Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 55 of 55

Thread: Left Communism and the ICC

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,291
    Rep Power
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Android View Post
    As are the large chunk of discussions on this forum and others. Still doesn't mean its wrong, silly or whatever to correct people who go out of their way to try and score petty points.
    idk, i think a sober judgement would say that leo wasn't lying and made an honest mistake. i mean for godsake, we are talking about the name of some obscure and minuscule organization that only some thousand people even acknowledge the existence, its pretty easy to make a mistake
    Formerly dada

    [URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic

  2. #42
    Leo's Avatar
    Leo is offline Lion of the Communist Left Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    House of the Rising Night
    Posts
    3,973
    Organisation
    Pale Blue Jadal
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    Incidentally, the name I used, supposedly in order to score some petty points, is one which has been used on the website of the ICT itself, as I have quoted.

    The only actual mistake I got was to get the ICT position on the party and the state wrong - well actually it was their old position I cited whereas apparently they have a new position which I didn't know of. So very manipulative of me.
    "Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx

    Pale Blue Jadal

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    260
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Only a Jury of Honour will suffice!
    Down with the Mao Tse-tung/Pepsi Cola/Billy Graham axis!

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    160
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by black magick hustla View Post
    idk, i think a sober judgement would say that leo wasn't lying and made an honest mistake. i mean for godsake, we are talking about the name of some obscure and minuscule organization that only some thousand people even acknowledge the existence, its pretty easy to make a mistake
    Well, I would have originally assumed Leo made an honest mistake or whatever as well because from the few times I have talked to him, he didn't come across like a dick, quite the opposite to be honest. But it was not the first time he has pursued this rather pointless argument about what BC calls itself or sees itself as. He has made this argument on more then one occasion now and been been corrected on it but continues to state it as if the previous discussions never happened and the answer to question he raises has any political significance.

    It makes virtually no difference politically in my opinion what BC calls themselves within the terms of what is being discussed, so what is the big deal about it. As far as I am concerned it is like complaining about how the ICC is called the International Communist Current and not the Internationalist Communist Current.

    The only possible political point I could read into Leo's posts on the significance of the issue for him relates to the process of the formation of the world party, whether it is a process that can occur on a national level or whether it necessarily unfolds on a world scale. Maybe that is reading too much into it since it is not clear that is what his point is.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHORAS
    Only a Jury of Honour will suffice!
    Proper comedian aren't you! Call me a bore if you want but I don't really find it funny when you consider the negative and destructive role such concepts and the political culture and hehaviour they had been created to justify have had on the communist movement, specifically in Western Europe over the last four decades.
    “Marx says in order to create a new society we need new people. New people are created in activity and we need a revolution not only because the old ruling class can only be overthrown in a revolution, but you need a revolution in order to transform the people making it. So they become qualified to create a certain society. That’s clearly the reverse of what most Marxists think. Most Marxists think you have to change people. You have to convince them and then you make a revolution, but Marx says no. You make a revolution and that will change them.” - Martin Glaberman

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Android For This Useful Post:


  6. #45
    Leo's Avatar
    Leo is offline Lion of the Communist Left Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    House of the Rising Night
    Posts
    3,973
    Organisation
    Pale Blue Jadal
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    Well, I would have originally assumed Leo made an honest mistake or whatever as well because from the few times I have talked to him, he didn't come across like a dick, quite the opposite to be honest. But it was not the first time he has pursued this rather pointless argument about what BC calls itself or sees itself as. He has made this argument on more then one occasion now and been been corrected on it but continues to state it as if the previous discussions never happened and the answer to question he raises has any political significance.
    The point I'm making about what BC calls and sees itself as is a political point, although not a criticism. I keep making that point because I'm neither satisfied nor convinced by the answer. I have asked for whether there were any documents about this more than once, and was met with silence. I'm not making a criticism here, the PCInt is entitled to its own positions, and even having a vague position is not necessarily a bad thing as I've already admitted.

    It makes virtually no difference politically in my opinion what BC calls themselves within the terms of what is being discussed, so what is the big deal about it.
    As I said, I find it hard to believe how what an organization calls itself has got nothing to do with how it sees itself. Nevertheless, if it is the case (or even if its not) please quote a text, a statement, a resolution, anything explaining how the PCInt sees itself so we can clarify this.

    As to what's the big deal, at most its simply one of the historical as well as contemporary differences between the ICC and the ICT and a point we should clarify when asked. If the PCInt still thinks its the party in Italy, as the ICT's basic position points out that it did (Only if the most advanced sectors of the proletariat recognize themselves in the political leadership of the party will we be on the road to the revolutionary socialist transformation. The Internationalist Communist Party (Battaglia Comunista) was founded with these objectives during the Second World War), then that's their position. I might criticize it, or I might not, but stating it would not be criticizing it by itself, surely. If the position is kinda vague because on the one hand the PCInt numerically grew weaker and on the other it still wants to hold on to the tradition of the name and this is seen as more important than clarifying the actual position, than the position is vague and again, stating this is not a criticism if this is the case. Devrim, incidentally argued that it might even be better for a position as such to be vague.

    As far as I am concerned it is like complaining about how the ICC is called the International Communist Current and not the Internationalist Communist Current.
    I wasn't complaining or criticizing the PCInt for being called the party.

    The only possible political point I could read into Leo's posts on the significance of the issue for him relates to the process of the formation of the world party, whether it is a process that can occur on a national level or whether it necessarily unfolds on a world scale. Maybe that is reading too much into it since it is not clear that is what his point is.
    My point was to try to explain the main theoretical differences between the ICC and the ICT as fairly as possible because someone interested in the ICC asked about other left communist organizations. Nothing less, nothing more.
    "Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx

    Pale Blue Jadal

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    London, Uk
    Posts
    319
    Organisation
    International Communist Current
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Android is right that the question of the 'Jury of Honour' is no mere laughing matter. It may well be that the ICC has mis-used this concept and that the results have consequently been destructive. It may also be in part another problem of words: 'jury' might sound legalistic (perhaps the term tribunal is better, or simply commission) and 'honour' is certainly a term that has been horribly dishonoured (cf 'honour killings). But the underlying concept is not our invention: it was a practise of the past workers' movement, based on the recognition that the different organisations shared a fundamental solidarity and a common morality, and therefore should be able to work together on problems of security and safety posed to the whole movement, which obviously involved responding collectively to forms of behaviour which put the movement in danger. Can it be argued that the revolutionary movement today is better off without such a practice and such a recognition?
    Last edited by Alf; 30th April 2012 at 16:54.
    International Communist Current


    "Another very vulgar commonplace is that Marx was a Hegelian in his youthful writings and it was only afterwards that he was a theoretician of historical materialism, and that, when he was older, he ended up a vulgar opportunist." - Bordiga

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    160
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    I keep making that point because I'm neither satisfied nor convinced by the answer.
    Not a lot members of the ICT can do in that case. What is it about the answer that is not satisfactory for you? As I said if you are not prepared to accept at face value the explanation Jock has given not much more can be advanced on this point.

    I have asked for whether there were any documents about this more than once, and was met with silence.

    [...]

    As I said, I find it hard to believe how what an organization calls itself has got nothing to do with how it sees itself. Nevertheless, if it is the case (or even if its not) please quote a text, a statement, a resolution, anything explaining how the PCInt sees itself so we can clarify this.
    I will quote the statement published by the ICT after the meeting in Milan in which it changed its name from being the IBRP to the ICT:

    When the Bureau was founded in 1983-4 we set out some clear guidelines to which we have adhered to this day.

    1. We were not the party, nor even a prefiguration of that party, but an organisation to which those wishing to be part of the fight for a future international and centralised party of the working class could adhere in order to struggle, discuss and work together towards that goal. We expected that wider movements of the working class would bring new class organisations into existence with new contributions and issues not to mention that they would inevitably have many confusions and challenges. It was one of our major tasks to bring the experience of previous workers struggles as encapsulated in the evolution of the internationalist communist left to any new generation of workers who were ready to take up the class fight.

    2. We also did not want to create postboxes or warehouses which simply repeated the orthodoxy of the most dominant and experienced organisation. We recognised that only by having a real experience in each area/state where they lived could the present nuclei develop into real communist organisations which would be able to bring their experiences to enrich the practices of the future party.

    3 Our orientation has always been towards the working class as a whole rather than to the existing political groups however near to us we felt there positions to be. Although we have from time to time engaged in polemical exchanges with other groups our aim was not simply to unite groups of intellectuals or the educated but build real organisations which sought to find ways to link to workers struggles on the ground in order to maintain a continuity of consciousness from one struggle and one area to the next. This is why we continue to advocate the need for bodies of the party organised in the class such as the factory or workplace groups and territorial groups which regroup militant workers in the same neighbourhood.

    We have not deviated from these basic premises throughout the quarter century of our existence and the groups in France, Canada and USA, and Germany which have entered the Bureau have operated within this framework. What we have asked affiliating groups to do is to have a basic document defining the organisation, regular publication, a definite orientation towards the working class, and a continuous practice to reflect this. This was among the reasons why we had to refuse the entry of the RKP, formerly GIK (Austria) into the Bureau in 2005.
    Source

    That is a statement of the ICT, maybe it is not specific enough for you. I think it is fairly clear about how they see themselves.
    “Marx says in order to create a new society we need new people. New people are created in activity and we need a revolution not only because the old ruling class can only be overthrown in a revolution, but you need a revolution in order to transform the people making it. So they become qualified to create a certain society. That’s clearly the reverse of what most Marxists think. Most Marxists think you have to change people. You have to convince them and then you make a revolution, but Marx says no. You make a revolution and that will change them.” - Martin Glaberman

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Android For This Useful Post:


  10. #48
    Leo's Avatar
    Leo is offline Lion of the Communist Left Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    House of the Rising Night
    Posts
    3,973
    Organisation
    Pale Blue Jadal
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    Not a lot members of the ICT can do in that case. What is it about the answer that is not satisfactory for you? As I said if you are not prepared to accept at face value the explanation Jock has given not much more can be advanced on this point.
    What Jock's saying is basically this: they [the PCInt] do not consioder themsleves to be the future international party of the proletariat. Obviously this is true and has been for quite a while - in fact I myself said that neither the PCInt nor the ICT considers itself as such.

    He says: it [the PCInt] is not teh only organisation which preserves its historic name even though it no longer accurately represents the ideas of the organisation. I am not sure whether this is to refer to the fact that the PCInt doesn't see itself as the world party now (which I don't think it ever did) or as the party in Italy now (which I'm still not sure if it does or not) or something else.

    What is not clear to me is the actual position that changed. One thing which seems to have changed is that the PCInt no longer sees itself as the sole founders of the future world party which they presumably did when it was founded in 1943. This too, I never disputed.

    What is the situation today? The Internationalist Communist Party is the Italian section of the Internationalist Communist Tendency, which as a body doesn't consider itself to be the party or its sole embryo. From this it also logically follows, since the PCInt is the Italian section of the ICT, that it doesn't claim to be the international party either.

    Now what have I said? In my first post, I said: The two organizations have a different understanding of the party, evidenced by the fact that the Italian section of the ICT is still called the Internationalist Communist Party of Italy whereas the ICC hold the position that the future world communist party has to be founded on an international basis.

    Afterwards I said: So, I'd say that at best the PCInt's position is vague, or that it is the party in Italy and that it is possible for the party to exist in a single country alone.

    So the reason I find the answers unsatisfactory is because they don't actually address my point, not because I'm not prepared to accept what Jock says at face value. For apparently unlike his opinion of myself, I trust he doesn't have any ill intentions.

    My point is about how the PCInt officially sees itself and its role in Italy and whether it thinks the vanguard party can be formed in one country before being formed on a world-scale.

    So, as I said in my last post, there are three options to this mystery:

    1) The PCInt still really considers itself to be the party in Italy.

    2) The position is vague because on the one hand the PCInt numerically grew weaker and realized its not the party even in Italy and on the other it still wants to hold on to the tradition of the name and this is seen as more important than internally clarifying the actual position.

    3) The position has officially changed and the PCInt doesn't consider itself to be the party in Italy, but still choses not to change the name because it still wants to hold on to the tradition of the name and this is seen as more important than externally clarifying the actual position.

    I don't think any of the options would position the PCInt outside the communist left in any way whatsoever, or mean that I won't see them as comrades. Nevertheless I would have criticisms of all the options.
    "Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx

    Pale Blue Jadal

  11. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    2,600
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I have to say that I don't understand what's Leo writing on BC (PCInt). Members of PCInt refere to their organisation as Party, but they do that because they used to be party in the past and they'd like to become that again. Today they consider themselves as an organisation in the much the same way as British CWO is (at least this is what I got from talking to members of their Rome section). TBH, I really don't see what's all this fuss about.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Искра For This Useful Post:


  13. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    160
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    So, as I said in my last post, there are three options to this mystery:

    1) The PCInt still really considers itself to be the party in Italy.

    2) The position is vague because on the one hand the PCInt numerically grew weaker and realized its not the party even in Italy and on the other it still wants to hold on to the tradition of the name and this is seen as more important than internally clarifying the actual position.

    3) The position has officially changed and the PCInt doesn't consider itself to be the party in Italy, but still choses not to change the name because it still wants to hold on to the tradition of the name and this is seen as more important than externally clarifying the actual position.

    I don't think any of the options would position the PCInt outside the communist left in any way whatsoever, or mean that I won't see them as comrades. Nevertheless I would have criticisms of all the options.
    I am not sure which one of your options is most accurate. My impression would be that 2 or 3 would be closer to the mark although I don't think either of them means a lack of internal or external clarity.

    When I was in Italy last year and I heard members of BC call themselves 'the party' and then when I asked them, they said that they are just an organisation and that it is the historical name and tradition. To be honest I have not come across anyone before you who has made a point about this so I am not sure where the lacking in clarity to the outside world comes in.

    I don't know if BC made a declaration pre-1984 on whether they see themselves as a party or not. It just seems like an odd obsession with words.

    I still fail to see the significance of such minutiae.
    “Marx says in order to create a new society we need new people. New people are created in activity and we need a revolution not only because the old ruling class can only be overthrown in a revolution, but you need a revolution in order to transform the people making it. So they become qualified to create a certain society. That’s clearly the reverse of what most Marxists think. Most Marxists think you have to change people. You have to convince them and then you make a revolution, but Marx says no. You make a revolution and that will change them.” - Martin Glaberman

  14. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Turkey
    Posts
    8,092
    Rep Power
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kontrrazvedka View Post
    I have to say that I don't understand what's Leo writing on BC (PCInt). Members of PCInt refere to their organisation as Party, but they do that because they used to be party in the past and they'd like to become that again. Today they consider themselves as an organisation in the much the same way as British CWO is (at least this is what I got from talking to members of their Rome section). TBH, I really don't see what's all this fuss about.
    Leo, look at how your are coming across even to people who we know are very sympathetic to the ICC. It must also be quite clear to you that you have pissed off the two CWO members who are posting here, and I don't think that you will be gaining much sympathy amongst people who are not so close to the ICC as Kontrrazvedka.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo
    He says: it [the PCInt] is not teh only organisation which preserves its historic name even though it no longer accurately represents the ideas of the organisation. I am not sure whether this is to refer to the fact that the PCInt doesn't see itself as the world party now (which I don't think it ever did) or as the party in Italy now (which I'm still not sure if it does or not) or something else.
    I think it has been made pretty clear in this thread with direct quotations from them:

    Quote Originally Posted by ICT
    We are for the party, but we are not the party or its only embryo.
    Quote Originally Posted by ICT
    We were not the party, nor even a prefiguration of that party,
    I really don't think that it could be any clearer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo
    So, as I said in my last post, there are three options to this mystery:

    1) The PCInt still really considers itself to be the party in Italy.

    2) The position is vague because on the one hand the PCInt numerically grew weaker and realized its not the party even in Italy and on the other it still wants to hold on to the tradition of the name and this is seen as more important than internally clarifying the actual position.

    3) The position has officially changed and the PCInt doesn't consider itself to be the party in Italy, but still choses not to change the name because it still wants to hold on to the tradition of the name and this is seen as more important than externally clarifying the actual position.
    I don't think that there is any 'mystery' at all. It all seems quite clear to me. Obviously the closest of these three choices is the third. It has been 'clarified externally' though.

    Really don't you think that anybody who knows enough about left communist politics to know about our views on the party might have read enough about left communism to have read the basic position statements of the ICT?

    It is just a name. That is it, nothing more. I think everybody, who is not interested in petty point scoring, pedantry and semantics can understand this. The world proletariat is not sitting their confused about whether BC sees itself as the party or not.

    To just go back to the earlier part of the discussion as I haven't had that much time to write long responses on here recently:

    Quote Originally Posted by black magick hustla View Post
    this is some pretty silly and petty shit to get pissed off. god knows in what century we live in when someone reads this shit. sooner or later someone is going to complain about a misquoted no. of languages fausto atti spoke, because surely if someone claims he was monolingual it means he is implying he is less internationalist!

    the communist left is littered by stuff like this. it is pretty petty and insignificant imho. i guess it doesn't seem like that to people involved in this because obviously organizational life takes a huge chunk of their lives but in terms of things that actually matter this is just nothing
    BHM has a very valid point here. Much of this comes across as ludicrous. Surely their must be a better way of dealing with these things. One of the things that I think would help to deal with it better would be more mutual respect, and less antagonism between the two sides, which anybody reading this thread can see is sadly lacking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo
    So you are basically saying that the reason I appear to be scoring petty points is basically because the ICC threw lots of insults at people in polemics in the past.

    ... which I've never done once when referring to the ICT or any other left communist group, and which the ICC itself doesn't do anymore.
    I don't think that it is true that the ICC doesn't behave like this any more. Yes, it may do it less in its press, but anyone who was at the last International Congress knows full well that the ICC still behaves like this.

    But yes, the fact that the ICC has behaved like this means that you need to be extra careful about these things, or people will think it is just the same old practice.

    ...and lines like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo
    Yes, I am a wicked manipulator trying to do them an injustice.
    Don't fit quite well together with statements like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo
    I would explain, I wouldn't start throwing accusations.
    Devrim

  15. #52
    Leo's Avatar
    Leo is offline Lion of the Communist Left Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    House of the Rising Night
    Posts
    3,973
    Organisation
    Pale Blue Jadal
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    I have to say that I don't understand what's Leo writing on BC (PCInt). Members of PCInt refere to their organisation as Party, but they do that because they used to be party in the past and they'd like to become that again. Today they consider themselves as an organisation in the much the same way as British CWO is (at least this is what I got from talking to members of their Rome section). TBH, I really don't see what's all this fuss about.
    I am simply trying to clarify what I consider to be an important point.

    I am not sure which one of your options is most accurate. My impression would be that 2 or 3 would be closer to the mark although I don't think either of them means a lack of internal or external clarity.

    When I was in Italy last year and I heard members of BC call themselves 'the party' and then when I asked them, they said that they are just an organisation and that it is the historical name and tradition.
    I think it can be said that if there is an official sort of text highlighting the change its closer to 3, while if not it is closer to 2.

    To be honest I have not come across anyone before you who has made a point about this so I am not sure where the lacking in clarity to the outside world comes in.
    No? But you yourself said you heard members of BC call themselves 'the party' and then when you asked them, they said that they are just an organization?

    What would those who have no opportunity, or no desire to meet the PCInt think if not at least confused?

    I still fail to see the significance of such minutiae.
    I think it is significant, above all, since this question is, historically probably at the core of why the ICC and the PCInt aren't the same organization since the ICC was founded by people who disagreed with the formation of the PCInt in 1943.
    "Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx

    Pale Blue Jadal

  16. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    351
    Organisation
    Socialist Party of the USA
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I like the ICC, I think that they follow Karl Marx's writtings. Compared to other leftist political parties that are too reformists. If the world was ruled by the ICC the world would be a paradise !!



    Quote Originally Posted by Blake's Baby View Post
    Bump, after 16 minutes? Seriously?

    Really, if you're that impatient, the ICC probably isn't for you. I was a contact/sympathiser for eight years before they thought about asking if I might like to discuss the idea of joining, and that was five years ago. I'm still not a member, though for my own reasons and not because they're dragging their feet.

    Species Being is right, they see themselves as embodying the best work of both the Italian and the Dutch/German Left currents.

    I regard the existence of the ICC as being a precious thing for the working class, though obviously the vast majority of the working class has no idea of the existence of the ICC. But then again, I regard all the organisations of the Communist Left as being important and precious. Organisations exist to serve the working class; the fact that any revolutionary organisations exist at all is important, even if those organisations are at present tiny, disunited, and virtually unknown.

    There's a thread in the Left Communist user group with contact details of some of the current organisations that claim to embody something of the heritage of the historic Communist Left. It might be worth checking out.

  17. #54
    Leo's Avatar
    Leo is offline Lion of the Communist Left Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    House of the Rising Night
    Posts
    3,973
    Organisation
    Pale Blue Jadal
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    It is just a name. That is it, nothing more. I think everybody, who is not interested in petty point scoring, pedantry and semantics can understand this. The world proletariat is not sitting their confused about whether BC sees itself as the party or not.
    So the reason you think its just a name and "who is not interested in petty point scoring, pedantry and semantics can understand this" is because... nobody cares about BC's position on the party anyway?

    Well, that's one approach to theory I suppose.

    I think it has been made pretty clear in this thread with direct quotations from them:

    We are for the party, but we are not the party or its only embryo.
    We were not the party, nor even a prefiguration of that party,
    I really don't think that it could be any clearer.
    I am not referring to the position of the ICT in general, or the PCInt about being/becoming the world party, but how they see it in regards to Italy.

    I don't think that it is true that the ICC doesn't behave like this any more. Yes, it may do it less in its press
    No, not less - not at all.

    but anyone who was at the last International Congress knows full well that the ICC still behaves like this
    Congresses of the ICC are events where participants speak their minds in private, in the confidence of being among comrades.

    Yes, there were very problematic ideas expressed in the last congress - ideas I personally criticized as I'm sure you remember as well. It is nevertheless equally problematic that these ideas, even if they are the ideas I myself criticized, are being expressed in public by anyone other than those who voiced them.

    But yes, the fact that the ICC has behaved like this means that you need to be extra careful about these things, or people will think it is just the same old practice.
    Yes, this is a fair point and there is a need to be extra-careful.

    ...and lines like this:

    Yes, I am a wicked manipulator trying to do them an injustice.
    Don't fit quite well together with statements like this:

    I would explain, I wouldn't start throwing accusations.
    Why? Is protesting about being unfairly accused the same thing as accusing someone? Apparently people have the right to accuse me of all sort of things and I'm supposed to say thank you very much for your kind words in return.
    "Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx

    Pale Blue Jadal

  18. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Turkey
    Posts
    8,092
    Rep Power
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    Congresses of the ICC are events where participants speak their minds in private, in the confidence of being among comrades.

    Yes, there were very problematic ideas expressed in the last congress - ideas I personally criticized as I'm sure you remember as well. It is nevertheless equally problematic that these ideas, even if they are the ideas I myself criticized, are being expressed in public by anyone other than those who voiced them.
    I think that your use of italics in the first sentence there speaks volumes of your attitude towards me.

    On the actual point though, iif you think that what is being said at congresses of organisations is something that shouldn't be mentioned outside of those congresses, I would suggest that you read through old copies of your own organisations publications and call them out on it.

    In addition I don't think that if it were somebody saying glowing things about the ICC, you would take the same attitude. The problem here is that I criticise the ICC and its positions, and that I, like some other posters on here, and like many on the communist left think that the ICC's position on 'parasitism' has been quite possibly the thing that has done the most damage to the communist left in the last thirty years of its existence.

    More so, the fact that I also say that despite all of the ICC's recent bluster about the 'culture of debate' etc, I still think that the ICC is a deeply sectarian organisation, and that there has been very little change in those attitudes.

    Of course I remember you criticising these things at the congress, but that doesn't in any way change the fact that these are still the dominant attitudes within the ICC. Should that not be said?

    If these attitudes were kept " in private... among comrades" perhaps it wouldn't be quite so bad. The fact is though that they are not. I don't pay that much attention to what the ICC get up to nowadays, but going back to when I left, I can remember that less than a month before, they were taking up the time of some workers meetings at some railway station in Paris objecting to the presence there of some people who used to be members of their organisation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    I am not referring to the position of the ICT in general, or the PCInt about being/becoming the world party, but how they see it in regards to Italy.
    Which I think has been made pretty clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    So the reason you think its just a name and "who is not interested in petty point scoring, pedantry and semantics can understand this" is because... nobody cares about BC's position on the party anyway?

    Well, that's one approach to theory I suppose.
    No, that isn't at all what I said.

    Devrim

Similar Threads

  1. What is Left-Communism?
    By Dogs On Acid in forum Learning
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 5th March 2012, 23:07
  2. Left Communism vs. Council Communism
    By Marxaveli in forum Theory
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11th November 2011, 03:19
  3. Left communism
    By Mälli in forum Learning
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 23rd October 2009, 08:07
  4. On Left-Communism
    By Tower of Bebel in forum Learning
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 27th March 2009, 23:02
  5. left communism
    By jaffe in forum Learning
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 26th November 2007, 11:58

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •