The communist left and internationalist anarchism

254 posts / 0 new
Last post
Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Aug 4 2010 19:03
Quote:
And to Leo: If you are going to play the game of dismissing your political critics as mentally ill, you should at least go to the trouble to familiarize yourself with the disorders you are trying to diagnose them with. Saying that maciver suffers from "obsessive compulsive personality disorder" because he might have a bit of an unhealthy obsession with the ICC simply makes no sense, and anyone with a basic understanding of psychiatry should know that. As it is, you are just making yourself look ignorant as well as mean-spirited.

"he might have a bit of an unhealthy obsession with the icc"? seriously? "a bit of", do you think? he "might"? go back and look at how many pages this guy has been writing on an internet forum recently. how many hours do you think has he been spending writing all these posts? he is completely rigid, insults everyone who even expresses the slightest disagreement with him, he is excessively devoted to writing his posts on a web-forum, he goes on rumbling about events that happened 30 years or so earlier, he is overconscientious. the guy seems to spend his entire time on libcom, responds to every post made concerning his obsession, goes on about everything, every single point. look out what these symptoms point to - i ain't no psychologist but i took lessons and read a bit on the topic. it is an obvious text-book definition. i simply said the king has got no clothes. i don't really mind being called ignorant, uneducated etc. as for mean-spirited, perhaps i am... but i'm not the guy who has been insulting every militant or supporter of the icc as well as everyone who criticized him here. i suppose being mean against icc people doesn't count. i suppose it is no problem at all in calling us a racket, a gang, a cult, future murderers, bolshevik butchers, worse than reaganites etc. even our dead comrades aren't to be spared, it is completely fine to insult them, to mock their memory, that is not mean at all... but saying that this anti-communist nutjob is an anti-communist nutjob is. perhaps it is mean, perhaps its just blunt.

mciver is not a "political critic" of the icc. you are one, for example, cassady also is, so is ingram, lots of other people - but he isn't. he is, if you take him seriously, a "political critic" of communism in general - the sole reason people are padding his back here is because he is anti-icc, but on a more general scale, he is openly an anti-communist. had anyone else with the same behavior pattern but without the obsession with the icc started posting on libcom, s/he would be banned - and there are examples of this happening on this website (remember kevin keating?).

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 4 2010 22:50

On the angelic honesty above

Quote:
mciver wrote:
Incidentally, there's a rumour that Bordiga welcomed the landings of Allied forces in Italy in 1943-44, in a radio interview.
I think it's so cute how left-communists consider something like this to be scandalous.

Honestly, if I had lived in an Axis country or an Axis-occupied country, I would have welcomed the Allies with open arms. If I had lived in an Allied country, I would have sought out the next enlistment station.

Principles are okay, I guess, but sometimes the real world just sort imposes itself, ya know?

Something like what? The scandalous stand of the Italian Left, as that of Mattick's group (not a 'left communist') and others (including anarchists) was an extension of the antiwar position taken in 1914 by others including the Lenin faction of the RSDLP, Luxemburg, Liebknecht and a few others in the German SPD. In Spain, preamble to WW2, the question resurfaced in 1936-39. What I'm alluding to is a supposed abandonment by Bordiga of this principle he was supposed to have upheld. If that claim was a fabrication, ie, if it wasn't true, then it showed that those lying methods existed, perhaps in his movement. It's a historical issue to clarify, don't know what's so 'cute' about it.

I totally believe you, ya know, that you would have supported the lesser evil in WW2. Your tradition, at least in method, would be Plekhanov's, or Noske-Ebert's, etc, in the SPD. Not cute, but supportive of progress in history. Had you been in the eastern Reich in 1945, I believe also that you would have welcomed the Red Army with spread out wings and, with any luck, enlisted with Ehrenburg's poetry team, or the NKVD to be of service under Pieck and later UIbricht. But who would you have warmly feathered on August 39? Difficult that one.

I also agree that the world of Realpolitik just sort of impresses itself, like onto putty, and especially onto honest anti-German Germans. Paul Klee's beautiful and poignant painting of the real angel of history, I see, bears a name can be usurped by two-bit putti, little winged nocturnal helpers that could have well replaced Oboe, leading Lancasters and B-17s to Berlin or Hamburg, or Dresden. I propose a new name: putto dresdenio.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 4 2010 20:45

duplicate post deleted

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 5 2010 01:41

Leo diagnoses again

Quote:
"he might have a bit of an unhealthy obsession with the icc"? seriously? "a bit of", do you think? he "might"? go back and look at how many pages this guy has been writing on an internet forum recently. how many hours do you think has he been spending writing all these posts? he is completely rigid, insults everyone who even expresses the slightest disagreement with him, he is excessively devoted to writing his posts on a web-forum, he goes on rumbling about events that happened 30 years or so earlier, he is overconscientious. the guy seems to spend his entire time on libcom, responds to every post made concerning his obsession, goes on about everything, every single point. look out what these symptoms point to - i ain't no psychologist but i took lessons and read a bit on the topic. it is an obvious text-book definition. i simply said the king has got no clothes. i don't really mind being called ignorant, uneducated etc. as for mean-spirited, perhaps i am... but i'm not the guy who has been insulting every militant or supporter of the icc as well as everyone who criticized him here. i suppose being mean against icc people doesn't count. i suppose it is no problem at all in calling us a racket, a gang, a cult, future murderers, bolshevik butchers, worse than reaganites etc. even our dead comrades aren't to be spared, it is completely fine to insult them, to mock their memory, that is not mean at all... but saying that this anti-communist nutjob is an anti-communist nutjob is. perhaps it is mean, perhaps its just blunt.
mciver is not a "political critic" of the icc. you are one, for example, cassady also is, so is ingram, lots of other people - but he isn't. he is, if you take him seriously, a "political critic" of communism in general - the sole reason people are padding his back here is because he is anti-icc, but on a more general scale, he is openly an anti-communist. had anyone else with the same behavior pattern but without the obsession with the icc started posting on libcom, s/he would be banned - and there are examples of this happening on this website (remember kevin keating?).

I'm glad that Leo now considers Cassady and Ingram of the ex-CBG, and 'lots of other people' (probably once 'parasites' or 'agents of capital' like anarchists) as political critics. That's some admission, even if the Theses on Parasitism will remain online forever.

I don't think anybody is 'padding my back' here. What for?

I have offered a contrary account and interpretation of events to the one presented by Leos' overseers for over 28 years, around five of those years on Libcom. That requires thoroughness and constant verification of historical evidence. I understand that people like Leo aren't used to thoroughness in research, and neither is his racket. His reaction suggests strong negative projections, a rage that his icons and belief system are questioned.

However, compared to the mountains of paper and dpi dedicated to denouncing 'parasites' for over a generation, by an 'international organisation', my individual output has been puny. Before the internet, critical 'parasites' had almost no way to reply to the avalanche of ICC lies and paranoid invective. Now it's different: that's what's intolerable, people talk back, critics spend their 'entire time' on Libcom attacking an organ of the proletariat, trying to make up for the lost chance to reply. What impertinence from the lower orders!

Leo doesn't have to read what he dislikes, nobody is forcing him. But of course this won't do, an 'anticommunist critic' of his cult must be attacked and silenced, not his ideas directly, but he as a person. It's an old and predictable technique.

I don't insult people who criticise me, but insults are not the same as criticisms. People who insult, mock, lie, distort and obfuscate, shouldn't complain. I assume that people who insult online have thick skins, that they can take as hard as they give. If you object that people reply to your current or old insults, or evasions, then learn manners, engage with minds, don't put them down with stupid one-liners and lazy ad-hominems.

Leo repeats Alf's previous whingeing, with the sly banning insinuation ('of course' Alf wasn't asking for this) but now more openly angled. Soon, the demand: McIver must be banned. Preparing for this future demand, Leo adds another amalgam (like the Cold War academics), one with 'Kevin Keating'. Not someone I've ever met or read. As remarked before, this amalgam suggests a leftist-Stalinist background, or a natural inclination to insidious gangsterist methods. It doesn't seem that Leo's hacking into the IBRP's Wikipedia page was a laddish 'mistake', but something seriously manipulative and destructive. That an individual who admits to such malignant behaviour was later accepted as a member says a lot about the tolerant cynicism of the organisation (see Devrim post 49 http://libcom.org/forums/theory/racketeerism-parasitism-27072010?page=1)

This is a mindset that can fabricate amalgams and slanders, and feigns victimisation and a hurt ego. But this isn't only a personal failing, Leo is not a loose cannon, he is a faithful and reliable ICC trooper. The style is the man, or the racket. Would have been ideal in the 1981 raids.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Aug 5 2010 02:48
Quote:
It doesn't seem that Leo's hacking into the IBRP's Wikipedia page was a laddish 'mistake', but something seriously manipulative and destructive. That an individual who admits to such malignant behaviour was later accepted as a member says a lot about the tolerant cynicism of the organisation

You don't need to 'hack' a Wikipedia page. It can be edited by any user.

Devrim

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Aug 5 2010 06:09
Quote:
You don't need to 'hack' a Wikipedia page. It can be edited by any user.

Well, there's editing and 'editing', isn't there? What was the nature of Leo's (doubtless thoughtful and incisive) 'edits'?

Likewise, you don't have to kick a door down to gain access to someone's home. The door can be opened by any occupant (holding a babe in arms?).

Keep digging yourselves deeper... keep obfuscating... keep insulting... keep confirming the analysis...

(captcha - 'obtuser stated')

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Aug 5 2010 07:06
Wellclose Square wrote:
keep obfuscating...

I think that this word means obscuring things. I don't know why you would say I am. I think I am pretty open and clear about things.

Wellclose Square wrote:
keep insulting

Please, name one individual on here that I have ever insulted. I don't do it.

Wellclose Square wrote:
Well, there's editing and 'editing', isn't there? What was the nature of Leo's (doubtless thoughtful and incisive) 'edits'?

I don't know. I was told at the time, but I can't clearly remember. I think it was something about linking to an ICC article critical of the IBRP. Leo or Clieshbothom could probably confirm it.

I brought this up originally to demonstrate how misunderstandings can get blown up out of all proportion. The IBRP were convinced the ICC had done this, and were rather annoyed about it. It turned out that it hadn't even been done by an ICC member at all, and the ICC had no knowledge of it.

I think that that demonstrates what a profound level of distrust there is.

Ironically enough, if I was motivated by obscuring things, and covering them up, I certainly wouldn't have brought this up in the first place. I think that it doesn't demonstrate just how eager some people are to jump on anything at all, even when they know nothing at all about the events and the circumstances.

Devrim

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Aug 5 2010 07:16
Wellclose Square wrote:
Keep digging yourselves deeper...

Imagine a naked man frantically digging a hole in a street... the little molehill he creates soon comes to resemble a mountain... (by the way the naked man isn't the ICC for once)

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Aug 5 2010 07:47
Tommy Ascaso wrote:
Talking about wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Communist_Current

Looking at that, I would imagine that it was done by somebody in Turkey. 'Mayis', the user name on there is the Turkish word for 'May'. There is also one preposition mistake, which suggests that it may not have been written by a native speaker.

It wasn't something that we did as an organisation. I didn't do it. I have never done anything on Wiki. It could have been Leo, but he talks to it characterising 'individuals', not organisations. I don't think anybody else in the Turkish ICC can write English that well, but I could be wrong.

It could be a supporter or sympathiser. I don't know.

On the actual edit, I don't think that it is something that that in any way helps us in any way, but I don't think it is a heinous crime either.

Devrim

Angelus Novus
Offline
Joined: 27-07-06
Aug 5 2010 08:17

There's an eerie meeting of minds between Left-Communists and George W. Bush: for Left Communists, Auschwitz is just another massacre. For George W. Bush, every bad guy is Hitler.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 5 2010 08:23

Devrim

Quote:
You don't need to 'hack' a Wikipedia page. It can be edited by any user.

Wellclose Square is completely right about your obfuscating. The example of Wikepedia shows it. Not only that but sophistry (fallacious intent to deceive), though you may not even be aware of what you're doing.

The issue is not that 'it's not hacking' -- here you are deflecting, or obfuscating -- of course there's no unauthorised entry, but that's why it can be easily abused by someone who wants to sabotage and disrupt, which is exactly what hackers do, and what Leo's 'editing' did (how neutral it sounds), according to you. It's an aspect of online vandalism from another group, and that's why the IBRP were annoyed. Why shouldn't they be? The 'any user can edit' is a candid gem. Why didn't the IBRP get this, this laudable democratic aspect of Wikepedia? The destructive act of course wasn't only Leo's, but it can be laid squarely on the group he belonged to.

Why should anyone 'go and ask' individuals about this, like Leo and Cleishbotham? This is a grotesque request, similar to Firtinaci's 'go and ask' so and so about a 'bombshell' pamphlet on the early Turkish CP and Comintern. Those involved should clarify these issues without any prompting, now that they have been posed online. Otherwise it's only a revealing anecdote, and my comments remain conditional, but it's not up to me to find out more. Nothing is transparent in a racket, too many agendas create layers and layers of opacity and responsibility for acts is diluted.

The intention to cause harm, to annoy and spread suspicion among groups (for years in this case!), that's what I was referring to. Of course it's commendable that you admit it, but you did this because you don't think it's important, just like you have minimised other destructive behaviour (ie, the violence in the ICC 1981-82 raids). In a serious and open group, acts like Leo's wouldn't be tolerated. They are typical underhand 'parasitic' activities (using your own term), aimed at creating suspicion and confusion among groups and their readers online. Unfortunately I don't think you get it.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 5 2010 08:41
Quote:
There's an eerie meeting of minds between Left-Communists and George W. Bush: for Left Communists, Auschwitz is just another massacre. For George W. Bush, every bad guy is Hitler.

Auschwitz was committed by Germans, and their 'massacres' and holocausts are the best, they follow the unique winning Germanic path, nobody can do better than Germans and don't think of competing for a minute. They shall always be n.1, or so fantasises Putto. He is not a left communist, God forbid, but only a centre-communist, probably in the tradition of angelic Communist saviours like Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky.

Germany, now unified, remains n.1 in the mass production of toadies, doormats and other variants of anti-Germans. That must be conceded.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 5 2010 10:06

to 888

Quote:
Wellclose Square wrote:

Keep digging yourselves deeper...

Imagine a naked man frantically digging a hole in a street... the little molehill he creates soon comes to resemble a mountain... (by the way the naked man isn't the ICC for once)

Who is it then 888? The image was used by Ingram originally. A riddle? Moleman? Have the ICC bought some pants, some modesty then?

Leutha's picture
Leutha
Offline
Joined: 26-03-06
Aug 5 2010 09:00

As regards Bordiga's radio broadcasts, check out:
Essen Soviet makes appeal to Brits
I put this post up some time ago, but no-one has responded.

The Essen Soviet was an iconic momemnt in Left Communist ideology, but actually, reality is a little bit more complicated.

All the puff up of groups like the ICC make more confusion than they clarify, make ideologies which block a clearer understanding of the political processes which we need to learn from.

The Communist Left as peddled by Left Communists is a fantasy, an attempt to string together a few historical incidents to create a satisfying myth, and the conceit of some kind of superhuman understanding, which in reality masks relaity and creates confusion.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Aug 5 2010 09:36
mciver wrote:
The issue is not that 'it's not hacking' -- here you are deflecting, or obfuscating -- of course there's no unauthorised entry, but that's why it can be easily abused by someone who wants to sabotage and disrupt, which is exactly what hackers do, and what Leo's 'editing' did (how neutral it sounds), according to you.

Looking at Wiki that is exactly how they refer to it. Should I have used another word? Of course if you want to find 'obfuscation', you can find it in words like 'edit' even.

mciver wrote:
It's an aspect of online vandalism from another group, and that's why the IBRP were annoyed. Why shouldn't they be? The 'any user can edit' is a candid gem. Why didn't the IBRP get this, this laudable democratic aspect of Wikepedia?

I understand that they were annoyed. I too thought it was pretty bad behaviour.

mciver wrote:
The destructive act of course wasn't only Leo's, but it can be laid squarely on the group he belonged to.

Which was? I don't think he belonged to any group then, but I can see that facts like that are no reason not to pin the blame fairly on the ICC.

mciver wrote:
Why should anyone 'go and ask' individuals about this, like Leo and Cleishbotham?

Firstly I didn't say anyone should "go and ask". I said:

Devrim wrote:
Leo or Clieshbothom could probably confirm it.

As I am sure they can. I am mystified as to what I am supposed to do. Should I ring one of them up to find out exactly went on? To be honest I doubt anybody is that interested. I don't quite see what is wrong with asking people involved to find out what went on though. If anyone really wants to know, I am sure one of those two could confirm it.

This is a grotesque request,

Quote:
This is a grotesque request, similar to Firtinaci's 'go and ask' so and so about a 'bombshell' pamphlet on the early Turkish CP and Comintern.

I presume you are talking about this exchange:

mikail firtinaci wrote:
Quote:
To return to Goldner -- there are no riveting quotes from the ICC pamphlet Left Wing of the Turkish Communist Party, 1920-1927. Do you know what is Goldner alluding to? Could you open a thread on this? WHAT 'theoretical bombshell'?

If the bombshell is implicitly the arguement that the Bolsheviks defended Kemalists even letting the turkish CP leadership to be murdered, I believe this is incorrect. By the way I am not the writer of the ICC pamphlet. You should directly ask this Devrim or Leo...

I can't quite see what Mikail is supposed to have done wrong here either. He doesn't want to comment and points you in the direction of people who may.

We didn't use the term 'bombshell'. Lauren did, so I don't know exactly what he means. If you want to know what the pamphlet says, an easy way would be to buy a copy.

mikail firtinaci wrote:
They are typical underhand 'parasitic' activities (using your own term), aimed at creating suspicion and confusion among groups and their readers online.

Not my term actually, as I am sure you actually know by now, but don't let small details like facts get in the way of your points.

Devrim

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 5 2010 10:01

Devrim

Quote:
mciver wrote:
They are typical underhand 'parasitic' activities (using your own term), aimed at creating suspicion and confusion among groups and their readers online.

Not my term actually, as I am sure you actually know by now, but don't let small details like facts get in the way of your points.

By 'your own term' I meant that of the organisation you belong to, not you personally. But unfortunately the dividing line is not easy to maintain, as I'm sure you'd agree. That's a downside of belonging. What are the benefits, can't tell, up to you as well.

Small details matter a lot, will bear that in mind and regret if I have seemed to insult you. Your opinions and statements have annoyed me, but not you as a person. I don't know you and you have not personally tried to harm me. It's true that you don't use the term 'parasite' and your outspoken opposition to its use is on record.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 5 2010 10:18

duplicate post deleted

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Aug 5 2010 11:12
Quote:
I don't know. I was told at the time, but I can't clearly remember. I think it was something about linking to an ICC article critical of the IBRP. Leo or Clieshbothom could probably confirm it.

it wasn't a hack or sabotage or anything, i had simply added a link to the icc's list of articles about the ibrp there, and was actually planning to do the same thing to the icc's page, as in putting a link to the ibrp articles on the icc since i wasn't an icc supporter or sympathizer at the time and was at an equal distance to the icc as i was to the ibrp but stopped working on wiki before i did that. i might have reorganized the ibrp page a bit as well, adding more material from their site and all, but i'm not sure, i don't remember - the problem was with that one link, of course. i was simply trying to help with wiki pages on left communist things, i think the most effort i put was in the icp's wiki page.

wikipedia obviously can be edited by anyone. that is in fact the thing about wikipedia.

when i explained the situation to clieshbothom of the ibrp, he was alright with it and we kept having a fraternal discussion.

Angelus Novus
Offline
Joined: 27-07-06
Aug 5 2010 11:24

mciver,

I'm not an Anti-German, as pretty much everybody on this forum knows by now. And as already discussed ad nauseum on this thread, Anti-Germans are pretty much non-existent as a political tendency at this point.

So your posts are about as accurate as they are interesting.

Please go back to wanking over back issues of Invariance.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 5 2010 12:39

I know this is off-topic (feeding the ICC's delusions of self-importance by endlessly showing up their ideological distortions and sectarian mentality has become a drag) but Angelus Novus - you never replied to my post (post 125) on that thread; I'd be genuinely interested in a response - it seems important to analyse and overcome all identities other than proletarian, and the German v anti-German confusions don't help. I don't want to have an arrogant competitive slanging match, but a genuine reflection from you about what I said would help towards overcoming part of the remnants of Jewish identity you still seem to have, and would help me clarify some things. I know this is a particularly touchy subject, given Auschwitz etc., but, unless you have no interest in overcoming some separate identity, it seems vital that the history of your own colonisation by a collectivist identity, and its remains, has to be confronted if you want to determine your existence: "The end of alienation follows the straight and narrow path of alienation itself".

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 5 2010 14:25

Post 154

Quote:
I think it's so cute how left-communists consider something like this to be scandalous.

Honestly, if I had lived in an Axis country or an Axis-occupied country, I would have welcomed the Allies with open arms. If I had lived in an Allied country, I would have sought out the next enlistment station.

Principles are okay, I guess, but sometimes the real world just sort imposes itself, ya know?

Post 174

Quote:
I'm not an Anti-German, as pretty much everybody on this forum knows by now. And as already discussed ad nauseum on this thread, Anti-Germans are pretty much non-existent as a political tendency at this point.

So your posts are about as accurate as they are interesting.

Please go back to wanking over back issues of Invariance.

The first post above more accurately reveals you as an Allied imperial warmonger, or an antifascist, or a Stalinist, or all that. Your camp is naturally capital. 'Anti-German' of course as well, who cares that the political racket/s called 'Anti-German' are sooo retro-antiquities today, to use your quaint jargon. 'Anti-Germanism' is still an endemic syndrome in Germany, not necessarily a political movement. Its ideological foundations were established by the Western military occupation, then eagerly upheld by various academic and media houseboys in the postwar years. This filtered down to the broad layers of doormats and German-hating political rackets... and putti.

Re the Nazi holocaust, how profound to notice that genocides have singular characteristics. But the fiercely competitive ideologists who dissect and push for these unique features, do so mostly to establish winning criteria for 'more badness', to justify 'lesser evils' against 'ultimate' ones, and further wars to end all wars, further reparations and retaliations, all sponsored by Leviathanic saviour-networks, who always stand in for mankind.

What's missing in these unique World Cups for 1st Genocide is that the victims themselves are seldom asked which is their favourite. How would you like to leave this world dear, via gas chamber, starvation, batching by machine gun, machete, napalm, A-Bombs, freezing, urban renewal by area bombing, drowning, hard-labour, forced marches, etc, etc? Do you prefer leaving your details in fancy IBM cards or just mass grave-yarding or vaporising like in Hiroshima? I have never seen examples of this quantitative, or even qualitative research, based on the consumed. Have you? But it would help the contest, maybe Germany would still come on top, I'm not biased, and you would soar happily.

To me, from your post above, Zhukov, Konev and Rokossovsky are your recruiting marshalls, hardly Marx or Adorno, although they too engaged in progressive bettings of this kind, creating templates for Marxist plasticines.

Thanks for the kind suggestion, but a bit awkward coming from you. What would an angel, even less a putto, know about wanking?

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 5 2010 14:34

Quote:

Leo

Quote:
I don't know. I was told at the time, but I can't clearly remember. I think it was something about linking to an ICC article critical of the IBRP. Leo or Clieshbothom could probably confirm it.

it wasn't a hack or sabotage or anything, i had simply added a link to the icc's list of articles about the ibrp there, and was actually planning to do the same thing to the icc's page, as in putting a link to the ibrp articles on the icc since i wasn't an icc supporter or sympathizer at the time and was at an equal distance to the icc as i was to the ibrp but stopped working on wiki before i did that. i might have reorganized the ibrp page a bit as well, adding more material from their site and all, but i'm not sure, i don't remember - the problem was with that one link, of course. i was simply trying to help with wiki pages on left communist things, i think the most effort i put was in the icp's wiki page.

wikipedia obviously can be edited by anyone. that is in fact the thing about wikipedia.

when i explained the situation to clieshbothom of the ibrp, he was alright with it and we kept having a fraternal discussion.

I can't understand why the IBRP was annoyed then and suspicious of the ICC. Why? But if after you explained this the IBRP were alright with it, then fine.

Thanks for explaining.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 5 2010 14:43

this fucking thread cry

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Aug 5 2010 15:34
Quote:
I can't understand why the IBRP was annoyed then and suspicious of the ICC.

i think it has got to do with the prevailing unfortunate atmosphere of mutual mistrust and lack of dialog between the two organizations that dev was talking about.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Aug 5 2010 15:53
Leo wrote:
i think it has got to do with the prevailing unfortunate atmosphere of mutual mistrust and lack of dialog between the two organizations that dev was talking about.

That was exactly what I was talking about. The IBRP just assumed this had been done by the ICC. Mistrust was at such a point that they didn't even ask them. As it turned out, it wasn't done by the ICC at all, and by chance we were able to sort it out.

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Aug 5 2010 15:57
Joseph Kay wrote:
this fucking thread cry

Well yes, it is pretty sad. Imagine if your organisation had broken into some people's houses to retrieve a typewriter back in the 1980s. Oh wait, they did. It is just that people don't feel a need to bring it up every five minutes.

Maybe we could try to return to what the actual article had to say.

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Aug 5 2010 16:05
Quote:
By 'your own term' I meant that of the organisation you belong to, not you personally. But unfortunately the dividing line is not easy to maintain, as I'm sure you'd agree.

I don't really see any problem in maintaining it. Membership of the ICC is based upon adherence to its platform, which doesn't have any mention of the term 'parasitism'. Outside of that members have lots of different opinions, which they discuss in public and within the organisation. It may not be the ICC that you were involved in creating, as I wasn't a member then it is difficult to judge, but it is the ICC today.

Devrim

Angelus Novus
Offline
Joined: 27-07-06
Aug 5 2010 16:16
mciver wrote:
Your camp is naturally capital.

Hell yeah:

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 5 2010 17:07

i hope DAM created a theory of syndicalist tapewormism to explain the incident.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Aug 5 2010 17:39
Tommy Ascaso wrote:
Devrim wrote:
Well yes, it is pretty sad. Imagine if your organisation had broken into some people's houses to retrieve a typewriter back in the 1980s. Oh wait, they did. It is just that people don't feel a need to bring it up every five minutes.

Is that a comparable incident? The only reference to it that I can find through google is your posts on here.

It shows how much people went on about it then. It would have been 1986 I think, and the Hull branch, which was responsible for producing the paper, left the organisation, after producing an issue backing one of the CNT splits, probably the ones that went on to become the CGT. They were called CNT (R) at the time as I remember), and kept the typewriter. People were dispatched from London to go up there and 'retrieve' it. Ask somebody who was in DAM at the time.

Devrim