Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

British and Irish Communist Organisation

I'm just surprised that you've only recently came across them given the regularity which with they have came up on here (and even more so on MATB and TTG which i thought you were on). They were far more than just a nutty outfit (have a look at their various books on the history or Ireland for example) and are still string-pulling behind the scenes today. If you have access to Critique there were two articles on Revisionist Marxism in Ireland about 5 years back that you may want to dig out.

edit: in fact, they may be on a memory stick i have somewhere here, give me a bit and i'll whack them on-line if i have them.
 
I knew Nina Fishman - who was involved with them in the 70s but didn't ask her much about it. I don't recall seeing much about them on the boards before though.
 
butchersapron said:
I'm just surprised that you've only recently came across them given the regularity which with they have came up on here (and even more so on MATB and TTG which i thought you were on). They were far more than just a nutty outfit (have a look at their various books on the history or Ireland for example) and are still string-pulling behind the scenes today. If you have access to Critique there were two articles on Revisionist Marxism in Ireland about 5 years back that you may want to dig out.

edit: in fact, they may be on a memory stick i have somewhere here, give me a bit and i'll whack them on-line if i have them.
Click to expand...
if articul8 bothered using google he'd have found a number of links on them, for example http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/20...t-organisation-the-irish-communist-from-1973/
 
Funnily enough it wasn't for his book on imperialism - but because of his work with Mike Prior and the latter's dedication of a book to him. I'm interested in the debate on free collective bargaining vs. socialist incomes policy they had in the 70s.
 
They weren't saying planning was inherently socialist. They were saying that limiting trade unionism to wage bargaining through threats of strike action was actually not necessarily in the interests of the wider working class. And that socialist "planning" (as opposed to state planning or corporatist planning) would necessarily involve much greater industrial democracy and workers control through joint shop stewards committees etc.
 
articul8 said:
They weren't saying planning was inherently socialist. They were saying that limiting trade unionism to wage bargaining through threats of strike action was actually not necessarily in the interests of the wider working class. And that socialist "planning" (as opposed to state planning or corporatist planning) would necessarily involve much greater industrial democracy and workers control through joint shop stewards committees etc.
Click to expand...
They were saying see the USSR, we could do that, just chop a bit off here and there. I can see where it fits in with your current plans though. Jesus man, come out of the early 70s.
 
No they weren't. That's a total misreading. But they aimed at a non-syndicalist strategy of building socialism through increasing industrial democracy and stealthily taking production under workers control.

I can understand criticism of the gradualism this entails. But to say they just wanted a great bureaucratic plan-fest is a bit of a cheap caricature.

And as for coming out of the 70s - the debates from 72-82 raise lots of pertinent and relevant questions even if the answers aren't fully clear.
 
articul8 said:
No they weren't. That's a total misreading. But they aimed at a non-syndicalist strategy of building socialism through increasing industrial democracy and stealthily taking production under workers control.

I can understand criticism of the gradualism this entails. But to say they just wanted a great bureaucratic plan-fest is a bit of a cheap caricature.

And as for coming out of the 70s - the debates from 72-82 raise lots of pertinent and relevant questions even if the answers aren't fully clear.
Click to expand...
I really don't think it is a misreading - not when it's put in the proper context of being carried out under the leadership of a British Communist Party/Labour Party Popular Unity government - what else could such a monstrosity entail? You are simply putting their then defence against such criticisms forward as the reality. I mean you started off this thread by laughing at the BICO then end up endorsing the ideas of one of their thinkers - and as i said, i can see exactly why you're engaged in such a thing right now given your current trajectory. That said, i'm fucked if i'm going to argue about such irrelevancies (cue, oh you see the future democratic transition to a socialist society as as irrelevance do you?)
 
articul8 said:
No they weren't. That's a total misreading. But they aimed at a non-syndicalist strategy of building socialism through increasing industrial democracy and stealthily taking production under workers control.

I can understand criticism of the gradualism this entails. But to say they just wanted a great bureaucratic plan-fest is a bit of a cheap caricature.

And as for coming out of the 70s - the debates from 72-82 raise lots of pertinent and relevant questions even if the answers aren't fully clear.
Click to expand...
ok. but among the vague answers do you find 'join (or remain a member of) the labour party'?
 
Pickman's model said:
ok. but among the vague answers do you find 'join (or remain a member of) the labour party'?
Click to expand...
Either way you're left with the same question, "what would a socialist society really look like, and what would a successful strategy to win mass support for, and implement, socialism involve" I've never said Labour, or any group within it, has anything like an adequate set of answers to that.
 
articul8 said:
Either way you're left with the same question, "what would a socialist society really look like, and what would a successful strategy to win mass support for, and implement, socialism involve" I've never said Labour, or any group within it, has anything like an adequate set of answers to that.
Click to expand...
from your question labour certainly doesn't seem to be the answer
 
butchersapron said:
I really don't think it is a misreading - not when it's put in the proper context of being carried out under the leadership of a British Communist Party/Labour Party Popular Unity government - what else could such a monstrosity entail? You are simply putting their then defence against such criticisms forward as the reality. I mean you started off this thread by laughing at the BICO then end up endorsing the ideas of one of their thinkers - and as i said, i can see exactly why you're engaged in such a thing right now given your current trajectory. That said, i'm fucked if i'm going to argue about such irrelevancies (cue, oh you see the future democratic transition to a socialist society as as irrelevance do you?)
Click to expand...

I'm not "endorsing" the ideas, I said I was interested in the debate. So I want to understand the logic of those putting forward the idea of a socialist incomes policy not just writing them off in advance. How do you build confidence that socialist ideas are feasible and can be implemented? How practically, can alternative forms of ownership and control be implemented? Why do you think these are irrelevant questions?
 
articul8 said:
I'm not "endorsing" the ideas, I said I was interested in the debate. So I want to understand the logic of those putting forward the idea of a socialist incomes policy not just writing them off in advance. How do you build confidence that socialist ideas are feasible and can be implemented? How practically, can alternative forms of ownership and control be implemented? Why do you think these are irrelevant questions?
Click to expand...
Right on cue - as predicted.

A socialist incomes policy? Come on, this is 2012 - a position that was explicitly premised on the continued existence of full employment and a whole host of other conditions that no longer apply is just an irrelevance today - in both form and content. Do you really think going over debates between the IWC and other reps of various bureaucracies is building confidence? Amongst who? And please, you know what your answers are already anyway don't you? Some sort of aggregation of radicals in the labour party and the unions who then try to get popular support to push through a more radical program. Same as tried then.
 
It's not about rehabilitating particular policy prescriptions but about the underlying strategic assumptions that came through in the course of that debate. Does the working class have the power to smash capitalism tomorrow, if only there weren't bureaucrats and leaders to sell out and compromise by suggesting that working within the system is inevitable? Or is it necessary instead to occupy and build within existing forms until we have the power to do away with them, to begin actively constructing positive alternatives in however embryonic a form in order to build confidence and a counter-power?

What is socialism, what is socialist strategy, how can socialism be implemented, how do revolutions happen, what is revolutionary leadership...?

As i said the answers might not be relevant, but the questions are.
 
I started looking into BICO recently and they wielded a disproportionate level of influence for what appears to be an irrelevant stalinist sect. Paul Bew joined one of their fronts, they influenced the trajectory of the stickies, their analysis found its way into Common Sense - a UDA document written with help from David Trimble.
 
Spanky Longhorn said:
Now the Aubane Historical Society
Click to expand...

Professional Irish historians often look out for Aubane stuff, especially the old 18th century pamphlets they reprint.

Thinking of their 180 degree turn from Unionism to Irish Nationalism, which they have never, AFAIK, explained. This makes me think that while there may have been more to them just the nuttiness, they were at bottom, just another nutty group.
 
articul8 said:
Does the working class have the power to smash capitalism tomorrow, if only there weren't bureaucrats and leaders to sell out and compromise by suggesting that working within the system is inevitable? Or is it necessary instead to occupy and build within existing forms until we have the power to do away with them, to begin actively constructing positive alternatives in however embryonic a form in order to build confidence and a counter-power?
Click to expand...
I hope you won't be too offended if I say that I can guess which way you're going to jump on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Humberto
Medieval British Tortures at the Hands of the State - Victims and Their Stories
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Humberto
Humberto
Kate Sharpley
British class struggle anarchists in the Miners' Strike 1984-1985
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Kate Sharpley
Kate Sharpley
Logan^B
The Irish potato famine was caused by social anarchists wanting to raise hell against the British elites
Replies
27
Views
2K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
sptme
Genealogy of the British Far Right
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
petee
petee
Yugoslav
The Left Failing Young Men (and how to reclaim the Left from liberals)
2 3 4 5
Replies
140
Views
2K
Yugoslav
Yugoslav
Back
Top Bottom