DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

The communist left and internationalist anarchism

254 posts / 0 new
Last post
mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 5 2010 19:10
Quote:
Joseph Kay wrote:
this fucking thread

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

Two issues:

1. The question of this original thread. The ICC supports left communists debating with 'internationalist' or 'revolutionary' anarchists. Those anarchists who share a vision of action will agree with the ICC. The optimistic aim of the debates will presumably include 'common interventions', growth and even future regroupment. (However, I doubt very much that the left communists will ever become anarchists.)

How the groups involved will explain their differences, like how is it that there was no debate for more than 40 or 90 years, is interesting for a study of self-analysis in groups. Following Bion, it's unlikely that this self-analysis will be successful.

The current posts suggest minimal agreement on the political history. The ICC position that the anarchist Bakunin was a 'parasitic' adventurer has been exposed as unfounded (see the recent Battlescarred post, one among many based on the evidence).

The exterminatory persecution of anarchism by the Bolsheviks in Russia from 1918 is another fundamental divergence needing clarification from the ICC most of all.

To anarchists who claim to be mostly interested in action, the above is probably irrelevant academia. They may be the ICC 'focus'.

2. To anarchists who wish to clarify history, the ICC's past dismissal of Bakunin and anarchism poses real difficulties. Even more so if these dismissals are justified in the ICC's Theses on Parasitism and other past articles.

The contention here is that the Theses are essential to the ICC's doctrinal survival and won't be rejected. Furthermore, these Theses affirmed the ideology and practice of the ICC as a gang. This sterility came about due to social isolation and programmatic delusion (Bolshevism). It's unlikely that social isolation will cease to be a factor of stagnation, even with a temporary numerical growth due to anarchist collaboration.

This typical comment suggests that self-delusion remains rampant: 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.

This was brought up a lot recently because the ICC as an organisation denies this reality, or deforms the events like in the above flippant remark, to avoid confronting the truth: that the raids were not to retrieve material, but to intimidate. (The ICC posts of 2006 justifying the raids are eye-openers). Real, scathing self-criticism is not possible in a racket. But no amount of reasoning will persuade. An organisation that claims to be produced by the proletariat but has engaged in acts of unprecedented vandalism and defamation from 1981 onwards is not suited to inspire confidence. Why it stopped behaving like this circa 2007, likewise why didn't it engage with anarchists for generations is not explained. 'Mistakes' and 'immaturity' are circular and explain little. Destructive actions that are justified and ignored can't be transcended. For this, the ICC will ultimately implode.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 5 2010 19:12

That was good Angelus. Good returns.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 6 2010 06:59

Tommy Ascaso Post 187

Quote:
Well I haven't really got a problem with people going and collecting organisational property, and I don't know much about either incident. I guess I'm just assuming that this wasn't as 'bad' as the ICC one because people haven't been going on about it for the last 25 years (although this perhaps says more about the kind of people that are interested in left communism).

As I think others said last time this was discussed it was the claiming that internal bulletins were organisational property that was mental, never mind creating a theory of parasitism to justify the whole thing.

For years the ICC claimed that it was recovering 'organisational property' in the raids of 1981, and many in Libcom simply accepted this mendacious version. Yet the raids of 1981 were not launched for this reason, but to terrorise the ICC membership and intimidate opponents. This was immediately perceived and denounced by News of War and Revolution in Leicester. Their merit is that they were the first to define the ICC's actions as one of a gang, as an attack against militants of the working class.

In 1981 who owned the equipment in a split wasn't clear. The statutes of the organisation didn't deal with this potential problem. The equipment was paid with dues collected from all members and was kept at some members' homes. The internal bulletins were kept at homes as well.

When the ICC sections in Lille and Manchester and members of the London section resigned in September 1981, the first two ex-sections kept the typewriters they were using. The Lille section had half-paid for their typewriter with their personal funds. The London seceders took a typewriter from Alf's home when he wasn't in. I ignore if that was the only typewriter in the London section. But World Revolution continued to appear in those months so the false claim that the publication was threatened was part of an orchestrated hysteria. I don't use the word 'stole' because I don't go along with the hypocritical pretence of the ICC that ownership was clear-cut. Their legalistic claim became their 'retroactive' trump card, something solved by might is right.

This said, the seceders in Lille-London-Manchester should never have kept the equipment they were using, the separation should have been negotiated and clarified from both sides. The seceders unwittingly gave Chirik's thugs the opportunity they wanted, to intimidate and impose the functioning of a monolithic sect onto a then fluid and activist milieu. This rigid grid of 'the defence of the organisation' was then exported to all ICC sections.

(The fake 'theory' of 'parasitism' started its long gestation there, drafted by ignoramuses. It still glows in its glory online, with all the gore against the IFICC, including raids, threats and physical aggression against 'parasites'. This is from the early 2000s. Devrim is right, all this should stay online, a permanent exhibit and warning. Sadly, most of it in French only, with few morsels in English.)

The ICC's leadership seemed to take the splits on their stride but Chirik in the Paris apparat started to plan their retaliation posed as 'recovery'. He savoured every minute of his secret police campaign, his own Kronstadt!! Loyalty oaths were demanded from the remaining World Revolution members. The Leicester section had already split and if I'm correct the Aberdeen section and others followed suit. None of these splits were co-ordinated, with the exception of the Lille-London-Manchester sections, comprising around 15 or so members. Alf was instructed to say that the ICC wouldn't react although of course this was to lull. In October the ICC launched its defamations, targeting Chénier of the ex-Lille section. The paranoiac Chirik needed to spot a 'secret leader' of a conspiracy, projecting his own past onto others. As is well known, Chénier was denounced as a 'shady' element and an agent provocateur. Then the baboons pounced at the beginning of November. A two-pronged attack, first slander and vituperation, to demoralise and soften-up, followed by relentless and violent recoveries and burglaries at various dwellings in the UK (Lille was honoured by Fabienne who barged in with other guests, armed with pliers -- mind you, not piolets). I won't repeat Ingram's account here, the best there is.

In their absence, the chekists burgled McIver's and Klara's flat hoping to find the typewriter there. But it wasn't kept at any known ex-member's home. So in revenge they stole McIver's private typewriter plus other valuable items and Klara's personal papers. This was 'hostage' material, quite in the tradition of the Cheka-GPU. They came back, but their entry was now blocked. Why they returned will be ascertained one day. The stolen material was lost and McIver refused to negotiate with Stalinist burglars. Like in Manchester and Lille, they also cut phone lines and pushed people around. R Weyden was hit. This probably excited the baboons in heat.

Various printed documents related to these events will be uploaded on the Libcom library this year, with explanatory notes. For historians and sociologists of rackets, for what it's worth.

The parallel with the CNT Hull branch is clearly false, given the data on offer. This 'same as' case seems like another attempt by Devrim to deflect issues by pooh-poohing them or making irrelevant analogies. The ICC's actions were clearly more than about typewriters or internal bulletins. Incidentally, all the typewriters were taken back or half-stolen by the apparat. But not McIver's. This loss didn't matter of course as it was either well deserved (a parasitical philosophe) or a mistake due to immaturity. Chirik the eternal, the historical, adolescent. And so it was.

Cassady
Offline
Joined: 28-02-09
Aug 6 2010 09:02

As a member of the then Aberdeen section of the ICC, I would fully endorse this version of events.

devoration1's picture
devoration1
Offline
Joined: 18-07-10
Aug 6 2010 14:06

Increased discussion, interaction and cooperation between individuals and organizations that share a common point of view on a number of political issues is certainly a good thing. A greater positive impact can be had if the revolutionary minorities from different currents act together when they can- such as issue common statements (such as joint declarations against war or for solidarity), participate in eachothers public meetings, pool resources for fundraising and solidarity work (such as the campaign to help the militant Tekel workers maintain and strengthen the group that formed after the big strike wave- 'The Platform Of Struggling Workers'), etc.

There should be an increased effort on everyones part to create or maintain friendly discussion (especially on areas of disagreement). There is suspicion toward appeals like this due to the idea of 'party building', trying to raid other groups and 'steal' their members. I don't think any of the revolutionary groups of the libertarian, left communist and syndicalist currents engage in that kind of behavior. Sectarianism should be pushed aside whereever and whenever possible.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Aug 6 2010 18:04
devoration1 wrote:
Increased discussion, interaction and cooperation between individuals and organizations that share a common point of view on a number of political issues is certainly a good thing. A greater positive impact can be had if the revolutionary minorities from different currents act together when they can- such as issue common statements (such as joint declarations against war or for solidarity), participate in eachothers public meetings, pool resources for fundraising and solidarity work (such as the campaign to help the militant Tekel workers maintain and strengthen the group that formed after the big strike wave- 'The Platform Of Struggling Workers'), etc.

There should be an increased effort on everyones part to create or maintain friendly discussion (especially on areas of disagreement). There is suspicion toward appeals like this due to the idea of 'party building', trying to raid other groups and 'steal' their members. I don't think any of the revolutionary groups of the libertarian, left communist and syndicalist currents engage in that kind of behavior. Sectarianism should be pushed aside whereever and whenever possible.

Whistling in the dark? Fiddling while Rome burns? Certainly a denial of reality...

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Aug 6 2010 18:42

Wellclose square;

I think what ICC is doing is the thing that lots of left communists are not doing; that ICC is considering the organisational question as a central issue. I am not pointing this at you but; to see this as a synical attempt to recruit and neglacting the organisation question is really what "whistling in the dark" metaphor corresponds to.

It may be too late if the "proletarian camp" does not start to take this seriously whether they are close to the ICC or not. And I think that requires just what devoration said. It is really healthy to develop organisational-collective discussions, carrying out collective practices and trying to expend the discussions inside the milleu to a greater audiance as much as possible.

Left communism has a historical weakness in that respect; historically at least from the late 1920's till the 2nd world war this was not a choice but practical isolation. I hope in the contemporary context it can be overcomed finally - when there is no more any objective obstacle. I hope anarchists and marxists should work together for the common cause as close as possible. If ICC's attempt would contribute to this, it should be most wellcome.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Aug 6 2010 19:17
mikail firtinaci wrote:
It may be too late if the "proletarian camp" does not start to take this seriously whether they are close to the ICC or not.

Too late for what?

devoration1's picture
devoration1
Offline
Joined: 18-07-10
Aug 6 2010 19:45
Quote:
Whistling in the dark? Fiddling while Rome burns? Certainly a denial of reality...

I'm not familiar with any such incidents in recent history. Care to share?

Optimism and a positive attitude seems something of a rare attribute among working class militants and pro-revolutionaries.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Aug 6 2010 19:57
rata wrote:
mikail firtinaci wrote:
It may be too late if the "proletarian camp" does not start to take this seriously whether they are close to the ICC or not.

Too late for what?

for humanity!

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Aug 6 2010 20:05
mikail firtinaci wrote:
rata wrote:
mikail firtinaci wrote:
It may be too late if the "proletarian camp" does not start to take this seriously whether they are close to the ICC or not.

Too late for what?

for humanity!

I hope you are joking.

Alexander Roxwell
Offline
Joined: 19-07-10
Aug 7 2010 01:44

What does "I C C" stand for? Who are they?

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Aug 7 2010 06:07

rata;

I just take the necessity of communist revolution very serious and feel its urgency. If that sounds funny or crazy for you I am sorry. But since I was born, I am living in a country which is in a kind of low intensity civil war. And this is deepening an ethnic tension that is giving legitimacy for the governments and burgeoisie who are turning the life into a hell. Day by day this atmospere is poisoning the working class and hindering its crucial ability to solidarise more. That is why I really fear that in a point in time working class maybe so atomised that it may lose all its strength to overthrow capitalism. And this situation is not limited to Turkey at all.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Aug 7 2010 07:23

The International Communist Current. A Marxist group in the Left Communist tradition, the ultra left wing of Bolshevism.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Aug 7 2010 08:03

Alexander;

I don'r rhink that ICC describes itself as bolshevik. This article is a good summary of what they stand for I think;

http://en.internationalism.org/the-communist-left

this is from the same article about their perspective on the Bolsheviks;

Quote:
7. The retreat of the revolutionary wave and the isolation of the Russian revolution gave rise to a process of degeneration within both the Communist International and the soviet power in Russia. The Bolshevik party had more and more fused with a bureaucratic state apparatus which grew in inverse proportion to the proletariat’s own organs of power and participation - the soviets, factory committees and red guards. Within the International, the attempts to win mass support in a phase of declining mass activity engendered opportunist "solutions" - increasing emphasis on working within parliament and the trade unions, the appeal to the "peoples of the east" to rise up against imperialism, and above all, the policy of the United Front which threw out all the hard-won clarity about the capitalist nature of the social patriots.

In that sense I thing the general difference between left communists and anarchists on the Bolsheviks is that, while anarchists saw in Bolshevism an innate counter revolution, the Left Communist current does regard this approach as idealistic and argue that Bolsheviks have been degenerated and integrated into state in the historical process and not because of their innate positions. Here is the reason why;

Quote:
Already in 1919, the Democratic Centralism group, led by Ossinski, Smirnov and Sapranov, had begun to warn against the "withering away" of the soviets and the increasing departure from the principles of the Paris Commune. Similar criticisms were made in 1921 by the Workers' Opposition group led by Kollontai and Shliapnikov, although the latter was to prove less rigorous and durable than the "Decist" group, which was to continue to play an important role throughout the 20s, and which was to develop a similar approach to that of the Italian left. In 1923, the Workers’ Group led by Miasnikov issued its manifesto and made an important intervention in the workers’ strikes of that year. Its positions and analyses were close to those of the KAPD.

All these groups not only emerged from the Bolshevik party; they continued to fight within the party for a return to the original principles of the revolution. But as the forces of bourgeois counter-revolution gained ground within the party, the key issue became the capacity of the various oppositions to see the real nature of this counter-revolution and to break with any sentimental loyalty to its organised expressions. This was to prove the fundamental divergence between Trotsky and the Russian communist left: while the former was to remain throughout his life wedded to the notion of the defence of the Soviet Union and even to the working class nature of the Stalinist parties, the left communists saw that the triumph of Stalinism - including its "left" turns, which confused many of Trotsky’s followers - meant the triumph of the class enemy and implied the necessity for a new revolution.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Aug 7 2010 08:17

Ah, so they ICC aren't Bolsheviks, they're Bolsheviks. Glad we've cleared that up.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Aug 7 2010 09:31
devoration1 wrote:
Quote:
Whistling in the dark? Fiddling while Rome burns? Certainly a denial of reality...

I'm not familiar with any such incidents in recent history. Care to share?

Your contrived insouciance ('whistling'... 'fiddling'...) about the long-drawn out public decomposition of the parasitic Bolshevik sect you're so keen to promote (on this and other threads) is quite a departure from the usual acknowledgement of 'mistakes' and 'immaturity' from other ICC members and sympathisers. That's right, try and carry on as if nothing has happened...

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Aug 7 2010 11:51
888 wrote:
Why are people going on about abolishing inheritance (a very minor part of Bakunin's program) when Marx advocated all sorts of nonsensical reforms?

Including, of course, abolishing inheritance.

His 10 point program in Communist Manifesto, to be put into place once the proletariat won state power:

Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels wrote:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
devoration1's picture
devoration1
Offline
Joined: 18-07-10
Aug 7 2010 12:04
Wellclose Square wrote:

Your contrived insouciance ('whistling'... 'fiddling'...) about the long-drawn out public decomposition of the parasitic Bolshevik sect you're so keen to promote (on this and other threads) is quite a departure from the usual acknowledgement of 'mistakes' and 'immaturity' from other ICC members and sympathisers. That's right, try and carry on as if nothing has happened...

What the hell are you talking about? There have been comments made elsewhere that appeals for cooperation among communist organizations is simply an attempt for one group to recruit from the others, or a forceful integration under the guise of regroupment. Trying to bring this thread back on its original point, I wrote that this is not the case, and that I was not familiar with any attempts by the libertarian, left communist and syndicalist groups to 'raid' one another simply to bulk up their membership; this excuse for not participating in political discussion or joint activity (like the examples I gave of joint declarations against war, participation in eachothers public meetings/events, joint support and solidarity work for workers in struggle such as the Tekel workers) is bullshit.

If some people do not want to discuss with or do joint work with other groups that have similar opinions (especially regarding core issues like internationalism) that's their choice- but to use quips of 'oh it's just a stunt to recruit new members/steal members away from other groups' is a bullshit excuse.

This isn't particularly an ICC issue either. Any time different revolutionary working-class groups can work in tandem and discuss should be applauded- which is what this thread was originally about. Since this thread is about a specific appeal of the ICC, I not only don't believe my comments are a 'denial of reality', there is proof that this isn't the case via their press (where letters, discussions and leaflets from other non-left communist groups are published with greater regularity recently):

-Statement by KRAS (Russian anarcho-syndicalists, part of IWA I believe) regarding the war in Georgia:

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/08/kras-on-war-in-georgia

-Article on the conversations over a decade between the ICC and Russian revolutionaries (KRAS, Group of Proletarian Revolutionary Collectivists, International Communist Union, etc):

Quote:
More recently, as recounted in International Review n°118, we have helped to set up an internet discussion site (russia.internationalist-forum.org) with some of the internationalist elements in Russia (KRAS, GPRC and more recently the ICU), with the aim of broadening and deepening the key debates animating this milieu.

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/119_moscow.html

-An article from a Spanish anarchist forum on Chavez:

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/295_chavez

-Debate with the Hungarian anarcho-communist group Barikad Collectiva:

Quote:
In spite of important political divergences on almost every question, the atmosphere of the discussion was friendly and open and it was possible to explain the respective points of view at length. This was certainly due largely to the fact that both groups want to achieve the same goal, i.e. the classless society, and both are also agreed that this can be realised only through the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism on an international scale.

In addition to this there are a number of common programmatic points:

- the only class that is able to carry out such a revolution today is the proletariat;

- in the process towards revolution the proletariat cannot ally itself with the bourgeoisie or any part of it;

- revolutionaries defend an internationalist position on imperialist war;

- the so-called national liberation movements and anti-fascism are bourgeois and have nothing to do with the proletarian struggle;

- the working class is an international unity that transcends national boundaries; revolutionaries have to emphasise the common and general interests of the working class;

- an expression of the unity of the working class is its tendency to centralise its struggle.

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/barikad

Why are such discussions and cooperation a bad thing?

As far as what happened 30 years ago (which is what I'm sure your comments are about), I do not care. I don't believe it has any bearing on who they are and what they are doing now. It's a nonissue.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Aug 7 2010 13:53
mikail firtinaci wrote:
rata wrote:
mikail firtinaci wrote:
It may be too late if the "proletarian camp" does not start to take this seriously whether they are close to the ICC or not.

Too late for what?

for humanity!

mikail firtinaci wrote:
rata;

I just take the necessity of communist revolution very serious and feel its urgency. If that sounds funny or crazy for you I am sorry. But since I was born, I am living in a country which is in a kind of low intensity civil war. And this is deepening an ethnic tension that is giving legitimacy for the governments and burgeoisie who are turning the life into a hell. Day by day this atmospere is poisoning the working class and hindering its crucial ability to solidarise more. That is why I really fear that in a point in time working class maybe so atomised that it may lose all its strength to overthrow capitalism. And this situation is not limited to Turkey at all.

Mika, yes it sounds crazy, and I guess not only to me but to anybody who is not part of some cult. The fact that you were born and living in a country which is "in a kind of low intensity civil war" doesn't really change anything, because I was born and living in a country which was in a high intensity civil war, and than bombed by NATO, so please cut the pathetic. Also, I assure you that you are not the only one taking necessity of the revolution seriously. And when I see your relation to ICC I don't think we are talking about the same revolution.

What is crazy about your statement is that you are linking future of humanity with relations of the workers movement ("proletarian camp") towards a miniature group as ICC is. This is not just idealistic, it's crazy. And it's something which will guaranty that anybody who is sane starts thinking of ICC as a cult, seeing that the people who are in it's sphere of influence are developing cultish relations towards it. It wouldn't been different if ICC was a larger group - it would just mean it's bigger cult. That relation toward some specific organization is something which is coming directly from religion closet, and doesn't have anything to do with a revolutionary movement.

devoration1 wrote:
...

-Statement by KRAS (Russian anarcho-syndicalists, part of IWA I believe) regarding the war in Georgia:

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/08/kras-on-war-in-georgia

...

Why are such discussions and cooperation a bad thing?

So, as this thing has been repeated several times on Libcom, and some cooperation between KRAS and ICC was talked about now and earlier, I checked it with KRAS comrades. Just got of the phone with one of their very active members. To make it clear - there is no cooperation between KRAS and ICC. KRAS, as all serious class anarchists are, is sharing the "internationalist" approach with ICC, and that, in a situation in which majority of the movement is nationalists (such as in Russia), can be important issue and something which is creating the feeling of closeness between people and groups. But KRAS is aware of ICC stand on the state in transition period, and this is for KRAS, as it will be for any anarchist organization in the world ever, obstacle which is preventing any direct cooperation between organizations. KRAS did participate in some discussions with ICC, but they newer co-organized anything, neither are they planing any joint actions.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Aug 7 2010 14:06
Quote:
devoration1 wrote: There have been comments made elsewhere that appeals for cooperation among communist organizations is simply an attempt for one group to recruit from the others, or a forceful integration under the guise of regroupment.

That really isn't the impression I've had from most of the comments I've seen on this thread. Is your statement an example of projection on your part (as an individual and an ICC member)? Is it policy now? I gather you were once a member of the IWW who 'saw the light', so perhaps it's easy for you (and the ICC?) to reduce people's uneasiness or hostility to a simple matter of 'poaching of membership'. That betrays either bovine stupidity on your part or a single-minded determination to ignore history ('a nonissue'). I think the latter. It almost seems a crass cliche to say 'those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it', but you were asking for it. What's that? Oh, you don't care...

Samotnaf's right - feeding the ICC's delusions of self-importance has become a drag.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Aug 7 2010 16:12

so rata as far as I understand the problem for you is not that revolutionaries should develop solidarity because the revolution is a vital necessity for the future of humanity but the ICC and "people close to them" saying this.

Do not you think that this is a bit of secterianism?

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
Aug 7 2010 16:53
rata wrote:
What is crazy about your statement is that you are linking future of humanity with relations of the workers movement ("proletarian camp") towards a miniature group as ICC is. This is not just idealistic, it's crazy.

I think mikail clarified he wasn't talking about the future of humanity resting on the shoulders of the ICC but on the "necessity of communist revolution" and, I would assume, the currency of basic ideas - that we share, btw - such as class consciousness and struggle, internationalism etc.

We may well still be talking about a different revolution but I'd also say, comrade, that this comes across as being needlessly sectarian.

---

Shame the original article has been completely ignored in this thread.

devoration1's picture
devoration1
Offline
Joined: 18-07-10
Aug 7 2010 18:31
Quote:
KRAS did participate in some discussions with ICC, but they newer co-organized anything, neither are they planing any joint actions.

I said political discussion as well as other examples of cooperation (which can include joint declarations and/or activities). It is one of several examples of a positive move towards outreach- with the goal of further discussion, clarification and cooperation. After seeing some of the vitriole simple communication is a step forward.

Quote:
That really isn't the impression I've had from most of the comments I've seen on this thread. Is your statement an example of projection on your part . . .reduce people's uneasiness or hostility to a simple matter of 'poaching of membership'

It was one particular accusation that has been made on this thread- By You

Quote:
Samotnaf

All this stuff fom the ICC is part of their charm offensive, to show how they're not like the old sectarian ICC, how they're "open" whilst temporarily hiding their more crude "party building" agenda

Quote:
Wellclose Square

I share the deep scepticism of other posters concerning the ICC's sudden discovery of the commonality between 'the communist left and internationalist anarchism', especially in view of the anti-working class practice of Bolshevism, a Leviathanic heritage of which the ICC considers itself an inheritor. I suspect that Samotnaf is right:

The quote you are referencing is the one quoted above by Samotnaf.

I thought it might be worthwhile to recognize and reject accusations some posters (including you) have made. Am I 'projecting' something that you yourself said?

I recognize what happened. It gets repeated anytime anything having to do with any topic distantly related to the ICC comes up ad nauseum on here- it's very hard to ignore it and still read threads on Libcom. How it was just like Kronstadt and so on. You and others who share your dislike of the ICC simply latch onto this story and regurgitate it. I don't condone the behavior described in Mciver's account of what happened, and while not being a member I do agree with a lot of the ICC's politics, and the loathing expressed by you and a half-dozen or so other posters is a juvenile distraction.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Aug 7 2010 18:33
mikail firtinaci wrote:
Do not you think that this is a bit of secterianism?
Volin wrote:
We may well still be talking about a different revolution but I'd also say, comrade, that this comes across as being needlessly sectarian.

I am not sure how can somebody seriously claim that a person is sectarian because of a (negative) reaction to this:

mikail firtinaci wrote:
It may be too late [for humanity!] if the "proletarian camp" does not start to take this seriously whether they are close to the ICC or not.
rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Aug 7 2010 18:48
mikail firtinaci wrote:
so rata as far as I understand the problem for you is not that revolutionaries should develop solidarity because the revolution is a vital necessity for the future of humanity but the ICC and "people close to them" saying this.

No, mikail, what is the problem for me is when a tiny left-wing bolshevik group thinks that clarifying relations with it is essential for solidarity among revolutionaries and for revolution that is vital necessity for the future.

devoration1's picture
devoration1
Offline
Joined: 18-07-10
Aug 7 2010 18:48

Is it not obvious that mikail's first language isn't English?

Quote:
No, mikail, what is the problem for me is when a tiny left-wing bolshevik group thinks that clarifying relations with it is a essential for solidarity among revolutionaries and a revolution that is vital necessity for the future.

And thats not at all what he said or meant as Volin pointed out:

Quote:
Volin

I think mikail clarified he wasn't talking about the future of humanity resting on the shoulders of the ICC but on the "necessity of communist revolution" and, I would assume, the currency of basic ideas - that we share, btw - such as class consciousness and struggle, internationalism etc.

We may well still be talking about a different revolution but I'd also say, comrade, that this comes across as being needlessly sectarian.

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Aug 7 2010 19:01
devoration1 wrote:
Is it not obvious that mikail's first language isn't English?

Well, English is not my first language either, and from what I can see mikail is quite fine with using it on this board.

Volin wrote:
I think mikail clarified he wasn't talking about the future of humanity resting on the shoulders of the ICC but on the "necessity of communist revolution"

No, Voline, in fact mikail didn't clarified things in that manner at all. In fact, after several questions in which I tried to get him to correct himself, he never took it back, he just presented to us his opinion which is, essentially, placing equivalence between relation of the workers movement with the ICC to the solidarity of revolutionaries needed for the revolution. That is a cultish relation towards a specific group, and I am really not sure what better way is to define it.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Aug 7 2010 19:15
Quote:
No, mikail, what is the problem for me is when a tiny left-wing bolshevik group thinks that clarifying relations with it is a essential for solidarity among revolutionaries and for revolution that is vital necessity for the future.

well rata to clarify myself;

1. The point for me is not that the ICC says it. The point is we need to develop solidarity because;

a. We are weak.
b. We may be late about the outcomes of the unfolding gradual barbarism.
c. I think there is a period coming which necessitate us to work together because left communists and the internationalist class struggle anarchists are all the working class have in its theoretical-political ammo right now.

2. I don't agree that left communists are bolsheviks. As I try to argue many many times, I believe left communists are the most clear critics of the Bolshevism among the marxists. Though I believe that Bolshevism and the Russian counter revolution are not the same things; Unlike the trotskyists or others left communists also never sided with the russian state.

3. I believe the defence of the positive elements of the Bolshevik experience -which is not limited to post 1918 period!!- does not mean that there is a defence of Russian state and the counter revolution. It only means that there is an other perspective, an other methodology is used to understand the source of russian problem. In my perspective, the intentions of the historical subjects are not that determinant in the outcome. So rather than judging the agents by looking at the outcome, there should be a historical analysis constantly moving between agents and the conditions TOWARDS THE OUTCOME. Obviously this is another topic that should be discussed later.

4. Finally, I also see the groups like IWA and the AF in england as revolutionary groups. They make me feel that our ranks is not that little in fact. But in reality we are really few. By we, I obviusly mean the internationalist-communists/anarchists. And to turn this objective limitaion into a positive impetus for more solidarity and discussion among various revolutionary currents is something I think that "proletarian camp" is capable of.

That is really what I hope for.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Aug 7 2010 22:33

This post seems to have got into an odd position on the thread so I am rewriting it. I agreed with Volin's post because he takes a stand against needless sectarianism and also because he regretted that the thread has been derailed. I think it may be necessary to start a new thread because the basic questions here still need to be addressed in a fraternal way. Mikail and Devoration have expressed the same hope.