we had taken the decision not to join the demo) we were denounced as the left wing of capitalism in WR for supporting the demonstration whilst the ICC were doing exactly the same thing in distributing their propaganda. Explain the logic of that. I still have the cutting somewhere.
And we took them up on this in a letter in WR . In their reply the ICC refused to recognise the wrongness of their original statement. Mental.

What can one say, BS? You are right, and the ICC was wrong, very, very wrong.

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 29 2010 10:15
Mike Harman wrote:
I wouldn't call five years "more than a few".

Yes, I think it is. The point remains even if it is only five years the ICC doesn't run those sort of articles any more. Even the article you link to doesn't denounce any particular group, but rather talks about some anarchists.

Devrim

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Jul 29 2010 10:18
Quote:
"if something like this indeed did happen" No, I'm making it all up.

meh, i don't really know you, i don't know anything at all about this event - why are you taking everything as an insult? what do you expect me to say? i said it is clearly a wrong-doing on our part.

Quote:
The pages of WR used to regularly contain lengthy denunciations of Subversion and the ACF. They did so because we advocated many of the same things that the ICC did - hence we were parasites. But honestly, don't worry, they never bothered us, just gave us a few chuckles.

well, that is certainly good to hear, to be honest. hopefully, we'll all have a laugh about it together one day.

Quote:
McIver is not, imho, expressing an anti-communist politics.

he is now praising the black book of communism, do you really think he isn't expressing anti-communist politics? lenin and trosky engineering genocidal famines in the Ukraine?

Quote:
This whole thing could easily be wrapped up if the ICC came up with a wholehearted apology for their stupid behaviour 30 years ago.

yeah, apologizing for our part takes time i suppose.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 29 2010 10:18
Battlescarred wrote:
Quote:
if something like this indeed did happen (i would like to hear the other side of the story as well, obviously), it is clearly a wrong-doing on our part.

"if something like this indeed did happen" No, I'm making it all up.

I can well imagine it happening and I am sure that you are not making it up. Leo clearly says that if it happened it was wrong. I don't think it is so out of order for somebody to want to hear the other side of a story that he knows nothing about and happened on another continent though.

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 29 2010 10:22
knightrose wrote:
This whole thing could easily be wrapped up if the ICC came up with a wholehearted apology for their stupid behaviour 30 years ago.

Yes, I think that it would help if the ICC apologised for many of its actions, and I would like to see it happen. I don't think that it is about to happen tomorrow unfortunately, but I think that it is something that is possible in the future.

Devrim

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jul 29 2010 10:25
Leo wrote:

to be fair (which you are probably too biased against the icc to be), i never said samotnaf has psychological problems

Leo wrote:
just so that people can see how sane you are

Well done.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jul 29 2010 10:30
Devrim wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
I wouldn't call five years "more than a few".

Yes, I think it is. The point remains even if it is only five years the ICC doesn't run those sort of articles any more. Even the article you link to doesn't denounce any particular group, but rather talks about some anarchists.

Devrim

Some anarchists, who post on libcom.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jul 29 2010 10:34
Quote:
Yes, I think that it would help if the ICC apologised for many of its actions, and I would like to see it happen. I don't think that it is about to happen tomorrow unfortunately, but I think that it is something that is possible in the future.

I think that the actual way that ICC members are behaving in real life - like in Manchester at the Class Struggle Forum - is the way we should always have got on. The discussions are comradely, informative, non-confrontational and productive.

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Jul 29 2010 10:53

Leo "to be fair (which you are probably too biased against the icc to be), "
and then
Leo "meh, i don't really know you,"
So, you know nothing about my attitude towards the ICC and whether or not I am being too biased to be fair.
Knightrose: "I think that the actual way that ICC members are behaving in real life - like in Manchester at the Class Struggle Forum - is the way we should always have got on. " Not reflected by the behaviour of Leo here. To use his crude psychologism " Nut job, etc" you need to start taking the medication like your other comrades are doing. smile

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jul 29 2010 10:59
Quote:
and mciver is not disagreeing with the icc as well. saying that the icc will torture people and send people to gulags etc. because they thirty years ago pushed someone is not disagreeing with the icc. and as central as his point against the icc is, mcivers obsession is against communism itself as much as against the icc. the number of posts he's been writing, going on not only about the icc but also about the communist left, about communism itself, rumblings about how all organizations are rackets, harshest condemnations of everyone (including people who arent in the icc) who dare to disagree with even a minuscule detail of what he is saying... i'm sorry, this guys issue is not political. i am not accusing him of anything, he is clearly sick and anyone can see it. in fact i am sure i'm not even the first one who is saying this here since he first started posting here.

Playing the psycho-martinet makes you write the above rubbish, and ignore real differences. You don't read to understand but to misquote and weave lies.

Of course I disagree with the whole tradition of left communism. But I have never said the ICC will torture people and send them to gulags. How can I know that? This lying habit comes from the insidious 'polemical' style of Bolshevism, and the ICC apparatchiks inherited it quite well through Mark Chirik. If you have a Stalinist past (I ignore if you do), and have not transcended it, you would assimilate that approach instantly, because it's in the left communist inner make-up, its pre-suppositions. One could even say its political DNA.

In this sense, the ideological baggage of the ICC doesn't preclude apologising for such future crimes. That's in-built in their justification of Bolshevism, regardless of their inept and 'ruthless criticisms' of the Red Terror, Cheka, Kronsradt, etc. If those crimes against society didn't disqualify Bolshevism/Comintern as a revolutionary currents, then those crimes could be repeated in a future transformation of society, in an 'emergency situation', because they 'worked' once, and by definition they are 'secondary' to the defence of the tradition. 'Wrong doings', 'mistakes', 'errors' are categories of diversion, to avoid analysing what really happened in history.

If this is what Samotnaf means by 'wannabe murderers', then he has a point, though this is in the world-view, not in the present personality of each ICC member. However, under stresses, some people change. Most of the apparatchiks in 1981 went along with a laboratory experiment of this kind, orchestrated by Chirik, who knew perfectly well what he was doing with his naive zealots. He transformed them, he convinced them of the need to raid, to intimidate and slander, and the whole French section approved. The section in the UK resisted and fell apart. It only survived through the ruthless intrusion of Chirik, who increased the heat, and from then on the pattern was set to cleanse the organisation of any opponents and future rivals. The monolithic centralisation went on un-opposed. It was a classical Zinoviev-Treint technique, based on domination by divide et imperas, and Chirik got away with it. This went on even after his death, and an impasse must have been reached in 2005. Who else, what hidden clan was left to expel?

What all that had to do with the 'emancipation' of the proletariat' beats me.

But finally the issue is NOT the ICC or left communism, but the nature of our period, a questioning of the whole past and a vision for the future.

PS I don't think I have harshly condemned everyone (6 billion people?), or civilians not in the ICC, out of spite. Naturally, those who insulted for no reason, sometimes were replied to. Like Leo the Last.

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Jul 29 2010 11:26

And of course the position re AF/ACF that I mentioned earlier was still there as late as 2004 as you can see from an article at the ICC site on the AF and the ICC
"AF’s real roots are not in left communism, or even partially in it, but in leftism, the radical wing of the capitalist left."

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Jul 29 2010 12:25

Soyonstout:" I don't know how many of the more class-struggle internationalist anarchists hold the view that communism/anarchism was or could have been possible before capitalism or at any point in history (I would bet fewer than most marxists think ), but this would be the other main point that I (and I think many other marxists) would consider idealistic"
But then Marx himself would be deemed idealist as his now famous letter to Vera Zasulich ( not published until 1924) reveals
Russia is the sole European country where the “agricultural commune” has kept going on a nationwide scale up to the present day. It is not the prey of a foreign conqueror, as the East Indies, and neither does it lead a life cut off from the modern world. On the one hand, the common ownership of land allows it to transform individualist farming in parcels directly and gradually into collective farming, and the Russian peasants are already practising it in the undivided grasslands; the physical lie of the land invites mechanical cultivation on a large scale; the peasant’s familiarity with the contract of artel facilitates the transition from parcel labour to cooperative labour; and, finally, Russian society, which has so long lived at his expense, owes him the necessary advances for such a transition. On the other hand, the contemporaneity of western production, which dominates the world market, allows Russia to incorporate in the commune all the positive acquisitions devised by the capitalist system without passing through its Caudine Forks [i.e., undergo humiliation in defeat].
Karl Marx, First Draft of Letter To Vera Zasulich (1881)
He went on to say that the need to pass through a capitalist stage was not inevitable outside of Western Europe.
The Socialist Revolutionaries and many anarchists in Russia believed also that it was possible to establish a communist society without going through a capitalist stage. That did not necessarily make them "non-materialist" . But anyway in reply to what Marx said in an article (22nd January 1849) where he said “The revolution must be first of all a revolution for the bourgeoisie. The revolution of the proletariat is solely possible after capitalist economy has created the conditions” Gottschalk ( also a member of the Communist League) responded in his own paper Freiheit, Arbeit (Freedom, Labour): “Must we, after finally escaping the hell of the Middle Age, throw ourselves voluntarily into the purgatory of a decrepit capitalist power?”
In fact revolutionary anarchism has been consistently materialist down from its origins. Bakunin was a great admirer of Capital and its economic ideas and Anarchists like Cafiero were some of the first to popularise the ideas contained in Capital. As one anarchist complained after the split in the First International he and his comrades were very familiar with the ideas of Capital whilst some of those who now called themselves Marxists had not even opened the book.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jul 29 2010 13:23
Quote:
Knightrose: "I think that the actual way that ICC members are behaving in real life - like in Manchester at the Class Struggle Forum - is the way we should always have got on. " Not reflected by the behaviour of Leo here. To use his crude psychologism " Nut job, etc" you need to start taking the medication like your other comrades are doing.

Are you suggesting I need to take medication?

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Jul 29 2010 14:05

Not you, Knightrose, - but Leo the Last.
(You take a form of medication , anyway, knowwhatimean? )

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jul 29 2010 14:14

Risking a grand mal from Leo, I bring up again the question of The Black Book of Communism, brought up by Leo himself.

There's an excellent review of Werth's contribution, by Philippe Bourrinet (probably 1998), unfortunately only in French. Still, the sample paragraph below may be of help on this thread.

Bourrinet exposes the diehard casuistry of the ICT historian Beltrami, who denounced the book, including Werth's essay, with similar apologetics as Leo's. The extremes are interesting, coming from a learned left communist academic, and a know-nothing lay therapist. Both spout the same hysterical apologetics:

L’article de Beltrami est une simple défense inconditionnelle de la Révolution russe et des bolcheviks, telle que n’auraient pas manqué de l’écrire les partisans de Staline d’un côté et ceux de Trotsky, il y a à peine 20 ans encore.

Il parle des «crimes supposés des bolcheviks». C’est aussitôt, pour, implicitement, approuver la politique de terreur menée contre la classe ouvrière de Russie. Lorsqu’il mentionne le massacre des ouvriers de Toula et Astrakan, en 1919, Beltrami précise aussitôt qu’il s’agit «d’ouvriers embrigadés par les mencheviks et socialistes-révolutionnaires» «pour faire passer des mots d’ordre contre-révolutionnaires». Justification pleine et entière du massacre, donc... Il s’agit peut-être de "détails"... D’ailleurs notre vaillant défenseur du «léninisme bolchevisme intégral» susurre que la «classe ouvrière est révolutionnaire ou n’est rien».

L’article défend à fond le bolchevisme - ce qui est la pierre cardinale du lénisme dont tous les groupes "bordiguistes" se sont fait les défenseurs - pour mieux affirmer la nécessité de la «dictature du parti». Certes, l’article n’ose défendre la «terreur rouge» ; certains groupes "bordiguistes" et la plupart des groupes trotskystes et maoïstes l’ont fait dans le passé. Mais il reprend de façon voilée les arguments de Terrorisme et communisme (c’est le titre d’un fameux pamphlet de Trotsky de 1920, en faveur de la Terreur, qui fut réédité par les "bordiguistes" dans les années 70). De démocratie ouvrière dans les conseils ouvriers, il ne peut en être question ; ceux-ci ne sont que d’infâmes "parlements démocratiques", sans la dictature du parti. Aussi l’article appuie le rattachement pur et simple des conseils et soviets à l’État bolchevik : «... s’il est vrai que le parti sous les soviets est comme suspendu dans le vide, il est non moins vrai que les soviets sans le parti sont des organismes aveugles, destinés à se transformer en tragique caricature du parlementarisme bourgeois».

Deux réactions de « l’extrême gauche » au Livre noir du communisme

http://www.left-dis.nl/f/livnoir.htm

The ICC doesn't defend the 'party dictatorship', but that's a nonsensical innovation as parties, either as state capitalist overseers or as 'cabinet members' of a 'supreme national workers' council', are there to establish class hegemony. Otherwise why have parties? As lily-white think-tanks? With this sectarian difference, the ICC and ICT march together as siamese twins, in their fanatical defence of Bolshevism.

Also of interest is a cogent piece by Mac Intosh of Internationalist Perspective, on Werth's study. See passages below.

The Bolsheviks, the Civil War, and "Red Fascism"

http://internationalist-perspective.org/IP/ip-archive/ip_41_bolsheviks-civil-war.html

Indeed, one of the most striking facts that emerges from Werth’s account is the extent to which Lenin was directly implicated in the veritable orgy of violence unleashed against revolutionaries, workers, and peasants in the course of the civil war. The Lenin who emerges from the pages of Werth’s text, the Lenin whose own statements are copiously documented, is very different from the Lenin in Switzerland during the war, upholding the best traditions of proletarian internationalism, the Lenin of the “April Theses,” charting a course towards revolution, or the Lenin engaged in his “last struggle,” against the power of bureaucracy, as portrayed by Moishe Lewin. Those other Lenins cannot be ignored or forgotten, but neither can the Lenin who emerges from the pages of Werth’s text , the Lenin who candidly admitted that the “People’s Commissariat for Justice” would be more aptly labeled the “Peoples Commissariat for Social Extermination” (Werth, p.62, my emphasis), the Lenin who sanctioned the taking of hostages and the bombing of peasant villages in order to break strikes and compel deliveries of food (from starving peasants) to the state and its functionaries. It is inconceivable that a civil war against revolutionaries, workers, and poor peasants, alongside the other civil war against White armies, could have been waged by Dzerzhinsky, Ordzhonikidze, and the pratiki, with their power base in the Cheka, without the virtually unqualified support and initiative of Lenin.

Finally, we come to way in which the Bolsheviks saw and constructed their enemies, especially revolutionaries, striking workers, and peasants reduced to starvation. Terms like vermin or lice are indicative of the sub-human status imposed on them. The objective was not the defeat or surrender of these elements, but their extermination or liquidation. The crimes for which these elements were to be murdered was not so much their actions, as their very biological existence. That is why I see a racialization or biologization as an incipient element of the actions of the Bolshevik party-state in the course of the civil wars. The starving peasant transformed into a kulak, the striking workers transformed into lice, the anarchist or left SR designated as vermin [parasites!!], are we not in the ante-chamber of mass murder and genocide; can we fail to see the embryo of what Rühle would designate as red fascism already growing within the womb of the October revolution? We are certainly not there yet, but the seed has sprouted, and any attempt to explain the triumph of the counter-revolution must acknowledge that Werth has traced its origins to actions of the Bolsheviks at the very moment of their triumph.

That the October revolution and the Bolshevik party-state provide no model for a revolution that has as its objective the abolition of the capitalist law of value and the creation of a human Gemeinwesen is something that revolutionaries have long known. Werth, however, forces us to confront the uncomfortable fact that the path to red fascism, which most certainly was not a straight line, nonetheless has its inception a decade before Stalin consolidated his hold on power; before Kronstadt, before the NEP, before Rapallo. If we are to comprehend the process that led to Kolyma, then we have to begin where Werth begins, with the October revolution.

These contribitions by Bourrinet and Mac Intosh have been online for years. But therapists of Left Communism Forever (a bit like ManUnited forever) don't need reality verification and ongoing historical research. Who needs independent thought, oi that's not revelations but petty-bourgeois heresies!! Bourrinet and Mac Intosh are perhaps Cold War agents, sleeper-parasites who, although not as nutty and rude as McIver, perform similar services to world capital by reading Werth and similar canaille. Only anti-communist nutcases would doubt that Bolshevism was almost like the 2nd Coming, the greatest poop the proletariat ever made.

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Jul 29 2010 14:51

"C’est la canaille !
Eh bien ! j’en suis !"
Singing this uplifting tune I join Bourrinet and MacIntosh.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Jul 29 2010 15:01
Quote:
Finally, we come to way in which the Bolsheviks saw and constructed their enemies, especially revolutionaries, striking workers, and peasants reduced to starvation. Terms like vermin or lice are indicative of the sub-human status imposed on them. The objective was not the defeat or surrender of these elements, but their extermination or liquidation. The crimes for which these elements were to be murdered was not so much their actions, as their very biological existence. That is why I see a racialization or biologization as an incipient element of the actions of the Bolshevik party-state in the course of the civil wars. The starving peasant transformed into a kulak, the striking workers transformed into lice, the anarchist or left SR designated as vermin

are you serious. That is crazy.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Jul 29 2010 15:06
Quote:
Leo "to be fair (which you are probably too biased against the icc to be), "
and then
Leo "meh, i don't really know you,"
So, you know nothing about my attitude towards the ICC and whether or not I am being too biased to be fair.

do you claim to be fair about the icc? seriously?

Quote:
Quote:
Are you suggesting I need to take medication?

Not you, Knightrose, - but Leo the Last.

or was he too soft and too non-abusive and fraternal to his future "butchers"? surely, you've got to save him, how dare does he defy you and actually be calm and polite?

Quote:
"C’est la canaille !
Eh bien ! j’en suis !"
Singing this uplifting tune I join Bourrinet and MacIntosh.

its funny how you are quite enjoying the rumblings of a sad, seriously disturbed fella. i'm sure you'll be real proud if the poor guy ends up killing himself, because his ego was pandered by the likes of you rather than being told that he actually needs help.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jul 29 2010 15:15

Don't worry Leo, BS is a good friend of mine - though sometimes with a wicked sense of humour.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Jul 29 2010 15:18

=) don't we all have a wicked sense of humor sometimes

Cassady
Offline
Joined: 28-02-09
Jul 29 2010 15:34

To quote Leo from an earlier post

he is calmly, without abusing anyone, explaining his thoughts on the splits the icc had and their effects, i don't think there is anything wrong with him expressing that at all, in fact everyone in the icc accepts what cassady wrote over there to an extent, although not to the same extent.

I have to say that this is news to me. With the sole exception of Devrim I have never heard this expressed by anyone in the ICC. I have read members admitting mistakes were made but its never made clear what the mistakes were. Certainly, of late, we have noticed a change of attitude by them in public - there have been no denunciations of us as parasites, for example, at the meetings of the MDC, but the reason for this remains opaque (though welcome). Until they are much more open and specific about their mistakes its difficult to see how progress can be made. For example, was it a mistake to denounce Chenier as a police aqgent: was it a mistake for the central organs to demand a loyalty oath from all members before this declaration was even discussed? Was the denuciation of the CBG as gangsters,bandits,thieves and, eventually, parasites a mistake? I could go on.

Until this is made clearer we can't begin to take the Theory of Parasitism seriously.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Jul 29 2010 15:45
Quote:
I have to say that this is news to me. With the sole exception of Devrim I have never heard this expressed by anyone in the ICC.

what can i say man, thats how your quoted post came across to me.

Quote:
I have read members admitting mistakes were made but its never made clear what the mistakes were. Certainly, of late, we have noticed a change of attitude by them in public - there have been no denunciations of us as parasites, for example, at the meetings of the MDC, but the reason for this remains opaque (though welcome).

yeah, i suppose this is why you come across as a calm, nice fella.

Quote:
Until they are much more open and specific about their mistakes its difficult to see how progress can be made.

fair enough.

Quote:
For example, was it a mistake to denounce Chenier as a police aqgent

he wasnt a police agent from what i understand, so i suppose yeah.

Quote:
was it a mistake for the central organs to demand a loyalty oath from all members before this declaration was even discussed?

i dont really know that much about all that, there seems to be a bit exaggerated stories. what the ip people i know told me was that all sides were young and while the issue was not big enough to cause a split, it nevertheless did.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jul 29 2010 15:50

This was supposed to be a historical discussion about the communist left and anarchism. There is another thread about the question of parasitism/rackets, where we could approach some of the questions Cassady raises, although as I have tried to argue, I think we need to examine some of the more general and historical issues behind that question if we are to avoid another round of recriminations. Would it not be possible for Cassady, for example, to express his view of what the ICC is saying about the communist left and anarchism? The problems raised by our article go back to long before the ICC even existed.