The ICC's 'Jury of Honour' from Zeta Reticuli

32 posts / 0 new
Last post
jooball
Offline
Joined: 23-05-10
Jun 16 2010 15:36

Is the Court of Honour where all the baboons and mandrills show their big red bottoms to each other?

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jun 16 2010 17:56
Quote:
Any member of a communist organisation who, faced with these accusations, refuses to defend his militant communist honour can only give credence, through his attitude of capitulation, to the suspicions which weigh on him.

Pistols at dawn.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 16 2010 22:08

I may not give two shits about the ICC and their obscure self-policing measures, but mciver's post is actually interesting from a historical POV. I think it should be posted in the library (the part about Luxembourg/SPD/Radek etc., not the rant against the ICC).

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jun 17 2010 14:39

That's because, if I recall correctly, McIver was one of the group who founded WR in Britain after he and they split from Solidarity.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jun 20 2010 22:00

I think that is their policy, when ingram appeared they all went very quiet.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Jun 20 2010 23:52

An eloquent silence?

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Jun 21 2010 04:18

From the ICC, silence is golden.

... in the naked light I saw
Ten people maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing texts that voices never share
And no one dare
Disturb the sound of the ICC

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jun 21 2010 05:34

What is there to say? I generally only comment on things if I have read them. I couldn't be bothered to read this.

Devrim

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jun 21 2010 11:54
Devrim wrote:
What is there to say? I generally only comment on things if I have read them. I couldn't be bothered to read this.

Devrim

Don't blame you.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jun 24 2010 00:59

Not surprising, Devrim et al have nothing to say. These sordid events happened 'before his time' so he washes his hands. Amazingly, he admits that his racket

Quote:
... must have destroyed or demoralised many people who were involved in it in its time.

Post 27, April 14, 2010 Theory Thread Why are some communists considered to be to the left of others?

But never mind, this is in the past, why open old wounds? We of the thin red line mutually forgive our crimes and misdemeanors to face today's really important tasks. Reviving ancient bad things is a navel-gazing luxury, and some oppositionists weren't such saints either. The important thing is that in some miraculous way, a racket cured itself and it's now a healthy secretion. The criteria is that Devrim joined, and that's good enough for all the incumbent. Ignorance is often bliss. Life must go on, regardless of the allegations (lies?) of irrelevant and embittered petty-bourgeois (let's go easy on 'parasite' for now).

Be this as it may, the narrative and interpretation of these events weren't written for the ICC's la-di-da one liners. The ICC's lack of response is immaterial. They can't reply -- they never did to Ingram -- and if the Politbureau tries, it will be with the usual ad hominem attacks. It will not be a counter-narrative and interpretation based on facts. Hopefully, my account will be useful for those who are thinking of trusting or joining 'left communist' rackets in these perilous times. In addition, the material may be of use to future students and historians of political sects. As I claim, an in-depth analysis of political rackets is well overdue.

But Devrim's lack of curiosity in his own racket's past is ominous because it confirms the general process of delusion and apologetics common to all domination. He reveals a profound lack of interest in what history contains -- he couldn't be 'bothered', he asserts, thinking that people will be impressed by this ignorant one liner. Some little pilot fish may be, but generally such retorts only reveal a clique clinging onto self-preservation and borrowed-time.

I would claim that there's a close link between this ignorant lack of interest in microcosmic events, and those of a macrocosm. By the latter I mean, for example, events (among many others in the 1920s) that happened in Kemalist Turkey. Loren Goldner describes some dramatic events involving Bolshevik Realpolitik. This is during Lenin's and Trotsky's reign.

The article is

'Socialism in One Country' Before Stalin, and the Origins of Reactionary 'Anti-Imperialism':
The Case of Turkey, 1917-1925

http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/turkey.html

The piece is important because Goldner exposes early Bolshevik complicity in the destruction of Turkish militants and revolutionaries by the Kemalist state:

Quote:
The following article had its origin in a “Letter to the Editor”, ca. 2001, to a Trotskyist group, inquiring about a commercial treaty signed by the Soviet Union with Kemalist Turkey in March 1921, a mere two months after 15 leading Turkish Communists were murdered just off the Turkish coast. Those who ordered and those who committed these murders were never identified and are the basis for numerous theories, but everything points to some person or persons in the Kemalist movement, up to the highest levels. What interested me was of course not a murder mystery but the fact that the Soviet Union entered into an alliance with a government that was patently killing and jailing pro-Soviet communist militants, and said and did little or nothing about it. That dynamic was of course familiar to anyone acquainted with post-1945 world history, ... but here was the same pattern only four years after the Russian Revolution, i.e. in a period when almost everyone, myself included, thought that the dominance of Soviet national interests over “proletarian internationalism” really emerged into full view only with the triumph of Stalin and “socialism in one country” in 1924.

Some years later I began an e-mail correspondence with a Turkish comrade, during which I inquired about the 1921 episode and to what extent it still figured in the historical self-awareness of the Turkish left. In due course I received a remarkable pamphlet answering my initial question, and more. For it emerged that the January 1921 murders and March 1921 treaty were merely one, very dramatic episode in a much longer and more complex process of ebbs and flows of the Soviet-Turkish relationship, and the intimately linked fate of Turkish communists during those shifts.

Not long after I first read this pamphlet, the group to which my Turkish correspondent belonged joined the International Communist Current. Not my crowd, of course,...

On my last day in Istanbul, the chance discovery of a small bookstore on an obscure side street led me to the second source without which this article could not have been written: Paul Dumont’s Du socialisme ottoman a l’internationalisme anatolien (1997), 500 pages of detailed history of Turkish communism of a quality (generally, political judgements aside) I would like to have for the major Western countries with which I am more familiar. ...

I knew next to nothing about Turkish history before this encounter and I still know very little. But I went to the lengths I did because if the tale these Turkish comrades have to tell is true, it represents a theoretical bombshell for the international revolutionary movement, such as it is, today...

Unfortunately, Goldner focuses on Dumont's book and not on the 'remarkable pamphlet' dealing with the murder of Turkish Bolshevik leaders and the March 1921 treaty between 'Soviet' Russia and the genocidist Turkish Leviathan. What exactly is this 'theoretical bombshell for the international revolutionary movement' is not revealed by the tantalising Goldner. But even if this was a hell of a Daisy Cutter, one can be sure that the apparatchiks in Turkey are well protected from any explosion in their 'unbothered' bunker. In other words, no matter how despicable and treacherous the Bolshevik regime was, as admitted by the apparat on the one hand, it was still a 'proletarian organ' on the other, as it massacred sailors, workers and peasants at around the same time (Kronstadt, Petrograd, etc) that it flattered the Turkish executioners. Just like the ICC crimes of 1981 and later didn't disqualify their 'communist' claims, the massacres and Realpolitik of early Bolshevism/Comintern don't tarnish their 'communist' nature.

It's probable that the ICC section in Turkey haven't 'bothered' to read this 'remarkable pamphlet' written by one, or some, of their members. And if they have, it obviously made no difference, as those murders of 1921 were also 'before their time' and born-again Bolshevism now lives, purified, in the ICC. As a Japanese proverb says, even the head of a sardine can be worshipped; the main thing is to have faith.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Jun 24 2010 01:06

dear mciver;

I only want to say something about your over simplistic "discussion" (this is the most optimistic way to put it) on the complex relation between turkish CP, bolsheviks and kemalism. Your "comments" are very unfotunate because they reflects a tendency inside "ultra-left" to judge history from ivory towers. Unfortunate because bolsheviks even in 1921 were not a monolithic whole as their hasty critics from afar tend to portray them today. Turkish cp was closely controlled by muslim commusariat of nationalities under Stalin and Sultangaliev - the right wing nationalist pan turkist. The leader of the murdered cp was a very close collaborater of Sultangaliev - who was to be expelled from the party around 1923. They had a very close sympathy towards the kemalist regime. Though there were various raports coming from turkey that showed the machivellianism and janus face of the kemalist regime and various warnings from the Bolshevik party central commity, the leadership of the turkish cp still sailed to turkey probably hoping to join in with the kemalists in their "anti-imperialist" fight, gaining a few seats as a minor partner in the government. This delusion might be strenghtened by the wrong international policies of comintern. However, it was not comintern that killed these communists. On the contrary it was kemalist regime, the nationalist elements inside russia and the turkish cp's own nationalist adventurism.

There are lots of lessons in all these to all communists. But the first and foremost one is; first read before speculating and never use the dead comrades to hurt the living ones...

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Jun 24 2010 02:06

mikail firtinaci is being slightly disingenuous when he says that

Quote:
However, it was not comintern that killed these communists. On the contrary it was kemalist regime, the nationalist elements inside russia and the turkish cp's own nationalist adventurism.

As mciver (quoting Loren Goldner) states:

Quote:
Those who ordered and those who committed these murders were never identified and are the basis for numerous theories, but everything points to some person or persons in the Kemalist movement, up to the highest levels. What interested me was of course not a murder mystery but the fact that the Soviet Union entered into an alliance with a government that was patently killing and jailing pro-Soviet communist militants, and said and did little or nothing about it.

It's easy to point to the 'janus face of the kemalist regime', as mikail does, in his apologetics for the complicity of Bolsheviks in the past in the murders of 'pro-Soviet communist militants' (shortly before, as it happened, the Soviet Union entered into an alliance with said kemalist regime). It's also easy to point to the 'mistaken' policies of the Comintern in hoping to join the kemalist 'anti-imperialist' fight. But, I think you know your apologetics are a smokescreen to disguise not only the complicity of Bolsheviks in the past, but also the complicity of Bolsheviks in the present in either turning a blind eye to, or actively collaborating in the - albeit, less deadly - repression of communist militants.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Jun 24 2010 09:13

wellclose;

What I only say is the issue is more complicated than it is portrayed. But the idea that comintern in 1921 betrayed the turkish CP does not mean to say much. The alliance with Kemalist though being gravely wrong should be seen in the civil war context. I also do not agree with the comintern policies of expelling KAPD in the second congress etc., or the Bolshevik policies like banning of fractions inside russia etc. In one sense my sympathies lies with miasnikov rather then lenin in the inter-party disputes. However the arguement that the Bolsheviks were "all" evil and who object to this are "apolgetic" is a bit crazy. It sounds like something that is possible to hear from a 1950's cold war era Amerikan historian. Yes comintern was absolutely wrong for many things but it was still a battleground for various tendencies. Yes the bolsheviks were quickly getting degenerated after the revolution but there were counter tendencies inside the party struggling against this too. This complexity should be explained but it can not be done with inquisition terms like absolute good or evil.

a small note about turkish cp leaderships murder in the hands of Kemalists; my studies on the topic led me to think that Suphi and others sailed to turkey on their own without not listening to Comintern much. The strongest military leader at the time in Turkey who was also an ally of Kemal -Kazım Karabekir- told the turkish communists that he was sympathetic to the Bolshevik cause and invited them. The leadership of turkish CP fooled themselves with this. Also there are evidences that sultangaliev co-operated with certain anti-bolshevik turkish nationalists -such as Vahidov- and probably wanted to form an alliance with Kemalists. Hence he wanted the CP to go to Turkey. However Comintern was not that fool and they send a warning to the TCP saying that Kemalists can not be trusted. But turkish cp sailed to turkey anyway.

I know various coppies of documents or at least english translations of these to prove my case. My conclusion is that The bolshevik party did not have ultimate control on everything, that various groups inside the party could act rather autonomously and this increased the hands of turkish and panturkist crazy anti-imperialists who infiltrated to the party. But there were tendencies inside the turkish minorities -in russia at least- and inside the Bolshevik party against this adventurist nationalists.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Jun 24 2010 11:38

mikail.

I accept your argument that the situation was very complicated, but to play up the issue of the 'adventurist nationalism' of the leadership of the Turkish CP rather evades the more substantive issue of the Soviet Union's own accommodation with the Kemalist regime in the wake of those murders. What you appear to be saying is, "Oh well, it doesn't really matter - they weren't proper communists anyway". Whatever the credentials of the victims, the Soviet Union's deal with the Kemalist regime reveals very early on a propensity - reaching its nadir in the Nazi-Soviet Pact - to deal with nationalists and capitalist states, in a way consistent with the state capitalism to which the Bolsheviks adhered. No Stalinist aberrations here - the tendency was already present, and remains so among Bolshevik re-enactment societies.

By the way, your comparison of my arguments with what one might hear from a 1950s American cold war historian sounds like an interestingly late manifestation of the Stalinist amalgam technique.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Jun 24 2010 12:24
Quote:
What you appear to be saying is, "Oh well, it doesn't really matter - they weren't proper communists anyway".

this is harsh wellclose. What I want to point out is the tragedy of what has happened.

Quote:
Whatever the credentials of the victims, the Soviet Union's deal with the Kemalist regime reveals very early on a propensity - reaching its nadir in the Nazi-Soviet Pact - to deal with nationalists and capitalist states, in a way consistent with the state capitalism to which the Bolsheviks adhered. No Stalinist aberrations here - the tendency was already present, and remains so among Bolshevik re-enactment societies.

We have a saying in turkish goes like "comparing apples with pears". Let us the documents speak for themselves. Here the -Bolshevik party- central committee resolution on turkey prior to 4 december 1920;

Quote:
"The line of central committee approved today is as follows: Do not trust the kemalists; do not give them arms; concentrate all efforts on Soviet agitation among the turks and on the building in Turkey of a solid Soviet party capable of triumphing through its own efforts".

source: pipes, The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive (1996), pg, 121. Document 64

This is just before the sailing of Turkish CP leadership to Turkey. At the time there was a strong communist sympathy towards Bolshevism among the turkish workers. In fact there were even autonomous working class zones controlled by pro-bolshevik groups such as Eskişehir which was a crucial city. However Suphi and the leadership in Baku -in Azerbaijan under Soviets' rule- tended to co-operate with the Kemalist leadership. That was a fatal mistake. If they have acted totally independent from the Kemalists aiming a proletarian revolution in turkey they might have more chance. But this was obviously not their own "fault". This wrong strategy was strengthened by the right wing communists such as Sultangaliev, who converted Suphi to socialism himself and who was arguing for an independent turkish national autonomy in Tatar regions and who argued that the vanguard of the revolution was the muslims not the western proletariat etc. This guy was -as I said- to be expelled from the party, and in the regions that right wing turkic national-bolsheviks were active in Russia -such as Kazan- there were also a strong anti-nationalist left-communist movement.

Anyway, there was a continous clash and conflict inside the party over these matters unlike Stalin's era, and the party was not fighting for "great russian patriotism" but the world revolution. A majority of the party might have been wrong in the ways and means but that does not mean that they were evil.

Quote:
By the way, your comparison of my arguments with what one might hear from a 1950s American cold war historian sounds like an interestingly late manifestation of the Stalinist amalgam technique.

don't take it personal. Sorry if I offended you.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jun 26 2010 01:07

Mikail Firtinaci

Thought you left the ICC months ago. I see you meant bodily, like an OBE in reverse. Still, good to hear that you are in one piece, no thoughtcrime to worry about, and you returned the internal bulletins. Yes?

Thanks anyway for your comments on the history of the Turkish CP and their relation with the Bolshevik régime. Unfortunately it's too late to convene a 'Jury of Honour' around such events. It seems that your comments revolve too much around the history of that period and the nature of Bolshevism. I don't think this is the appropriate thread for those subjects. But if you have some replies to my questions above, well then, yes, though I won't blame you if you also belong to the 'before my time' brigade. Yet you seem to have informed yourself seriously on the ins and outs of the early Turkish CP, and that's certainly 'before your time'. Like 90 years ago. And Devrim whinges about a mere 29! He should follow your lead, (not exiting as well, that would be asking too much).

However, why do you imply that I claimed that the Comintern killled Turkish communists in 1921? I know that the warlord Kemal Attatürk was in charge of that job. But his ally, the Lenin régime, wasn't innocent of similar crimes. The Leninists had been killing workers and peasants by the cartloads in the Red Terror and Civil War already. And Kronstadt/Petrogad was suffering military/Cheka repression as the Bolshevik régime signed a commercial treaty with Kemalism in March 1921. Do you dispute any of that?

I also can't follow you when you say that one should first read before 'speculating'. Fine, but about what? Who has been speculating? I'll re-read Goldner's informative contribution (though no 'theoretical bombshell', naughty Loren) just to make sure I haven't missed anything. The content of the material doesn't seem to be that new, EH Carr, Gruber and others deal with aspects of this period.

Who is using 'dead comrades' to hurt the 'living ones'? Are you claiming I do? First, let me say the ICC are not my 'comrades', if that's what you mean by 'living' ones. How can zombified baboons be my friends? But your apologetic vision of Bolshevism justifies the extermination of hundreds of thousands of people. Duping, exploiting, repressing and killing people left right and centre is a 'mistake'? To suggest that, to me, the Bolsheviks are 'evil' is both banal and ridiculous, as if human history could be explained by Christian Manichaeanism. Yet malignant human destructiveness does evolve in history, as part of repressive and alienating social structures.

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'?

I'm happy in my 'ivory tower', thanks. You should try one for yourself, as long as your door has strong hinges and you care to use ONLY your own laptop.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Jun 24 2010 19:07
Quote:
Thought you left the ICC months ago. I see you meant bodily, like an OBE in reverse. Still, good to hear that you are in one piece, no thoughtcrime to worry about, and you returned the internal bulletins. Yes?

Is this your usual style of entering a debate?

Quote:
However, why do you imply that I claimed that the Comintern killled Turkish communists in 1921? I know that the warlord Kemal Attatürk was in charge of that job. But his ally, the Lenin régime, wasn't innocent of similar crimes. The Leninists had been killing workers and peasants by the cartloads in the Red Terror and Civil War already. And Kronstadt/Petrogad was suffering military/Cheka repression as the Bolshevik régime signed a commercial treaty with Kemalism in March 1921. Do you dispute any of that?

Partially. There was no monolithic bolshevik party till its final liquidation in 1930's. While there was a "cheka" repression there was also an opposition to that, inside the party even in the sovnarkom. Even the existance of the cheka was a continous source of tension even among the leadership. the life of Dzerzshinsky -the infamous leader of the Cheka- reflects that tragically. Here is an anectode;

"on the occasion of a New Year celebration on 31 December 1918 at the Kremlin, attended by Communist Party leaders; Dzerzhinsky got terribly drunk and went round weeping and beseeching Lenin, Kamenev, and others to shoot him on the spot: ‘I have split so much blood that I no longer have any right to live. You must shoot me now’"

pg 252 - Leggett, George. The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981

anyway the Cheka leadership always complained about the party press' opposition and criticisms hurled against them. At one point the Cheka's paper was even closed down because one of the local chekists defended torture in the name of the revolution. - By the way the crimes of Cheka was not only Bolsheviks'. The cheka military detachments were initally formed by left SR's and there were anarchists inside the Cheka too. The key here is to understand the atmosphere that led to the formation of the Cheka - which is an other debate...

Anyways; This inter party opposition to open degeration gave way to the formation of healthy elements like Miasnikov's worker's group which was not a minor group. Recent studies show that they were not marginal.

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...

Quote:
your apologetic vision of Bolshevism justifies the extermination of hundreds of thousands of people. Duping, exploiting, repressing and killing people left right and centre is a 'mistake'? To suggest that, to me, the Bolsheviks are 'evil' is both banal and ridiculous, as if human history could be explained by Christian Manichaeanism. Yet malignant human destructiveness does evolve in history, as part of repressive and alienating social structures.

Before criminalising the whole Bolshevik party for the brutalities and murders carried out in Russia one should explain why the majority of the Party was also physically destroyed just before the end of 1930's. Kronstadt is open murder and counter-revolution - no doubt about that. However there were still elements resisting it, and probably there were lots of Bolsheviks who really believed that it was a white plot - excluding the leadership at least. I know that it is an easy answer to call bolsheviks as janus faced bastards but this does not answer the central question; how the revolution could kill its own children?

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Jun 24 2010 19:08
mikail firtinaci wrote:
Quote:
Wellclose Square wrote
Quote:

What you appear to be saying is, "Oh well, it doesn't really matter - they weren't proper communists anyway".

Quote:
this is harsh wellclose. What I want to point out is the tragedy of what has happened.

I'm sorry you thought that harsh, mikail, it just appeared to be the most reasonable distillation of what you seemed to be saying about those people, even as you failed to acknowledge the actuality of the alliance between the Bolsheviks and the Kemalist regime and the important questions that raises about the nature of the Bolshevik regime. Your focus on 'a continuous clash and conflict' within the Bolshevik party reflects, perhaps, an unwillingness to address those questions. You prefer to suggest 'a majority of the party might have been wrong in the ways and means' - a way of pointing to the mistakes of individuals, rather than the social nature of Bolshevism itself. To engage with the social nature of Bolshevism (Otto Ruhle and Paul Mattick come to mind as at least two who have done this) does not entail describing anyone as 'evil', as you seem to imply.

I wasn't offended by your comparison with a 1950s cold war historian, mikail. Just amused.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Jun 24 2010 19:13

About "lenin regime"s allignment with Kemal;

I do not want to speculate on it but propably after the death of TCP leadership and in the face of the Civil War, maybe the right wing mentality have prevailed and supporting kemalists against Britain seemed a sound idea, as a lesser evil. I should add that this does not mean that I would agree with such an idea. I am just trying to understand before passing on judgements, that is all...

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Jun 24 2010 19:21
mikail firtinaci wrote:
About "lenin regime"s allignment with Kemal;

I do not want to speculate on it but propably after the death of TCP leadership and in the face of the Civil War, maybe the right wing mentality have prevailed and supporting kemalists against Britain seemed a sound idea, as a lesser evil. I should add that this does not mean that I would agree with such an idea. I am just trying to understand before passing on judgements, that is all...

I think this confirms that what we have to deal with is not individuals making mistakes or having disagreements over policy, but the social relations which allow such political alignments to be formed - the social relations of capitalism.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Jun 24 2010 19:21

thanks for reading suggestions Wellclose, I will certainly look at them. Still just as Mciver said, a 90 years have passed since the revolution. We should be able to look at the issue with a more calm perspective. We should not let the burgeois mentality of "red murderers" prevail in our understanding of the Bolshevik party. I was thinking that way. But as much as I studied on the issue, I tend to think that the counter revolution in Russia has a much more complex process of development than it was perceived.

mikail firtinaci's picture
mikail firtinaci
Offline
Joined: 16-12-06
Jun 24 2010 19:22
Quote:
I think this confirms that what we have to deal with is not individuals making mistakes or having disagreements over policy, but the social relations which allow such political alignments to be formed - the social relations of capitalism.

agree.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Jun 24 2010 19:32

I was going to edit my previous post, but I might as well say it here. This thread seems to have drifted slightly from the original post, so my thoughts about Bolshevism (if I can be arsed) will appear elsewhere. (Anti-Bolshevik Communism by Paul Mattick (London: Merlin Press, 1978) might be worth a look, mikail, and there must be plenty of Ruhle online).

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jun 24 2010 21:50

Mikail

Is this your usual style of entering a debate?

No, only with people I like. You don't sound like a schlemiel, you bother about reading.

Agree with Wellclose Square's replies. He's courteous, not harsh as you think, and he reads and reads, knows what he says. I'm a disrespectful cunt, to quote Devrim, not the same.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jun 24 2010 22:41
mciver wrote:
I'm a disrespectful cunt, to quote Devrim, not the same.

I didn't call you that at all.

Devrim

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jun 28 2010 08:21

Apologies to Devrim. True, you never said it!

A feeble explanation: I was trying out a bit of shamanic remote viewing: somehow got an Alfa Papio with a really bad attitude, snarling and fuming at disrespectful parasites. This got muddled up with another viewing:

Quote:
To clarify

Quote:
I was so cunted last night I can't even remember how I got home
This is an adjectice.

Quote:
I don't cunting know.
This is an adverb.

Quote:
christ you and Serge should start a cunting Esperanto colony or something.
This is an adjective.

which I think you wrote in http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/favourite-english-swear-word-21042006?page=1, and I must have remembered it vividly.

But that's no excuse, I know, cunt as noun is missing, so it got shoehorned in my viewing, showing that remote viewing doesn't work, or that I'm useless at it.

Now a little coda, in the same vein:

In 1981 I wondered if Chénier had been targeted by an ICC shaman using remote viewing, as the top apparat in Paris kept promising all and sundry that they were almost there, that their frantic 'investigating' would soon expose this 'spy' and 'provocateur', that the nailing evidence would soon surface, so not yet, camarade, soit patient! Alf trounced on all skeptics (early parasitic prototypes), bleating that he 'trusted' his comrades in Paris 100%, who 'knew what they were saying'.

I for one concluded, after a few months, years and then tenners, that the remote viewing, if in place, had showed rien-nada, and that the top apparat, shamans and all, were faking it. Or maybe the viewing had involved another galaxy by mistake, like Orion. Quite a way from the Sécurité mainframes. Still, the apparat should have retracted the defamations and apologised to Chénier et al. As we know, they never did.

So, sorry again for my faux pas about you, my almost slanderous claim. Even if in England cunt can almost be an endearment as some suggest, the point stands, one must never assume that fabrications, or remote viewings of 'police spies', represent the truth.

Caught you -- you bothered to read again!

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jun 26 2010 01:54

Still no official comment from the apparat, on the first post on this thread.

Mikail's and Devrim's comments don't count, as they don't touch on the issues raised by the 'Jury of Honour' mythology and Mikail is not there or is in an OSE (out of soul experience). And, although 'before my time' isn't a serious militant stance -- that could be said about anything in history, and it undermines the Marxian-Terencian homo sum, humani nil a me alienum puto, it's not fair to aspire that they know the relevant details of 1981 and later. Zentrale and main shaman Alf do know, and they won't tell.

But that doesn't matter one iota (the lack of reply I mean, not Mikail's possible states). History has moved on and perhaps a certain 'jury' of sorts did come and went, unnoticed. So this thread should sleep, I hope.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Jun 26 2010 05:33

mciver - if your experience is to have a more than fairly narrow esoteric interest, it seems more useful to analyse and critique the reasons you were in the ICC (and Solidarity, which i was briefly in, before them) and remained there for so long: what is this need for a family with an apparent opposition to this world, with its us and them, inside and outside, mentality which creates a hierarchy, treating other groupings with similar lines and labels as political allies at the top, the as yet neutral masses in the middle, and others - that they see as rivals with different labels from them ("anarchist", "situ", councilists, etc.) - at the bottom. This "inside/outside" mentality isn't just confined to political groups, though they have the pretension to be linked to history, but is conditioned since birth in the family, the team spirit, and is developed in very different ways in cults, gangs, Trade Unions, Women's Institutes, etc. Why this need for hierarchical security? - a security which, in the name of providing the individual with protection actually undermines individuals and the development of their own strengths and community of mutual self-interest against this world.

Maybe you've analysed some of this somewhere else - but I haven't seen it (if so, give me the link if it's online).

The ICC, like most organisations (I distinguish between on the one hand, organisations which organise the organisation and , on the other hand, organising specific tasks and activities) never see the masses as individuals, never see themselves as individuals, capable of determining the conditions of their own existence through conscious choice, as capable of making a revolution ...Hence the stupid determinism of the "inevitability " of revolution which used to exist (but has to be modified nowadays in these pessimistic times because clearly history hasn't turned out as being as "inevitable" as was thought), the idea that "the working class has no choice". Which was present in Marx's determinism, developed even more rigidly amongst the Bolsheviks and was clearly there in Trotsky's aggressive contempt for those outside the party - "you're mere individuals, but we - we are the future", he once (at least once) said (or something like that - I'm quoting from memory).

The ICC are only important as symptoms of a general malaise, and your obsession is partly because far too many people give them some credibility on libcom, treating them with an inordinate respect they certainly don't deserve, and partly because you haven't - as far as I can see - really contributed to an opposition to the present - the past weighs like a nightmare on your brain.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jun 27 2010 12:17

Samotnaf

I agree with your general comments about icy sea (that's funny!) and your insights about the 'inside/outside' mentality and the general malaise that needs hierarchy, denying individual needs.

I think what you say is true and important, and that you should show how these trends have different developments in 'cults, gangs, Trade Unions, Women's Institutes, etc.' For example, the political racket form/gang is not the same as a religious cult, but from what you say, and I agree, share many underlying motivations and practices. The rather sketchy although vital contributions of Camatte/Collu, Adorno/Horkheimer, can be supplemented by the work of Bion and other analysts.

You ask me for analyses I would identify with. In this context, there's the critique of Rackets at http://www.left-dis.nl/uk/rackets.htm But this study is insufficient, it lacks a rigorous inter-disciplinary attempt at using value categories, integrating them with psychoanalytic ones to create a coherent understanding of the inner worlds of the Winston Smiths and Julias of our times. And, perhaps more urgently, of the needs of the O'Briens and Charringtons. These latter types lead political rackets like the ICC and leftist sects. Indeed large/smaller corporations and Leviathanic organs require and train them as well. They are symbiotic, the Smiths and the O'Briens. But we remember Winston warmly, not as 'Smith'. At least I do. And Julia doesn't even need a surname, just a beautiful name. The weak ones always perish, even as willing or unwilling accomplices.

However, I don't share your seemingly simplistic acceptance of 'making revolution' . I don't know what this would mean. These are insights that are not explored (of course how could they on a post like this), like the following rejection and implicit advocacy: "...- a [hierarchical] security which, in the name of providing the individual with protection actually undermines individuals and the development of their own strengths and community of mutual self-interest against this world."

You seem to accept the monadic individual as 'he is', individuals with inherent strengths that could be freely developed, through struggle (but what kind?), also within communities of mutual self-interest, against this world. Can you define and elucidate these communities of mutual self interest in more detail? Would small units of mutual self-interest be the basis for our free individuality? Presumably they will provide individuals with 'protection'? Why would this be needed, and of what kind? Yet I dispute that we as individuals in this historical period are as neatly contained as that, and that striking out 'against this world' will unleash our hidden individualised humanity. Perhaps my view of the social individual is quite different. Here I would share many of fort-da game's concerns.

This doesn't mean pessimism, but an awareness that theory tends to lag behind social reality. I fear that the social reality of our times is as yet unassimilated, and that this is highly ambivalent if true. It's grounds for a relaxed optimism for an emancipated future (still to be defined, the vision is blurred) OR for a grim realisation of end days. Great literature today can hint at this all-so-human crossroads, Cormac McCarthy's The Road for example.

On another note, I regret to say that I won't engage in the spectacular pseudo self-analysis you request. You should do it yourself first, to see what's the template. I hope you don't take this personally, but I distrust the 'let it all hang out' deliria of the 60s, as I don't see the point. These 'confessions', prompted by ersatz lay priests-therapists, were always repressive and idiotic. They are cheap public moments of self-debasement, something normal in the racketeering spirit, so it surprises me that you believe in them, or imply that they have any 'political' or therapeutic value. On the contrary, they would be narrowly esoteric in the fullest sense.

Best wishes

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Jun 26 2010 09:02

Thanks for the reply (most of which i agree with as far as it goes) - will respond when I have time, which I don't have much of at the moment, particularly as there are 2 other threads that need a lot of thought and effort in replying to which are constantly at the back of my mind, plus so many other things in my life. So don't hold your breath....

all the best -
Sam