Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Forthcoming ACG Public Meeting on War in Ukraine

Yeah, decadence was mentioned a lot, but not decompostion or parasitism (ironic that the parasites here were them) Oh and up to 1914 some wars were "progressive" (WTF?) but not after!
What makes the pre 1914 wars progressive? (Probably going to regret asking)
 
What makes the pre 1914 wars progressive? (Probably going to regret asking)
If my memory serves me right, it's something to do with capitalism being a progressive force, making the conditions for global revolution but in 1914, when all the global powers turned against each other, then capitalism went into its decadent rather than progressive phase, likewise, their wars :rolleyes:

Whenever the ICC talk about decadence, I always envision bohemian types sitting around smoking opium and drinking absynthe,
 
But tension had been building up for years between the Great Powers, its not like WW1 came out of nowhere.
 
* ahem * i was a hanger-on with the ICC here in NYC for awhile. solid bunch of people mind.
but in the spirit of this thread, once two guys from the IP showed up and flipped the script you're describing, taking the floor and trying to flog their own literature during an ICC meeting. it was uncomfortable, the more so as most of them knew each other and i wondered exactly what the IP were hoping to achieve, holding forth in front of mostly their acquaintances.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, decadence was mentioned a lot, but not decompostion or parasitism (ironic that the parasites here were them) Oh and up to 1914 some wars were "progressive" (WTF?) but not after!
Left Communism is just weird. Decadence allows them to get in a bit of multitudinous positionism, like defending the Second International (that expelled the anarchists for being anti-parliamentarian) whilst being anti-parliamentarians themselves.
 
Sorry to have missed it - I think!? Hope to listen to the edited highlights online.
 
Last edited:
Left Communism is just weird. Decadence allows them to get in a bit of multitudinous positionism, like defending the Second International (that expelled the anarchists for being anti-parliamentarian) whilst being anti-parliamentarians themselves.
indeed. But that's a function of periodisation rather than of left communism as such. It's not central to all forms of left communism and examples can be found across all far left and ultra-far left currents. "Imperialism The Highest Stage of Capitalist Development" "The Downturn" "Fordism".

Once it's been determined that we've "entered a new period" we have "new possibilities" "new challenges" and "new tasks" calling for new leaflets. Faced with the uncertainty this 'shock of the new' might provoke, "fortunately" we have the same old "class organizations" with the same old "leading cadres" and the same old "leading theorists" to orient us. It's dialectical innit.
 
... I've always thought that's a right load of old bollocks. And a handy way for making a complete U turn whilst insisting you were always right all along!
Always felt the same.

Of course 'it is a truth universally acknowledged', that a single leading element in possession of a right load of old bollocks, must be in want of a left load of old bollocks, in dialectic with it. Unless, of course, like Hitler, you're suffering from an extreme form of 'combined and uneven development'.
 
Does that mean that some on off skirmish could have been progressive in 1913 and then on 1st January 1914 be decadent?
Periodisation - or at least the more "successful" forms of it - isn't usually applied in quite as 'rigid' a way as that. (Although a recollection comes to mind of a member of the ICC very confidently asserting that if I told him the date I considered the Russian revolution had degenerated he would be able to deduce the whole of my politics from that). Even in the more rigidly prescriptive forms of it you need a degree of wiggle room flexibility. And at the opposite end of the spectrum - some forms of 'political autonomy', or of trotskyism, for example - you seemingly have nothing except 'flexibility'.
 
The opium wars always sounded decadent to me,


untill I found out what they really were.
 
It was pennies for a chippy tea in the early 70s. My mam used to send me to the chippy with a big shopping bag to hide the grub, just in case the neighbours saw me walking home from the chippy and thought we were poor :facepalm: After the cod war though, such a feast as cod, chips, mushy peas and gravy became proper extravagant, no longer embarrassing and so the bag was not required. Now chippy tea is positively decadent (especially with Vienetta for pud).

So what would the ICC say to that? I think we should be told.
 
Pity the spook who has to document this crap😂*

* just in case there is, a revolution the spooks want job security and it would be embarrassing it they didn't have files on people. Can't even have fantasy about torturing them it's not like they ever shut up😂🤔
 
Turns out the recording of this is online now:


Sadly we're denied the chance to hear what the ICC had to say about fish'n'chips though. Also for the record I'd disagree with how the speaker characterises the Russian anarchist movement, I think CRAS/KRAS seem to be a bit of an outlier and groups like Autonomous Action and Anarchist Militant, while certainly "internationalist" in the sense of opposing any compromise with the Russian state, are closer to the defeatist/anti-imperialist/anarcho-trenchist position than the strict nwbcw line of CRAS and the ACG? I can't see that much difference between the Belarusian movement and the non-CRAS Russian groups, from what I've seen?
 
Back
Top Bottom