Why are some communists considered to be to the 'left' of others?

168 posts / 0 new
Last post
mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jun 1 2010 06:54

I wrote:

Quote:
Adorno and Horkheimer use the concept on a broader level, but Camatte/Collu and the Frankfurt School critics share the view that rackets strive to dominate, that their force thrives on atomised humans

Noa Rodman replied:

Quote:
Adorno doesn't use the concept on a broader level, he just calls a racket what it is; a racket, a business that schemes to make money. He does not have a theory of rackets.

It is not true that for Adorno a racket 'is' a 'business that schemes to make money.' For example, in 'The Culture Industry, Enlightenment as Mass Deception', Adorno and Horkheimer state:

Quote:
Society is full of desperate people and therefore prey to rackets. ... The attitude of the individual to the racket, the business, profession or party, ... assume specifically masochistic trends.

Clearly in this example, a racket is not the same as a business, but a criminal association (of course scheming to rob or 'make' money), just as in this different example another type is mentioned:

Quote:
In another (TV) sketch that belongs to a series dealing with the confidence racket

[this confirms that Adorno knows that there are different rackets],

Quote:
the attractive girl who participates in the racket not only is paroled after having been sentenced to a long term, but also seems to have a good chance of marrying her victim.

(How to Look at Television, in 'The Culture Industry: selected essays on mass culture', TW Adorno and JM Bernstein)

When I say that Adorno/Horkheimer use the concept 'racket' on a broader level than Camatte/Collu, I mean that for the Frankfurt School theorists rackets are mainly criminal ones, meaning a large variety of illegal and violent groupings. As Palinorc claims in 'Rackets':

Quote:
In Adorno, rackets seem to be mainly criminal (economic ones), and how the specifically political ones operate is not clearly dealt with. ... Adorno’s writings on rackets ... seem, in English, to be scattered and unfinished. According to Rolf Wiggerhaus, the theory of rackets developed by Horkheimer and Adorno remained an ‘unfinished torso’. This is a pity. Nevertheless, across much of Adorno’s dense prose we capture gems like: "Anyone who wants to change the world must on no account finish up in the swamp of petty rackets where fortune tellers languish with political sectarians, utopians, and anarchists."

This type of 'petty racket' may seem similar to Camatte's and Collu's 'political gang'. But in the main, Adorno/Horkheimer's references, to my knowledge, are to rackets engaged in economic crime.

Your claim that Adorno (and by implication Horkheimer and the rest of the Frankfurt School)

Quote:
... does not have a theory of rackets

is false and ignorant and shows that you know nothing of the work of the Frankfurt School. Even as an 'unfinished torso' the concept is crucial to understand the evolution of late capitalism into the era of state capitalism, and it appears in their most influential works on the Enlightenment and instrumental reason. Driven by self-preservation and fears of annihilation, individuals search for protection and tutelage from powerful and merciless cliques, or rackets, which compete locally, nationally and internationally. To Adorno and Horkheimer, these competitive struggles of rackets even take over a refracted class struggle. One may disagree with this, but 'rackets' certainly were important to their conceptions. They did have a theory of rackets even if their presentation of it doesn't conform to your googling and pedantic positivism.

Your claim that Adorno

Quote:
... repeatedly makes the point in his study of the AP that those who use notions such as racket are antisemitic/conservative/fascists, projecting their own secret desire. Sure, it depends how and where it's used, but obviously that goes without saying.

is totally incoherent. What refers to 'it' and 'it's used' and in what way does 'it' relate to the theory of rackets that you hold Adorno didn't have? But Ret Marut has already replied to most of these meanderings on his post 130.

Another gem, by a sudden 'expert' in Adorno/Horkheimer and ... Camatte!:

Quote:
Adorno/Horkheimer don't share the Camatte's view that rackets thrive on atomised humans. This is not even Camatte's own theory of rackets, for crying out loud.

The 'individuals' mentioned by Camatte/Collu below are most definitely atomised and alienated, as are the desperate and frightened subjects mentioned above by Adorno/Horkheimer:

Quote:
Once within the gang (or any type of business) the individual is tied to it by all the psychological dependencies of capitalist society. If he shows any capacities they are exploited immediately without the individual having had a chance to master the "theory" that he has accepted. In exchange, he is given a position in the ruling clique, he is made a petty leader. If he fails to show capacities, an exchange takes place all the same; between his admission to the gang and his duty to diffuse its position. Even in those groups that want to escape the social givens, the gang mechanism nevertheless tends to prevail because of the different degrees of theoretical development among the members who make up the grouping. The inability to confront theoretical questions independently leads the individual to take refuge behind the authority of another member, who becomes, objectively, a leader, or behind the group entity, which becomes a gang. In his relations with people outside the group the individual uses his membership to exclude others and to differentiate himself from them, if only - in the final analysis - so as to guard himself against recognition of his own theoretical weaknesses. To belong in order to exclude, that is the internal dynamic of the gang; which is founded on an opposition, admitted or not, between the exterior and the interior of the group....

And:

Quote:
The interior-exterior opposition and the gang structure develop the spirit of competition to the maximum. Given the differences of theoretical knowledge among the members, the acquisition of theory becomes, in effect, an element of political natural selection, a euphemism for division of labor. While one is, on the one hand, theorizing about existing society, on the other, within the group, under the pretext of negating it, an unbridled emulation is introduced that ends up in a hierarchization even more extreme than in society-at-large; especially as the interior-exterior opposition is reproduced internally in the division between the center of the gang and the mass of militants.

What maintains an apparent unity in the bosom of the gang is the threat of exclusion. Those who do not respect the norms are rejected with calumny; and even if they quit, the effect is the same. This threat also serves as psychological blackmail for those who remain. This same process appears in different ways in different types of gangs.

In the business gang, modern form of the enterprise, the individual is kicked out and finds himself in the streets.

In the youth gang, the individual is beaten up or killed. Here, where we find revolt in its raw form, delinquency; the lone individual is weak, lacks protection, and so is forced to join a gang.

In the political gang, the individual is rejected with calumny, which is nothing but the sublimation of assassination. The calumny justifies his exclusion, or is used to force him to leave "of his own free will.

In reality, of course, the different methods cross from one type of gang to another. There are murders linked to business deals just as there are settlements of account that result in murder.

Thus, capitalism is the triumph of the organization, and the form the organization takes is the gang. This is the triumph of fascism. In the United States the racket is found at all levels of society. It's the same in USSR. ... All this expresses the growing separation of the individual from the human community, poverty in Marx's sense. The formation of the gang is the constitution of an illusory community.

(Camatte/Collu, 'On Organisation', 1969)

But what does all this matter to you? What is the point of your positivist and irrational nitpickings? You obviously don't care for the Frankfurt School, who were indebted to Freud as to Marx, because most left communists despise Freud and 'academics'. Equally, you reject the notion of rackets, and in fact apologise for the racketeering practices of your fellow left communists. Don't bother to reply as I have nothing else to say, you are a complete waste of time.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
May 31 2010 22:40
Noa wrote:
I'll just say it's even sillier than Camatte's theory

You keep saying this - and little else. So many assertions, so little substance.

Quote:
If you want, I can refute

That would be a first...

Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
May 31 2010 23:29
mciver wrote:
Clearly in this example, a racket is not the same as a business, but a criminal association (of course scheming to rob or 'make' money), just as in this different example another type is mentioned:
[.. ]confirms that Adorno knows that there are different rackets

Your claim that Adorno [..].. does not have a theory of rackets .. is false and ignorant and shows that you know nothing of the work of the Frankfurt School.

You're grasping at straws. Adorno used racket in it's ordinary meaning. The examples quoted don't show he was be building a theory of rackets. I could quote all the places where he talks about flowers and claim Adorno had an incomplete theory of flowers.

mciver wrote:
Your claim that Adorno
Quote:

... repeatedly makes the point in his study of the AP that those who use notions such as racket are antisemitic/conservative/fascists, projecting their own secret desire. Sure, it depends how and where it's used, but obviously that goes without saying.

is totally incoherent. What refers to 'it' and 'it's used' and in what way does 'it' relate to the theory of rackets that you hold Adorno didn't have? But Ret Marut has already replied to most of these meanderings on his post 130.

Again, grasping at straws. I'm refering to the people who use the notion of racket, and how they use it, that is, not everyone who uses the word racket is an antisemite/conservative/fascist, it depends how and in what context they use it. Ret didn't respond to the point, he thus dismissed one of Adorno's key statements on the topic of racket, and you also continue to ignore this point of Adorno.

On the thriving of rackets and the quotes from Camatte/Collu, I could accept that's a presupposition of their theory, then again, I wouldn't exclude the possibility that you're reading it into them, as you see there is no mention of atomization. You didn't define what you meant by it, probably you use it as a psychological category (along side or as an equivalent to alienation).

Either way, Camatte's theory of rackets cannot surpass Marx's level of analysis:

Camatte wrote:
To belong in order to exclude, that is the internal dynamic of the gang; which is founded on an opposition, admitted or not, between the exterior and the interior of the group.

Or as Marx put it:

Quote:
I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.

and:

Quote:
I have a mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it.
mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jun 2 2010 06:31

Soyonstout612

I don't have your worldview but you arrogantly assume that everybody must share your pet concerns. For example, I'm not interested in 'convincing people' or telling anybody what to do. As an apparatchik, of course that's your birthright and duty. You will follow your collective delusion, that you represent the global working class and that you have been 'secreted' to perform certain indispensable vanguard duties. You feel very responsible for this. But this is simply a case of self-anointment, all done in a social vacuum. You don't represent anything except your own racket and this is confirmed by your 35-year march in the desert. It won't get better.

The problem would arise when you try to carry out your vanguard duties against 'parasites' and 'enemies of the proletariat', as you have done in the past (these were not 'serious mistakes as you claim naively or cynically). They were crimes, carried out under the sadistic and corrupt prompting of Mark Chirik, your founding egocrat. Your past actions and enraged verbiage still promise no good, so in this sense it's necessary to remind others of what you represent. People can make up their own minds.

I'm a newcomer to Libcom and will leave soon. I wanted to test the uploading of some archive material about the history of rackets, including your own. That material duplicates what you have in your archives, I'm sure, but I wanted it to be in the public domain, as you haven't made it public. Those voices shouldn't be silenced. I mean material about the 1980-81 events, especially around the crisis of 'World Revolution', and the anti-Chénier slanders. That was the first anti-parasite campaign, in the long Bolshevik war you launched. Is it over? I doubt it. You are Leninists, you will never stop, like the Terminator. But this is inmaterial, it has nothing to do with the needs of the world working class. What these are, you don't know more than anyone else, and it does no good to try to blackmail people with 'oh but the crisis is here, what are YOU going to do?' A nice recruitment take, I grant, and attractive to many lost souls. But don't waste it with me, or with others here.

Sitting on the same militant high horse, you complain of my presence here, as it was your turf. I have noticed a relentless colonising effort on these threads, by your organisation. Has it worked? Probably not. This new media is unforgiving, you can't get away with the vicious vituperative press campaigns of before, people answer back and instantly. This really will keep rackets on their toes from now on, forcing them to focus on ideas that can't be imposed on others through violence. The foam-in-the mouth style will, hopefully, gradually recede.

Regarding what the global working class will do, that will be their act of creation. It's too late for you to have any effect, but this is no case for concern. Humanity doesn't pose itself problems it can't solve -- have you heard that? It's heartening, but certainly not a promise of salvation. What to do? Decide for yourself, there will be ample opportunities to work this out. Or not. But being in racket is a wasted opportunity.

By the way, thanks for saying sorry, but believe me, this isn't about me, from a personal perspective it touched, of course, as it did many others, but it's vaster as well. It's wrong to focus on 'personal trauma' because this can become a diversion. The issues aren't even about the ICC, the issues have very deep historical and social implications, I mean what happened since 1917, and before, in civil society, including the revelatory changes of those who spoke in its name.

But with all due respect, I must go, I'm not interested in saying more.

Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jun 1 2010 11:30

Mciver, if you really believe Adorno had a theory of rackets, by that same logic the ICC also has a theory of rackets, albeit an incomplete one, consider the following gems:

Quote:
In the face of this appalling reality, what use are all these ‘humanitarian' campaigns for ‘aid to the victims and/or the starving', all the appeals for ‘solidarity' launched by 57 varieties of media stars? [..] In fact, all this ‘aid', these ‘solidarity campaigns' are nothing but sinister masquerades, a sordid and cynical racket, whose real ‘effectiveness' is measured in their ability to buy consciences and hide the barbarism and absurdity of the world in which we live.

Or more broadly here:

Quote:
The relative, and at the least momentary failure of the anti-terrorist and democratic mystifications is simply the fruit of the obvious decompo­sition of the whole of bourgeois ideology, and the patent gangsterism and racket-like character of all inter-bourgeois confrontations. Thus, these intestinal struggles cannot be presented as easily as before under the disguise of a great moral ideal capable of mobilizing the proletariat and the whole of the population.

Or here:

Quote:
At the time Nicholas Ridley was forced to resign for condemning European integration as "a German racket to take over the whole of Europe" (The Sunday Times 20.6.04) but his crime was one of spilling the beans: opposing German power in Europe still underpins British strategy.

The last quote shows mister Ridley also must be a racketeer-theorist.

soyonstout
Offline
Joined: 25-12-08
Jun 1 2010 11:36

You think it's a 'pet concern' to worry about the future of society? As opposed to your very broad and universal and humanistic concerns of...um...going on and on about how horrible the ICC is?

Also, I got in touch with the ICC in 2008, so the copy&pasted, 3-paragraph denunciation you put up there really could've used a bit more editing if you wanted much of it to stick. It's been difficult for me to tell what exactly happened with what is called 'Chenier' fiasco but it strikes me mostly as the product of immaturity and sectarianism which the ICC seems to have made significant strides in overcoming. I don't think I agree with the theses on parasitism either.

I have no intention of blackmailing you or anyone into militancy anywhere. I was merely saying why many of us on this forum still give two shits about politics, despite the weaknesses of the existing groups that try to advance the class struggle. Just trying to defend my 'pet concerns' I guess.

-soyons tout

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jun 1 2010 12:56

mciver is not saying that because somebody uses the word "racket" that they necessarily have a theory of rackets - so you refute little, Noa, with your google snippets. You're a good example of internet-derived 'knowledge'; endless quoting of samples and fragments based on keyword searches, ripped out of context and coherence and reassembled with little process of development of intelligence.

As for this ;

Quote:
Noa-1
[Adorno] repeatedly makes the point in his study of the AP that those who use notions such as racket are antisemitic/conservative/fascists, projecting their own secret desire. Sure, it depends how and where it's used, but obviously that goes without saying.

Noa-2.
I'm refering to the people who use the notion of racket, and how they use it, that is, not everyone who uses the word racket is an antisemite/conservative/fascist, it depends how and in what context they use it. Ret didn't respond to the point, he thus dismissed one of Adorno's key statements on the topic of racket, and you also continue to ignore this point of Adorno.

You fail to describe or identify "the point". I don't think you know what you're trying to say (apart from having tried - and failed - to show us what a great and well-read intellect you are), but you state;
- firstly, that Adorno repeatedly says "that those who use notions such as racket are antisemitic/conservative/fascists".
- secondly, you state the obvious, that "not everyone who uses" the term is "antisemitic/conservative/fascists".
And that proves what - that you contradict yourself? Or refutes who? Adorno, or yourself, perhaps?

As for misrepresenting what Adorno said, it was you who said (post 124) "it's true that Adorno used himself the term 'racket' for fascist (very important, just fascist, he doesn't expand it to all political organizations". This was despite having already seen a quote from Adorno refuting that (as shown in post 126). You then, in the same post (124), quoted Adorno using the term "the racket" to describe workers' opinions of "the pressure exercised by organized labor as illegitimate in a way comparable to organized crime and conspiracy" - ie, applying it not only to fascist groups.

Contrary to what you say, I did comment on Adorno's general point "that those who use notions such as racket are antisemitic/conservative/fascists" (see posts 126 & 130). But, then you've misrepresented everything else you respond to, so why stop now?

The only only thing you've so far 'proved' is the poverty of your attempts at coherence, consistency and dialogue - and that arrogance and ignorance often encourage each other...

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Jun 1 2010 13:12

Think I've wasted enough time with 'Rentaquote' Rodman. Tattybye!

Noa Rodman's picture
Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jun 1 2010 13:31

If instead of dealing with the substantial issues, you want to just point out contradictions, well here is one from your last post:

Quote:
You fail to describe or identify "the point".

.

Quote:
Contrary to what you say, I did comment on Adorno's general point

If anything, I should to be the one to throw a temper about you wasting my time: for instance your whole tangent on my perfectly normal use of the verb 'believe' (btw none of you have even bothered to answer whether you hold Camatte's theory of rackets to be true, i.e. believe it).

Further proof that you're not debating the topic: you bring something up to show my 'inconsistency' while I already have agreed to a correction of my earlier sentence:

me wrote:
"Ret marut: Nope. As the quote above about "the swamp of petty rackets where fortune tellers languish with political sectarians, utopians, and anarchists" shows, you're wrong - it wasn't "just fascist" in its topic. As you could've seen if you'd read what you criticise."

Fair enough, but the point is that it's selective quoting (to use an understatement) of Adorno's pronouncements on rackets, making it seem as if his theory of rackets was especially about left organisationalists.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jun 1 2010 16:40
Quote:
instead of dealing with the substantial issues

You don't appear to have any.

And, pointedly - er, no, that's not a contradiction - one sentence describes your absence of clarity and your pointlessness, the other refers to Adorno's point. You repeatedly think that juxtaposing use of the same word in two different places, regardless of context, proves or refutes something. Kerraizey...

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jun 7 2010 22:50

Soyonstout612

Your particular worry about the future of society is not necessarily shared by the working class. You simply assume that it is, or that it will soon be. This allows you to demand 'responsibilities', 'duties', 'militancy' as if you were a chosen vanguard of that class. But there is no echo out there, no objectivity, for nearly two generations, only a portable general staff waiting for the rapture. I'm not kidding, Chirik used to intimate that the coming world revolution will make WW2 seem like child's play. His diminutive eyes glittered excitedly through the thick lenses, as he described the end days.

Some left communists simply deny that there's a separation between them and the proletariat, so they see themselves as natural representatives, with all the imaginary powers that bluff confers. In a hierarchy, and rackets always have them, this will mean a system of ruthless domination. This has nothing to do with a movement of global emancipation.

My 'going on and on about how horrible the ICC is' is your paranoid projection. Like most of us, I do many things in life, I don't have to report them to you. What percentage of my time would you find acceptable, for 'going on and on about how horrible the ICC is'? This is one of your criteria for 'parasite', an unconscious agent of world capital who obsessively and maliciously denigrates an organ of the proletariat. You don't want to face up to the fact that those who criticise you do so for a reason, in their eyes totally legitimate. So answer their criticisms, don't whinge about being called 'horrible'. You have called many people much worse than that.

Also, I couldn't care less if what I will upload about the ICC and other rackets 'sticks'. Researchers will make what they wish with the material.

True, you couldn't blackmail me even if you tried. Also, you should give more than two shits about politics, if the practice and vision of your group is grounded on objective reason. To be worried about the future of our species is a profoundly human concern. I'm not disparaging it. How to share it with others is the sticky point. But I don't think that any group can 'advance the class struggle'. This is another fantasy of omnipotence that feeds the racket syndrome. The ideology of Bolshevism is also a leftover of the cataclysmic and sanguinary reshaping of capital from 1914- 45.

The signs of racket consolidation in the ICC started in 1974-75. If you're calling Chirik immature (though he was hardly a spring chicken) and sectarian, then you are suggesting that the foundation stones of the ICC were corroded from the start. I think this is true. Are you also saying that the various splits and convulsions that lasted from 1980 up to 2001 were a sign of 'immaturity'? If that's so, then for 21 years of its 35-year life the ICC was immature and sectarian. You claim that it "... seems to have made significant strides in overcoming" this immaturity and sectarianism, and you state that you don't think you agree with the Theses on Parasitism either. Yet those Theses are still up on the ICC site and in November 2009 Alf was happily promoting them here. In April 2009 the late JG was defending them against IP. Not only that but your whole site is saturated with anti-parasite diatribes, can't see how you're going to clean up that mess.

Best wishes, keep up defending your concerns, many do share them, but not the racket bit.

soyonstout
Offline
Joined: 25-12-08
Jun 2 2010 01:22

What do you think can advance the class struggle? The whole working class all at the same time? I think that there will always be some people more interested in looking at the long term perspectives for the whole of the working class and I think should talk about this with workers because I think workers can change the world.

When I said "immaturity" I meant that it seemed that the ICC (and many other groups at the time) were out of practice in terms of dealing with splits--there was a tendency to view the revolution as being just around the corner and I think this added tension when people parted ways. My understanding of the situation is that there were some pretty shady things on the other side as well (and the groups that have left the ICC have definitely handled it at least as bad as the ICC did). I realise that parasitism is still definitely the majority position (but not part of the platform)--believe me, as a sympathizer, I read the stuff the ICC puts out.

Anyway, it doesn't seem like we'll get anywhere talking about it. I think we have very different views of the organization and I think we both mistrust the reasons the other one has for having those views because of how different they are. But for me, whatever my differences with things that have happened in the past or with certain ideas, the ICC's politics in their platform, and their recent activity are very solid.

-soyons tout

waslax's picture
waslax
Offline
Joined: 6-12-07
Jun 2 2010 07:10
soyonstout612 wrote:
My understanding of the situation is that there were some pretty shady things on the other side as well (and the groups that have left the ICC have definitely handled it at least as bad as the ICC did).

Have you actually investigated this on your own or are you just going on what the ICC has written about it? And are you aware of all the splits from the ICC over the past 30 years? You refer to "some pretty shady things on the other side as well", as if you are only speaking of the 1981 split; or are you suggesting that there were some pretty shady things done by the splitters in each and every split from the ICC since 1980?

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jun 7 2010 23:04

Soyonstout612

I don't think we'll get anywhere either. But for the record, you say

Quote:
My understanding of the situation is that there were some pretty shady things on the other side as well (and the groups that have left the ICC have definitely handled it at least as bad as the ICC did)

This sounds like the mythology propagated by the late JG, who pretended 'fairness' by playing the adjudicator of shady things. His 'tu quoque' in regards to past 'splits' (not all these shady things were splits, ie, the 'masonic' persecution of JJ wasn't) is a classical apparatchik deflector, making it appear that 'everybody is to blame'. Naturally JG was not being a neutral adjudicator, as he was a leading 'majority' apparatchik.

The hagiography of JG distorts his political past. What JG was doing in the antiwar movement of the 60s had nothing to do with what ICC call 'the cause of communism'. There were tens of thousands involved through the 60s; JG's participation was not unique or very active -- he had time to hold a regular job and start a family, he didn't go underground as many draft resisters did. But what if he had? Were these actions part of his unconscious left-communist past, even before the ICC existed? What is the point of mentioning this past, when he was part of the amorphous hordes of maoists, NLF and Tupamaro supporters and Trotskyist factory fodder? But perhaps it is relevant, the admission that many varieties of leftism, as long as they relate to justice and equality, can lead to left communism, given proper nurturing and channeling. Probably true.

JG's manipulative leftism blossomed in the racket 'Wildcat Report'/'Worker and Soldier', which he produced with a handful of others from 68-71(?). Initially this Brooklyn racket had contact with 'Wildcat', another activist Chicago paper, and a racket in Detroit that became 'Spark', the Trotskyist replicants of the French Lutte Ouvriere. 'Wildcat Report' also had brief contact with Boston-based 'Root and Branch', but 'Wildcat Report' soon lost interest in these 'academic' followers of Mattick and Pannekoek. None of the grandiose plans to unleash the revolution progressed. With their vast forces, JG's sect imploded in an exhausting activism, the fate of many rackets of that time.

From the start 'Wildcat Report' engaged in the self-cannibalism proper to rackets. Even if only a handful, they were still prepared to sacrifice their cadre willy-nilly. In one case, they tried to coerce a foreign student to allow the theft of a business typewriter from the office where he worked. This could have led to his arrest and deportation, but that was fine, it was a worthy sacrifice for the movement. Strangely, the student refused the tempting offer, thus exposing his petty-bourgeois nature.

After changing the name 'Wildcat Report' to 'Worker and Soldier', the sect expelled their own guru, a one Tom B, on trumped-up charges. This guru had abandoned his white collar job to become a truck driver, a workerist requirement of the sect, like 'going to the factories'. But poor Tom B didn't fulfill the required quotas (selling enough papers or haranguing enough Brooklyn factory committees), so he was expelled after a mini show trial, and JG became the little commissar of a two-man band. Tom B wrote a spirited and comic denunciation of this shabby 'jury of honour', a copy may still survive in JG's archive. These small details are for the record, to nuance JG's beaming hagiography.

When JG joined the ICC in the late 70s, he instantly sensed where power lied and supported the Paris apparat unconditionally. He swallowed their tendentious accounts and slanders against the Chénier and WR oppositionists. It is expected that JG was a rabid zealot of the apparat in the power conflicts of 1984-85. Becoming a witch-hunter against 'councilism' would have suited him well. Amazing how ex-leftists can conjure themselves into rabid Chirikian-Stalinists, which goes to show that left communism is only a gradient of right or centrist communism (aka Stalinism). With his usual loyalty, servility and zeal, JG participated in the endless war against 'parasitism'.

It was probably JG who replied to IP's 'Appeal' of last year. If that is the case, it doesn't seem that JG changed in any positive way in the intervening years since 1981. The apparatchik paranoia is typical:

Quote:
20 March 2009

... It does seem to us a little contradictory that you should choose the moment of your appeal to publish for the first time on the web a ten year old text attacking the ICC over a thirty year old event: the Chénier affair (which we don’t propose to discuss here)

(it doesn't matter that is was over thirty years ago, it's important to expose gangsterist intimidation even 3,000 years later).

From Internationalism's April 2009 reply to IP:

Quote:
... we would like to clarify what we mean by “political parasitism”, which is not simply an insult to be hurled at anyone we disagree with

(of course not 'simply'. When the Nazis used it, it wasn't only an 'insult' either, you see, but a scientific description of cutting-edge eugenics).

Quote:
You are doubtless aware of the “Theses on parasitism” which set out in some detail our view of the question, but to be brief we consider that a group can be described as “parasitic” essentially on the basis of two criteria:
1. The group defends the same political positions as an already existing organization, especially when it is a split from the latter.
2. The group devotes most or a substantial part of its energy attempting to discredit those groups or organizations to which it appears to be closest, if one were to judge from its publicly declared political positions.

These turgid banalities fail to explain why 'parasitism' is not merely an insult. They also confirm that the ICC, with toadies like the late JG, retains this Stalinist category to intimidate and slander opponents.

JG (if it's him) continues:

Quote:
It is an equally unfortunate fact that on these occasions, those who left the ICC have immediately published the most virulent attacks on our organization, usually accusing it of “Stalinist” practices and of “suppressing” or “expelling” the minority. The number of occasions on which this has happened is happily limited.

But also 'happily' those 'limited' occasions were enough to extirpate all oppositions, wipe out the central organs of their founding members, reconstitute the International Bureau with obsequious satraps and weld the Paris top clan into a clanging fortress.

However, the unfortunate JG ignored that calling innocent ex-members secret agents and informers is a crime, and this is something the ICC engaged on many occasions. He forgot that this practice was Lenino-Stalinist 100%, something passed on to 'left communism' through the conveyor belt of Zinoviev's Comintern.

It's probable that the apparat expelled the 'councilists' that became the EFICC (and later IP) under some 'disciplinary' ruse not made public, but even if the oppositionists were not formally expelled, they were forced out with well-tested and relentless manoeuvres. Mark Chirik was a master at these Bolshevik tricks, and Alf remains his slavish cheerleader.

I doubt that the ICC 'minority' position on 'parasitism' has much of a future. So you better drop the subject. After all, you think, things are getting better, more solid. This is encouraging, that a racket starts in a state of furibund sectarian grand mals, ie, in senility, but that in later years, suddenly (as the internet appears), it rejuvenates like a phoenix birdie. Watch their space, a miracle may happen, but I wouldn't bet on it and you ain't from Missouri.

I just wanted to clarify your assertion, that some of the people who left the ICC committed pretty shady things. Like what? Leaving snot on internal bulletins? I can't tell, but neither can you, so stop casting insidious aspertions a la JG. More research and reflection are needed, to establish what really happened in all those cases. I'm more or less aware of the 1979-81 incidents and splits, but not of the later oppositions, witch-hunts and splits. I have studied the racket phenomenon within Marxism for a while, and obviously the material keeps growing. Nothing more to say.

soyonstout
Offline
Joined: 25-12-08
Jun 2 2010 23:38

@ waslax & mciver--I have read just about all the IP texts (that exist online) and ICC texts I could on the subject--I've only met IP cdes a couple times, and I know many ICC cdes. I frankly think its really unfortunate that all these splits have happened and I don't think any group that left the ICC can say that they handled it like saints. I wasn't there, so who really knows what happened? The participants.

Mciver, all you want to do is slander and denigrate people you haven't known in a long time, especially people that I looked up to a great deal, who never spent much breath complaining about you despite your obsession with slandering them--I have literally nothing else to say to you and I'll prove it by ignoring you from now on.

Waslax I didn't mean to imply that I witnessed anything but rather that ex-ICCers aren't the only people who feel wronged and give specific, understandable reasons why--again I wasn't there. From the outside, it bugs the hell out of me whenever I hear anyone talking about this shit and I frankly regret having even tried to get into a discussion about it, since it seems to do nothing but invite people to vent poisonous attitudes towards each other. I'm sorry if I offended you but it bugs me when people just talk shit on the ICC, especially in such black-and-white terms, which is something I've tried to avoid in this discussion. Anyway, sorry I even wrote anything at all.

Sheesh

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Jun 8 2010 18:21

Soyonstout612

Yes, you should be sorry and ashamed of yourself. You relate to a racket with a criminal political past and shamelessly accuse their victims of unspecified 'pretty shady things'. When you are asked what these are, you whimper.

If you can't stand the heat, exit the kitchen, leave the omelettes to others. You are supposed to have Bolshevik pedigree, take it as a Bolshevik, hysteria is not becoming. Sensitive apparatchiks, who tantrum easily, don't impress, they let down the family and your last message is embarrassing. You mention Péret as one of your favourite thinkers. Perhaps that shows love for poetry, always redeeming, as most left communists are crude philistines. Péret was not only a fantastic and delightful artist but a man who stood for the truth. He detested bureaucrats and 'falsarios', just like Munis, also a favourite thinker of yours but no fan of the ICC. I had an almost complete set of roneod 'Alarmas' in my personal collection, they were stolen (with other private material and papers) by your favourite apparat in 1982, when the hidden typewriter in London was finally located and violently re-appropriated by another burglaring squad, guided by the tamed Melmoth.

As you don't manage to mention any unsaintly deed from any of the the various oppositionists, presumably apart from the Chénier group (their 'stealing' of a typewriter in London was unprincipled and not justified, but their intention was never to intimidate the ICC), I have to conclude that you are another falsario, an apologist for racketeeting. In this sense your pedigree is genuine, though the cold blooded stamina is missing, replaced by whimpering. No matter, in the band of brothers of a left communist racket, there are always some ready to join latter-day chekas, sans leather longcoats and mausers. The hit-squads of 1981-82 were carefully hand-picked by Chirik and FM, who knew their hooligans. You wouldn't have merited, nor Alf the juggler. But in the division of labour of a racket, all are needed, cheerleaders as much as thugs, and sensitive doormats who cry sheesh to deflect from violent deeds and calumnies.

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Jun 4 2010 16:29

I don't know how the 'More like this' related threads are automatically selected to come up at the bottom of this discussion but in so far as the ICC has been the case study referred to here I think the threads titled:

'The Question of Parasitism' and 'ICC Interventions' seem more relevant.