Intercom

Submitted by Kronstadt_Kid on September 15, 2010

Hope this is the correct section.

Just reading the Communist Bulletin Group / Wildcat pamphlet produced during the Miners' Strike and they mention a 'libertarian' group called Intercom. The only mention of them I can find on here is a comment by knightrose, here.

Would anyone be able to fill me in with who, what, why?

:)

devoration1

11 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Do you happen to have a link to the pamphlet?

Of course, first click this link.

Then click, 'The Miners Strike'.

The mention of Intercom should be at the beginning of page 8 in the PDF which you have to download.

Kronstadt_Kid

11 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

PS

If you follow that same link, Intercom are mentioned again.

This time click on, 'After the Miners Strike'.

The mention can be found on page 5 of the PDF.

Apparently 'Careless Talk' and the 'London Workers Group' were involved.

The following paragraph mentions the ICC's analysis which stated that "the Nottingham scabs were the most politically advanced section of the miners."
(This stance was corrected in WR 77).

Steven.

11 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

yes, I've seen scattered mention of them and would like to know more - they had a good name at any rate!

knightrose

11 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Intercom was not a group as such. It was the name we gave to a magazine that came out 3 or 4 times a year for a couple of years. It was produced by a collection of communist groups that met regularly for political discussion and to occasionally co-ordinate activities. The first issue was called the New Ultra Left review - we changed it to Intercom subsequently.

Groups involved included: Wildcat, Careless Talk (based in Stoke-on-Trent), Workers Playtime, Black Star, Glasgow Anarchists and a few others. Both myself and Spikeymike wrere part of it - he was in Wildcat, I was in Careless Talk. I'd guess that he still has copies of all the issues we brought out. Some were pretty good, some not so :(

knightrose

11 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

The following paragraph mentions the ICC's analysis which stated that "the Nottingham scabs were the most politically advanced section of the miners."
(This stance was corrected in WR 77).

Is this really true? I'm usually pretty clued up on stuff to bash the ICC :) But this beggars description.

Thanks for Intercom info knightrose, going to have to liberate some of this stuff from Mike's hands ;)

Well how reliable were the CBG?
That quote is not taken from WR, it is CBG's analysis of their position I guess.

Unsurprisingly the WR archives do not go back to the 1980s, we'll have to hope Alf pops up to set the record straight.

Or we could just wait for the next forum and interrogate our local ICC :)

playinghob

11 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

I was a member of Black Star, a motley crew of communists (based in Wolverton and Bletchley) influenced by the German and Dutch Council Communists and the APCF in Britain; the writings of Maurice Brinton and Cornelius Castoriadis; Paul Mattick was a major theoretical influence. We also had links with class stuggle libertarian communists. We were very much an eclectic communist synthesis grouping and Intercom was a useful forum.

An Intercom blurb read: "The Intercom Forum was the outcome of a conference held in Manchester in September 1982. Following this conference a group of comrades launched a pilot discussion bulletin called the New Ultra Left Review, this was followed by a supplement. Comrades involved then changed the name to Intercom. The aim of the bulletin is to promote an exchange of information in an attempt to develope regular discussion and debate between revolutionaries who make up the 'minority communist tendency'. It is hoped that this project will lead to a greater clarification of important issues and an increased co-operation in practical work within this tendency."

In addition to the groups Knightrose mentioned we had Subversive Graffiti based in Aberdeen and I've got Glasgow Anarchists down as Clydeside Workers Group (?). I also believe that the ICC was involved at the beginning and either tactically withdrew or were kicked out - memory fails me.

Kronstadt_Kid

11 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Many thanks for the insight.

Steven.

11 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

yeah, many thanks for the info.

Mark, if you were able to get anything from Mike and scan it that would be excellent!

Spikymike

11 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Well Mark, come up and see me sometime! I have some interesting archives we could look over together - if you know what I mean - nudge, nudge, wink, wink!

Spikymike

Well Mark, come up and see me sometime! I have some interesting archives we could look over together - if you know what I mean - nudge, nudge, wink, wink!

Oh my.

communal_pie

11 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

In addition to the groups Knightrose mentioned we had Subversive Graffiti based in Aberdeen and I've got Glasgow Anarchists down as Clydeside Workers Group (?). I also believe that the ICC was involved at the beginning and either tactically withdrew or were kicked out - memory fails me.

Everytime I search your posts you seem to be slagging off the ICC, what's the point? If you are so much better than them then why don't you rise above them and just kind of ignore what they write and factually criticise it?

If the ICC really did write that in WR, then you don't need to slag them off at all. It's kind of telling that you can only link a PDF by a collection of groups who were kind of hostile to the ICC, even if certain individuals in those groups were not.

playinghob

11 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

What absolute nonsense you talk!

In reverse order:

If the ICC really did write that in WR, then you don't need to slag them off at all. It's kind of telling that you can only link a PDF by a collection of groups who were kind of hostile to the ICC, even if certain individuals in those groups were not.

Write what - did I quote the ICC?

Everytime I search your posts you seem to be slagging off the ICC,

Absolute bollocks! You stalking me or what? If you did a proper job you should have noticed that, if anything, I am ICC sympathetic!

Idiot!

Alf

11 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

It's true Communal - Playinghob has a very positive attitude towards the ICC. Maybe you have got his posts mixed up with someone else's

knightrose

11 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Maybe mine - but I meant to imply that it could not have been true, not that it was a stick to beat them with.

Fozzie

1 year 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Not sure if this conversation is still of interest but these docs are now on Libcom:

http://libcom.org/library/new-ultra-left-review

http://libcom.org/library/intercom-ultra-left-review